APS Commissioner Gordon de Brouwer was investigated and cleared over allegations he breached the APS Code of Conduct. Photo: APSC.
Australian Public Service Commissioner Gordon de Brouwer has been cleared of code of conduct breaches following two secret investigations over six months dealing with complaints of his handling of the service’s Robodebt inquiry.
Following the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, Dr de Brouwer conducted an APS Code of Conduct inquiry into some former and current public servants.
Two secret consecutive investigations were subsequently initiated against him as a result of two separate people making formal complaints that Dr de Brouwer had himself breached the APS Code of Conduct with his inquiry and report.
The complaints against him constituted a combined 10 allegations
The investigations into the Commissioner’s conduct took place from October 2024 to April 2025, but ultimately cleared him of any wrongdoing.
They also upheld the APSC’s Robodebt inquiry and its findings.
Dr de Brouwer finalised the APSC’s Centralised Code of Conduct Inquiry into the Robodebt Scheme on 13 September 2024 and published the final report.
It examined the actions and decisions of 16 public servants associated with the Robodebt scheme, some of whom had been referred by the Royal Commission and others by agency heads and the Public Service Minister.
His inquiry, which he describes as “robust and extensive”, found 12 current and former public servants and agency heads had breached the APS Code of Conduct on 97 occasions.
The Commissioner subsequently named former department secretaries Kathryn Campbell and Renée Leon as having breached the Code of Conduct during their tenure at the Department of Human Services.
They were the only ones named.
Ms Campbell was found to have breached the code 12 times, while Ms Leon was found to have breached it 13 times.
Both former secretaries have publicly expressed their disagreement and disappointment with those findings.
Following that Inquiry, two publicly unnamed people made separate formal complaints to the Merit Protection Commissioner about Dr de Brouwer’s conduct.
The subsequent investigations into the Commissioner were kept secret until Dr de Brouwer himself issued a lengthy statement on Thursday (31 July) following the release of Freedom of Information material.
“This week, the Merit Protection Commission released redacted documents about the first investigation to a member of the public in response to Freedom of Information requests made earlier this year,” he said.
“Given that I am reasonably identifiable in the documents, it is in the public interest to address any speculation on this matter and to maintain the reputation of the office of Australian Public Service Commissioner.”
The Merit Protection Commissioner is responsible for inquiries into alleged breaches of the APS Code of Conduct by the APS Commissioner.
The Merit Protection Commissioner delegated their powers of investigation to two “arm’s-length senior public servants” who each appointed an independent expert to investigate the allegations in how Dr de Brouwer performed his duties as APS Commissioner in the Robodebt inquiry.
The independent expert for the first investigation of seven allegations was Professor John McMillan AO, a former Ombudsman, acting Integrity Commissioner and Information Commissioner.
The independent expert for the second investigation of three allegations was Greg Wilson, a former Secretary and acting Public Service Commissioner in the Victorian Public Service.
“In one of the released documents, Professor McMillan states that ‘a complaint … is self-evidently a matter that must be dealt with thoroughly and transparently … [There is] a broader public interest in the complaint issues being properly examined’,” Dr de Brouwer said.
“I strongly support this. It is essential that integrity officers, including myself as Australian Public Service Commissioner, are not exempt from the processes that other public servants are subject to.
“The process that I underwent – as it was for those people who were investigated for breaches of the Code in the Robodebt Inquiry – was forensic, thorough, independent and procedurally fair.
“With respect to the first investigation, Professor McMillan concluded: ‘None of these allegations have been sustained.’
“To ensure public transparency and completeness, I also include the assessment from the second investigation.
“Mr Wilson concluded with respect to the second investigation that the breach allegations could not be sustained and that the facts do not require a more formal examination.
“He recommended that the complaint not be progressed to an inquiry.”
Dr de Brouwer also released a list of the allegations made against him – all of which were found to be unsubstantiated.
The seven allegations made by the first complainant were, at a high level:
- lack of impartiality
- misuse of an official position for personal gain
- causing an inquiry to be commenced without basis
- requiring the complainant to respond to an inaccurate and oppressive draft statement
- releasing inaccurate and damaging information
- discrimination against the complainant, and
- allowing a personal view to colour the findings.
The three allegations made by the second complainant were, at a high level:
- improper disclosure of information
- inappropriate advice about legal assistance, and
- a lack of a legal basis for inquiry.
“The delegates and the independent investigators found that none of the allegations were substantiated, and I had not breached the APS Code of Conduct,” Dr de Brouwer said.
“Consequently, both investigations were concluded.
“The independent investigations have affirmed my conduct as APS Commissioner in overseeing the Robodebt inquiry, including making my Public Statement of 13 September 2024.
“They have confirmed the propriety of the APSC’s Robodebt Inquiry and its findings.”
