Author: Dr Sarah Ball
Our ESRC funded project “Expertise and Ethics in Times of Crisis” explores forms of ethical advice provided to governments and how that advice is perceived. While we are specifically focused on cases of crisis, the institutional forms and cultural norms surrounding the provision of ethical advice influence how and when that advice is sought in times of crisis. We originally selected Australia as a case in large part due to its hardline approach to COVID lockdowns and vaccination. However, it is also proving an interesting case thanks to recent concerns in the public sector regarding ethical policy advice and decision making. A Royal Commission of Inquiry has recently concluded into a program commonly known as Robodebt, and its findings have challenged the capacity and capability of the public sector in delivering ethical public policy. This was what drove the one-day conference Dr Ball attended in Canberra, Australia in February 2024 “Rebuilding trust and integrity in the Australian Public Service”.
As background, the Robodebt Royal Commission was investigating a program called the Online Compliance Intervention (OCI) which was introduced by the Australian Government in July 2016. This program used tax data to determine if there were discrepancies between the income declared by a person receiving social services, and that declared on their tax. It was also automated, hence the name ‘robo’-debt. The OCI very quickly became a source of criticism. One concern was the shift of burden of proof from the Department of Human Services (DHS) onto the person with the debt – debts were identified and letters sent without a human intervention. Only if the person with the debt decided to challenge it would anyone confirm the debt was accurate. The second concern was the use of income averaging to determine the likely debt based on available information. The combination of these two things meant debts that were often incorrect, and in many cases, wholly unfounded, became the responsibility of past and current recipients, many of whom were still vulnerable. The Royal Commission Report – released in July 2023 – was damning. It declared the program “a crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal, and it made many people feel like criminals. In essence, people were traumatised on the off-chance they might owe money. It was a costly failure of public administration, in both human and economic terms”.
The Royal Commission has left the public sector in Australia asking hard questions about how it can better serve the public and the government. These questions were the driving force behind the one-day event, ‘Rebuilding trust and integrity in the Australian Public Service’. It brought together leaders in the public sector to discuss how they can better navigate ethical challenges. It attracted many of the most influential figures in this arena, including a Keynote from the Australian Public Sector Commissioner Dr Gordon De Brouwer. Dr De Brouwer noted that there were several recurring problematic behaviours that needed to be addressed. These included:
- accepting or not calling out intimidating, bullying and aggressive behaviour,
- operating in siloes and not sharing information with others,
- avoiding frank and honest advice – sometimes out of concern about how Ministers, their advisers or a senior public servant will react, sometimes to ensure that the ‘job just gets done’, sometimes to get an outcome that the public servant themselves thinks is important,
- not declaring or managing conflicts of interest, including in personal relationships in the workplace.
A consistent theme across these behaviours is the adoption of a narrow, technical view of integrity – making sure that appropriate documentation is signed and that processes are adhered to – without actively applying ethical decision making. Thinking can be confined to whether a particular course of action can be done – whether it meets technical legal and process requirements – rather than whether it should be done – whether the course of action best serves the interests and expectations of the Australian public. This speaks to an area of great interest to our project, how and when do issues become ethical? When does it transition from a technical ‘tick-box’ exercise to a question of ethical concern? When should advice and expertise be sought?
This speech also highlighted the way that ethical ‘hygiene measures’, those which can support an ethical environment such as declaring conflicts of interest or managing conflicts of interest or bad behaviour, are discussed in the same breath as ethical advice giving. However, this work is quite different, and requires a different skill set. The hygiene measures are necessary to create a healthy environment for the public sector to provide ethical advice, much like a surgeon requiring a hygienic environment to do their work most effectively. Interestingly, Dr De Brouwer also referred to the expectation of ethical behaviour and integrity in the public sector as analogous to the Hippocratic oath to do no harm. However, this also raises questions about how harm is defined. This is why public health and medicine have ongoing, extensive ethical debates.
Another highlight of the event was the keynote from Government Services Minister Bill Shorten on ‘why ethics matter’. He raised the concern that if a public sector is seen to have lost its independence its role as an honest broker would be significantly diminished. Frank and fearless advice is a necessary part of the work of the public sector, but to achieve this, according to Shorten, there is a need for those designing policy to move beyond just technical expertise. There is a necessity for policy makers to engage with those responsible for service delivery and implementation as well as with those with lived experience. Having panels for hiring staff and designing policy will be one way the government hopes to move forward. This is of great interest to our project as it points to how the Australian government is trying to support institutions to better navigate and use ethical advice.
A key issue that emerged from many of the panel sessions was the role time played in facilitating ethical reflection. It was discussed that, as there was less and less capacity for deliberative decision making in the public sector, this could further drive a focus on technical, tick-and-flick advice rather than allowing time to pause and reflect on the complex ethical debates. This is particularly interesting when considering ethical advice in times of crisis. What work needs to be done during times of stability to support ethical advice in times of crisis?
Overall this was an exciting and engaging event and highlighted how critical this research project is in building a better understanding of how ethics advice is provided to the Australian government, when issues become ‘ethical’ in ethical advisory institutions and public discourse and finally, how ethics advice is used by governments and policymakers.