The Merit Protection Review Agency inquiry into harassment at the Australian War Memorial was ordered by the Minister for Public Service Matter, Gary Johns, without the input or possibly the knowledge of the portfolio Minister, Con Sciacca, according to documents obtained by The Canberra Times.
Mr Johns’s office acknowledged yesterday that Mr Sciacca had no input into the terms of reference, but said he had been informed of it.
Information received by The Canberra Times shows also that the Ministers were sent during the inquiry’s life Federal Attorney-General’s Department and other legal advice that the inquiry was flawed, but no action was taken on the advice. Since the inquiry into alleged workplace harassment was launched (it was never formally announced to the public) in August last year, up to eight staff have been off on stress leave at any one time, key and talented staff have sought jobs elsewhere. A Federal Court challenge to the MPRA’s unpublished findings is now under way by the former director Brendon Kelson and the present deputy director Dr Michael McKernan. Documents obtained by The Canberra Times reveal that the Minister for Veteran’s Affairs, Con Sciacca, had been provided with legal advice from the Attorney-General’s Department that the procedure and jurisdiction of the MPRA was defective and he had been urged to ask Mr Johns to stop the inquiry. Other sources say other legal advice to similar effect had been sent to Mr John’s office. Mr Johns’s office said yesterday that no legal advice impugning the jurisdiction or procedural correctness of the inquiry had been received. Mr Johns’s office said Sciacca had been aware of the inquiry, but had had no input into its terms of reference. Other material shows that the Public Service Commissioner, Dennis Ives, had expressed concern and doubt about the MPRA’s definition of workplace harassment as being too wide and beyond the defined public-service offence. However, the MPRA says it undertook its inquiry fairly, within jurisdiction, using the proper definition of workplace harassment. That is not the view of Mr Kelson and Dr McKernan. They assert the MPRA acted outside its jurisdiction, did not adopt procedural fairness, engaged in trawling for allegations and encouraged allegations to be brought, that it put allegations in a generalised way and did not confine itself to the definition of harassment in the public-service guidelines, among other things.
The allegations to Mr John’s office came in mid-1994, after Mr Kelson announced he would retire at the end of the year and it seemed likely his deputy, Dr McKernan might get the job.
Instead of referring them to the portfolio Minister to see if the allegations could be dealt with through normal public service procedures, Mr Johns ordered an inquiry by the MPRA _ the first by the agency of this wide-ranging kind.
The Minister’s office said yesterday that given the number of allegations both before and after the inquiry that an MPRA inquiry was the most appropriate action.
The MPRA sent a list of allegations to Mr Kelson and Dr Kernan and several other managers at the Memorial.
Mr Kelson thinks the mere fact of the inquiry has meant that, unlike other public servants of his experience, he is unlikely to be asked to join boards or get consultancies.
One of 41 allegations of harassment MPRA put to Mr Kelson said Mr Kelson had committed harassment because he did not attend a National Press Club lunch where a staff member had been giving an address. Others included many relating to staff perception of his mangerial style like “”being considered by staff to be weak” and “”not knowing or wanting to know what is going on”.
Two allegations, however, are directly ones of harassment: shouting at a staff member, and saying he will “”get” the staff member responsible for the inquiry _ both of which Kelson denies.
During the time of inquiry nine fairly senior officers went to the Ombudsman to get the inquiry stopped _ alleging “”serious corruption of due process and natural justice”. The Ombudsman declined.
A spokesman for Mr Johns said the Minister had received a copy of the MPRA’s report and is still considering whether to make it public. Mr Sciacca said he had no power with respect to the day-to-day management of the memorial.
The present acting director of the memorial, Peter Hawker, wants to put the MPRA inquiry behind the organisation. He senses a great deal of goodwill and loyalty to the memorial by the staff.