Home page
> Archive > Management response to allegations of paedophile activity
> Employment policy and advice
‹ Previous page
Last updated: 15 May 1996
Management response to allegations of paedophile activity within the Foreign Affairs portfolio: Report to the Public Service Commissioner
Please note: This document is for reference purposes only and is no longer considered by the APS Commission to be current. It may contain good practice advice and/or advice on the transitional arrangements between the 1922 and 1999 Public Service Acts.
Pamela O'Neil
May 1997
Establishment of the Inquiry
On 21 April 1996 the Minister for Foreign Affairs announced his intention to establish an independent inquiry into allegations of paedophile activity in the foreign affairs portfolio. The decision to establish the Inquiry followed reports over several years in the media and elsewhere alleging paedophile activity by officers and inaction by the Department.
On 3 June 1996 Dr Peter Shergold, the Public Service Commissioner, having decided in accordance with regulation 72A of the Public Service Regulations that there should be an inquiry, delegated his powers under section 19 of the Public Service Act 1922 to his delegate. The Public Service Commissioner provided the following terms of reference for his delegate, along with a formal instrument delegating the Commissioner's powers under subsection 19(1) of the Public Service Act 1922:
-
Terms of reference
1. To consider the manner in which allegations of paedophile activities by officers and former officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (including AusAID) have been dealt with and, in particular, to determine:
(a) Whether they have previously been brought to the attention of the Department or AusAID by any means;
(b) What actions were taken by the Department or AusAID in response to the allegations and whether they were appropriate in terms of the Public Service Act, departmental or agency instructions and guidelines or the criminal law;
(c) Whether appropriate mechanisms and procedures are and were in place to provide officers of the Department or AusAID with an avenue to inform management confidentially of possible inappropriate or criminal activity by fellow officers and to allow those allegations to be properly investigated;
(d) Whether administrative decisions have been taken and aid or DAP funds committed or disbursed to facilitate or result in paedophile activities, and whether sufficient and appropriate mechanisms are in place for the scrutiny and accountability of the disbursement of aid funds, including the Direct Aid Program (DAP), previously named the Head of Mission Discretionary Aid Fund (HOMDAF), to ensure that opportunities to use such funds for paedophile activities do not arise;
(e) Whether there has been any basis to claims that the Department or AusAID have sought to cover up paedophile behaviour.
2. To examine any other issue which appears to bear directly on the handling of allegations of paedophile activities, even if it does not fall strictly into the above terms, if [the Inquiry] judges it to be of sufficient seriousness and relevant to this inquiry.
3. To recommend an appropriate and practicable code of conduct beyond that applying to public servants in general to apply to all staff representing the Australian Government in other countries.
4. To recommend whether and, if so, what additional mechanisms and procedures are required to allow officers of the Department and AusAID to inform management of possible inappropriate or criminal activity by fellow officers, taking account of any Government proposals for service-wide procedures of this kind.
5. To refer all allegations of paedophile activities to the Australian Federal Police.
The instrument of delegation specified that it did not operate in relation to clause 2 of the terms of reference. The instrument stated that if at any time the delegate considered it necessary to act in accordance with clause 2 the delegate should advise the Commissioner, who would consider such further delegation as might be necessary for that purpose.
The Managing Director of Austrade authorised the Inquiry to conduct an inquiry into Austrade with identical Terms of Reference (apart from formal differences) to those provided for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade aspect of the Inquiry.
Summary of the Report
Protecting and promoting Australia's interests overseas is a demanding task. Rewarding and challenging, it may also involve loneliness, hardship and even risk. Yet the image of the 'diplomat' is a glamorous one. Paedophilia is an abhorrent crime. Little understood, it seems to evoke simultaneously repulsion and fascination. The juxtaposition of these two - the glamorous diplomat and the abhorrent crime - perhaps inevitably excites interest out of the ordinary.
Allegations of paedophile behaviour by Australia's representatives overseas have been reported for some time. The persistence of these reports, and their expansion to include allegations of misuse of Australia's overseas aid, led to the inquiry.
The Inquiry was known as the Commonwealth Paedophile Inquiry. In some respects that shorthand description was misleading. Its purpose was to look at public sector management issues. Perhaps inevitably, some mistook the Inquiry for one conducting a criminal investigation. Another disadvantage of that short title was that it tended to obscure the more positive aspects of the terms of reference - those dealing with a Code of Conduct and mechanisms for staff to bring inappropriate activity to the attention of management.
The Inquiry took sworn evidence from 55 people and spoke informally with many more. It received 89 written submissions and examined vast numbers of files of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and other government agencies.
The Inquiry received the utmost support and assistance from the Department, Austrade, AusAID the Australian Federal Police and other agencies. The Inquiry also received assistance from a large number of people, both public servants and private citizens, who spoke and wrote to it. For the most part they did so frankly and with good will.
