Let’s not muck around here: unless the thousand-plus messages that Home Affairs Department secretary Mike Pezzullo reportedly sent to Liberal powerbroker Scott Briggs are forgeries, he’s gone a million.
Pezzullo is an agency head as defined by the Public Service Act 1999, the law that primarily governs the conduct of Commonwealth public servants. The act starts with the “APS values”, which agency heads are required to uphold and promote. Value No. 5: “The APS is apolitical.”
Then there is the Australian Public Service (APS) code of conduct, to which agency heads are bound. Among other things, it requires them to: behave honestly and with integrity; maintain appropriate confidentiality about dealings they have with any minister or ministerial staff; avoid any conflict of interest; not improperly use inside information or their duties, status, power or authority to seek to gain a benefit or advantage for anyone or to seek to cause detriment to anyone.
The code is backed up by a tonne of guidance material for public servants, including a 70-page guide explaining in exhaustive detail how the principle of being apolitical is supposed to work in practice. Underlying all this are the ancient conventions of the public service: fearless, impartial, independent advice to the government of the day, rendered with no regard to political preference. Mandarins sit above the fray.
Pezzullo’s behaviour is to be measured against these standards. From what the Nine newspapers have dropped so far, his dealings with Briggs — not a member of Parliament, just a Liberal Party operative and close friend of former PM Scott Morrison — included the following:
- actively lobbying for his personally preferred choice of minister to be appointed to head Home Affairs, with his stated desire being for “a right winger” but not “a moderate”;
- denigrating ministers (and demanding some of them be sacked or demoted) including Marise Payne, Christopher Pyne, Julie Bishop, George Brandis and Michael Keenan (all of whom happened to be Liberal moderates);
- engaging directly in the manoeuvring around the challenge to Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership and replacement by Morrison;
- agitating for Tony Abbott’s ministerial career to be revived;
- making direct representations to the prime minister (Turnbull) at the request of Briggs (who was apparently passing them on from Morrison);
- undermining other senior public servants;
- criticising opposition spokespeople and the Senate estimates process;
- discussing Labor Party political tactics and how the Liberal government could meet them;
- offering advice on polling and campaigning to the Liberal Party;
- pushing for a new media censorship regime to be legislated, while canvassing his personal negative opinions about various journalists and the possibility of “turning” them for the government’s political benefit;
- asserting that he had used his department’s power and authority to help make the push for greater press freedom “a dead duck”.
In short terms, how all this paints Pezzullo is as a highly active partisan for the Liberal Party, who drew no effective boundaries between his role as an apolitical department head and his personal interest in both the political fortunes of the party and the careers of individual politicians based on whether they were or were not aligned with his inclinations. Further, he saw himself as a direct player in the political machinations that run in parallel with the implementation of government policy.
Our system of government is built and absolutely dependent on the separation of powers and the checks and balances that entails.
Because the executive arm of government is headed by politicians — the ministers who are members of the ruling political party — there is an inbuilt conflict of interest between their duty to the public and loyalty to their party. That is balanced by the public service that sits below them, performing the work of the executive arm. The theory is that public servants have no interest whatsoever in the politics of the day, and just go about their work.
The contrast between this fundamental principle (and the behavioural values it necessitates — apolitical, independent, impartial, selfless and disinterested), and Pezzullo’s conduct, is brutally clear. His actions, betrayed in his own words, cannot be reconciled with the requirements of his role.
With any luck, this revelation might trigger a deeper reflection on what brought us here, because it’s not just one rogue egomaniac who was maintained as the most powerful public servant in the country despite an appalling record of mismanagement and intentional cruelty in his bloated department. Nor is it traceable only to Morrison’s corruption of the principles of public service and ministerial responsibility during his term.
Pezzullo was made possible by a long-term project, pursued by both major parties, that has gutted the public service, outsourced government to consultants who return the favour in donations and tailored advice, rewarded political partisans and punished the truly independent advice-givers, muddying and all-but obliterating the boundaries between politics and governance for the collective benefit of the professional political class that now rules Canberra.
It is as well that the government has forced Pezzullo to stand aside and expedited an investigation by a former public service commissioner — anything less would have been laughable. But there is such a thing as summary dismissal, and there are times when procedural fairness is not offended by its wielding. Unless this case is the fraud of the century, I don’t see why that shouldn’t have already been the outcome.
Were Pezzullo’s messages a shock, or just more same old political skulduggery? Let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
Yes. It seemed horribly weak that the only response from the government, initially, was to refer Pezzullo’s conduct for further investigation. By the end of the day he had stood, or maybe stepped, aside/ down / back (the way these terms are used interchangeably and ambiguously is utterly baffling and there cannot be any confidence anybody knows what is really meant) which was some improvement, probably. But surely summary dismissal with no more messing about is the right way to go now. Trouble is, no doubt everybody who might be involved in taking that decision has a very queasy feeling about what might follow from such a precedent. How many more are standing on thin ice?
It may seem horribly weak that the government only stood Pezzullo aside, but to do anything other than to let the independent process run its course might smack of partisanship.
Might summary dismissal afford Pezzullo the opportunity to flee the country? I’d rather he was held to account here in Australia through an independent process rather than by a Ministerial or Cabinet process that could be accused (will be accused if we should be so lucky as to have LNP in Opposition) of acting out of personal ill-will.