This co-operation was aided by the direction from the Public Service Commissioner that the Inquiry be conducted in private. Many people who spoke freely to the Inquiry may not have done so in a more public forum. It follows from that undertaking of privacy that the report does not identify the persons concerned, except for those who are inevitably identified by the positions they held, such as Ministers and Secretaries.
Despite early suggestions that the Inquiry's powers were too constrained to ensure an adequate response, only one person who claimed to have relevant information chose not to speak to the Inquiry. However the Inquiry had the benefit of a written submission from that person as well as access to the information he had provided earlier to the Australian Federal Police.
The Inquiry's work involved the painstaking sifting and analysis of information from a variety of sources. It is a characteristic of investigations such as these that there is no one key to the information. The Inquiry's processes opened many doors.
The Inquiry is confident that as a result of its efforts a clear and accurate picture has been gained of allegations of paedophilia concerning officials in the foreign affairs portfolio. Numbers of allegations were identified by the Inquiry and the organisational response analysed.
The Inquiry concludes that there was no official tolerance of paedophile behaviour. The Inquiry does not find that the Department or Austrade sought to cover up paedophile behaviour.
It is apparent to the Inquiry that the handling of some of the allegations by the Department was faulty. That was due in most part to a corporate willingness to favour privacy at the expense of decisive handling. As a result, matters were permitted to drift rather than being resolved, or were finalised through alternative means, such as 'grounding' (ie. not posting an officer overseas) or security reviews, which did not go to the heart of the problem. The failure to act decisively provided an environment which allowed rumours, such as those involving alleged abuse of aid funds, to flourish without cause.
The officers who handled the allegations appear to have been people of good will but they were not assisted by the corporate environment within which they operated. It follows that the appropriate response to this experience is to implement systems, procedures and training programs to ensure that the experience is not repeated. The Inquiry believes that it would be entirely inappropriate to respond by 'scapegoating' any of the individuals who were responsible from time to time for the handling of the allegations.
Despite occasional claims of a widespread problem, most informants raised the same few names and incidents. A few less well known, mostly minor, allegations came to light. Overall, however, what was revealed is that a large number of people are aware of a small number of allegations. The converse has been shown by the Inquiry not to be true: there is not a widespread paedophile problem the facts of which are known only to a small number of people. This is consistent with the outcome of the AFP investigations in 1995, following the airing of allegations in the Federal Parliament.
Much of the work of the Inquiry focussed on the Department itself. Only two of the case studies deal with allegations against officers of AusAID. Both cases occurred prior to 1985, during which time all personnel management decisions relating to the agency were made by the Department. Austrade was the source of only one unsubstantiated allegation.
It is most important to recognise that the Inquiry's terms of reference required the Inquiry to report on allegations of paedophilia. The allegations may be baseless - it is the response to the allegations which is examined. It is outside the Inquiry's terms of reference to make any findings in relation to paedophile activity by any officer or former officer of the Department or Austrade and no such findings are made. Moreover, the definition of paedophile activities given to the Inquiry was broad and encompassed activity which would not be recognised as paedophile behaviour in some other contexts.
The case studies do illustrate a lack of a pattern in the response of management to the allegations. In some cases, the official response was exemplary; in others deficiencies in process are identified. Some of these are serious - one set of allegations had been active for over a decade before action under the Public Service Act was initiated. The Inquiry recommends a clearer and more consistent approach to the handling of allegations of personal, as opposed to financial, impropriety.
These are matters of corporate responsibility, and the Inquiry believes that no individual officer should bear the consequences of inadequate response where it has been shown to occur. This finding is reinforced by the fact that those cases are now quite old - it is a characteristic of the matters which have been the subject to the most speculation and comment that they occurred five, or ten, or even more years ago. It is time for the speculation to end.
The Department today is a significantly different place from that which dealt with the rather older case studies discussed in the report. The prompt response of officials to more recent allegations of paedophilia suggests that instances of misbehaviour are now handled in a more decisive and prompt fashion. The agencies concerned have taken a number of positive steps in recent years and even further measures have been implemented since the Inquiry started. If this process of improvement is carried to its conclusion and the recommendations made in this report are implemented, public confidence in our representatives overseas will be enhanced.
The Inquiry was also required to examine aspects of Australia's overseas aid program, in particular the use of Direct Aid Program funds. There was a dearth of evidence to support the few allegations of misuse of aid funds. The Inquiry concentrated its efforts on examining the record in the one country identified in the public allegations. No evidence was found of misuse of funds by officials to support paedophile activities, as had been alleged. A number of recommendations are made to further improve this worthwhile program.
The Inquiry was also required to recommend an appropriate and practicable code of conduct for public servants representing the Australian government in other countries. To this end the Inquiry published in February 1997 a discussion paper on a Code of Conduct to promote consideration of the complex issues raised. The paper was distributed widely and a seminar conducted to draw together expert thinking on the promotion and maintenance of ethical conduct. The paper produced a range of constructive and thoughtful responses, particularly from those with experience of working 'on the ground' in other countries.