I cannot see why Pezzullo leaving the country would bother anyone. The matters being investigated do not, so far as I can tell, involve crime, just misconduct. Very serious misconduct, certainly, but who cares if he clears off? Any investigation could proceed without him anyway. If he chooses not to cooperate with an inquiry it’s all the same whether he’s in the country or somewhere else for any inquiry that stops short of forcing him to attend and forcing him to give evidence. Being forced to testify would help him if he has actually done anything more seriously wrong, because when somebody is forced to give evidence they get immunity from prosecution. As far as misconduct is concerned any penalty such as dismissal or loss of pension does not require him to be here.
It would bother me. I want to see him explain himself to Justice Brereton and the NACC.
Ha ha ha. You obviously missed Albanese and Dutton getting together like good mates to ensure the NACC will not hold public hearings. You may be certain that in the unlikely event the NACC does investigate this matter (it has several hundred referrals already and it has resources to only investigate a handful) the hearings will be in secret. You will not see him explain himself to Justice Brereton and the NACC, no matter what happens. So forget it.
Sorry fellow swimmer, “If it is in the public interest, public hearings will be held”.
Pezzullo will be singing for the NACC and the rest of us will be passing the chips.
I watched the entire Robo Debt Royal Commission and loved the squirming and the hubris…….
RC Catherine Holmes has my undying respect, .as do her associates
I suspect that Mike Pezzullo would have a “No fly” tag on his passport, business class or not.
Pezzullo could consult Kathryn Campbell and Annette Mussulino?
Like kinds in similar pickles……………..
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Honest question: “pursued by both major parties”. My impression is that it’s been primarily the Libs, instigated first by Howard. I’m wrong?
You refer to
“… a long-term project, pursued by both major parties, that has gutted the public service, outsourced government to consultants who return the favour in donations and tailored advice, rewarded political partisans and punished the truly independent advice-givers, muddying and all-but obliterating the boundaries between politics and governance for the collective benefit of the professional political class that now rules Canberra.”
While the Liberals have made more of the running, Labor has not opposed it, has contributed to it and has done just about nothing to roll it back (Dreyfus scrapping the hopelessly corrupted AAT is an exception), so Bradley’s remark is fair enough. It is a genuine bipartisan long-term project to disable and ruin the independent APS.
Even the Bill introduced a few days ago to supposedly “fix” the Public Service is an absolute joke……………
……..although it is supposedly a response to the Thodey Commission, it is notable for leaving out all the substantive changes recommended, and including some bizarre form of “Mission Statement”, to be created by the Secretaries Board (the same people who presided silently over the castration of the Public Service).
The Public Service doesn’t need a “Mission Statement”…………..
………their responsibilities are already set out in the Legislation.
What it needs is a complete new set of Secretaries who are prepared to actually carry out their responsibilities…………..
……….the current crew are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Thanks for the heads up. Nothing good can possibly come of any Bill that imposes such junk as a ‘Mission Statement’, and attempting to include one is conclusive proof that the Bill is being devised by ignorant fools. Which, sadly, is no surprise at all.
Especially with `working-class boy Albo as PM, hoho. But the greedy rejected Shorten, and here we are.
The Libs: 95% neoliberal filth.
Labor: 85% neoliberal filth.
So, yes and no, to whether you’re wrong. Primarily Liberal vandalism, but Labor not far behind enough to matter.
Hi Michael,
When I posted a comment to exactly this effect two days ago, Crikey saw fit to delete it.
Perhaps they might accept that I know what I’m talking about next time.
Pezzullo should have been sacked the moment the Albanese government was sworn in.
Should have, if Labor was the mirage waaay too many people imagine.
I can only wonder which ‘stink tank’ will offer him a sinecure now. The IPA, the CIS, the Sydney Institute (doubles with Gerard), Macquarie Bank with whom Border Force and Customs before were working for in practice when Sydney Airport was doing its dastardly deeds hitting airport users with higher parking fees, trolley fees, higher rents for businesses there.
Plus Pezzulo’s goons intimidating airport passengers.
Quite frankly I couldn’t care less about most passengers. They are a privileged bunch of whingeing overpaid buffoons for the most part. I don’t appreciate the targeting of passengers based on their colour and culture. Lok at the mess Customs made letting Dvid Hicks out.
IPA & CIS are Atlas or Koch Network, which in the US is cooking up an end game for US democracy if Trump or GOP gains presidency; ‘Project 2025’:
‘It is not enough for conservatives to win elections. If we are going to rescue the country from the grip of the radical Left, we need both a governing agenda and the right people in place, ready to carry this agenda out on Day One of the next conservative Administration.’
Not at all surprised, but yeesh, nonetheless
Shades of fascism – Indonesia, Pinochet in Chile, Thatcher in the UK. The US had been working on this very task since the early 1970s when their armed forces were non-existent in Vietnam, parts of the were in open disagreement if not mutiny, the best educated in the US economy and society believed capitalism was bad and a more socialist economy and society would be preferable. They have been fighting back and pursuing this of which you speak ever since.
Yes, and under various innocent or ‘common sense’ guises to avoid speaking or promoting unpalatable policies; the ‘libertarian’ trap when in fact it’s corrupt nativist authoritarianism masquerading as ‘freedom & liberty’.