The result is the recommended Code of Conduct. Together with the recommendations for improvement in mechanisms and procedures by which staff may bring any inappropriate activity to the attention of management, the report will provide a basis by which those in the portfolio can put the concerns examined by the Inquiry behind them.
The public discussion of the allegations examined in this report has been protracted and, up to now, inconclusive. That painful process has done a considerable disservice to the interests of the Australian community, the agencies concerned and many of the individual officers involved.
The community, the agencies and the officers concerned are now bearing the heavy consequences of this sad saga. It is time for a fresh start to be made.
Schedule of Recommendations
Recommendation Number 1
I recommend that:
- DFAT establish a database to allow records of all DAP project proposals, and brief details of their subsequent history, to be kept in a common format; and
- DFAT ensure that knowledge of application procedures and operating guidelines are readily accessible to relevant NGOs and community groups in recipient countries.
Recommendation Number 2
I recommend that the DAP Guidelines be amended to include a requirement for appropriate separation between the decision makers at the post and the agency which is seeking funding under the program.
Recommendation Number 3
I recommend that where practicable an officer should withdraw from involvement in DAP funding decisions where any relationship between the beneficiaries and the officer could lead to a perception of favouritism. I also recommend that the DAP Guidelines include a clause cautioning officers of the need to avoid any conflict between their personal or private interests and their duty to make a decision in connection with the DAP.
Recommendation Number 4
I recommend that a Code of Conduct be drafted to guide the personal behaviour of all representatives of the Australian government overseas.
Recommendation Number 5
I recommend that the Code of Conduct apply to a Head of Mission as if he or she is an APS employee, irrespective of whether the Head of Mission is a career diplomat or has been appointed from outside the public service.
Recommendation Number 6
I recommend that Honorary Consuls be briefed on the Code of Conduct and informed that they are expected to observe its spirit and intent.
Recommendation Number 7
I recommend that the Code of Conduct provide that a person has a responsibility to endeavour to moderate the personal behaviour of a member of his/her household if that personal behaviour:
- adversely affects the officer's or employee's performance of duties; or
- adversely affects the mission's ability to achieve its objectives; or
- brings Australia or the mission into disrepute.
I also recommend that a person who is bound by the code take care to ensure that any activities by a member of his or her household does not give rise to the perception of a conflict between the official duty of the person and the private interest of either the person or a member of his or her household.
Recommendation Number 8
I recommend that each post develop a document which sets out the expectations which are held for the behaviour of local staff at that post. The document should be cleared by the employing agency's head office, and should be provided to all local staff on appointment. They should be made aware that a serious breach of the standards specified in the document may lead to a termination of their employment or a decision not to renew their employment.
Recommendation Number 9
I recommend that the Code of Conduct remind those bound by it of their obligation to respect the rights of others, including their domestic staff.
Recommendation Number 10
I recommend that the Code of Conduct address the following five core principles:
- respect for the law, both of Australia and of the host country;
- cultural sensitivity;
- appropriate personal behaviour;
- respect for others and tolerance of their opinions; and
- integrity in the use of the status and privileges which are accorded to Australia's representatives overseas.
Recommendation Number 11
I recommend that agencies examine their internal reporting mechanisms with a view to ensuring that the mechanisms incorporate the elements proposed by the NSW ICAC and set out at paragraph 11.49.
I also recommend that agencies include within their reporting mechanisms a reference to external mechanisms, such as reporting to the PSMPC.
Recommendation Number 12
I recommend that agencies, in consultation with the relevant staff associations and unions and the PSMPC, develop a complaints procedure, including a procedure for the handling of allegations of a breach of the Code of Conduct. The procedure should incorporate the following elements:
- an acknowledgment that there are ways of dealing with matters of personal behaviour, particularly of a less serious nature, which do not involve employing the formal process prescribed by the Public Service Act;
- the need to identify allegations which are of relevance to the employer. If the view is taken that an allegation is not of relevance to the employer the person making the allegation should be so informed;
- the need for respect for privacy and for the requirements of natural justice and procedural fairness to be observed in the handling of any allegation of misconduct;
- the need for matters to be dealt with speedily. The facts need to be established before memories fade;
- an allegation involving a possible breach of Australian criminal law, and which is of relevance to the employer, should be reported to the appropriate law enforcement authority; and
- there should be a preference for regarding an allegation of misbehaviour as a misconduct matter, in addition to any requirement for dealing with the matter in some other manner.
Agencies should ensure that they have in place appropriate awareness programs to provide staff and, where appropriate, members of their households, with necessary information about personal behaviour, complaints mechanisms and related matters. Suitable induction programs and refresher programs should also be provided.
How to obtain a copy of the report
The report is available for purchase through AGPS Bookshops. Quote Catalogue Number 96 0945 8.
For further information telephone the Inquiry Secretariat on (02) 6272 3910 until Wednesday 28 May 1997.
After that date telephone the Public Service and Merit Protection Commission on (02) 6202 3500.
