I questioned the Department of Parliamentary Services about the concerning departure of former Secretary Rob Stefanic who I questioned over serious issue previously. The President confirmed he was terminated due to “lost trust and confidence” – but both the President and current Secretary Ms Hinchcliffe dodged questions about whether Mr Stefanic intercepted a public interest disclosure letter, potentially contradicting his court affidavit.
Even more troubling: 14 senior executives have left DPS in just three years. This follows my previous questioning about serious cultural issues within the department.
As your Senator, I remain committed to ensuring proper oversight of taxpayer-funded positions. The Australian public deserves full transparency about what occurred under Mr Stefanic’s leadership and exactly why he was asked to step down, especially given his $478,000 salary was funded by taxpayers.
I’ll continue pushing for accountability. If you’re a current or former DPS staffer with concerns, you can contact me confidentially at senator.roberts@aph.gov.au
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing again. Ms Hinchcliffe, last November I asked you a series of questions, and you and your department have plain refused to answer the questions I’ve put to you. You’ve raised no public interest immunity claim. Ms Hinchcliffe, you are the Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services. You cannot expect us to believe that you don’t know the proper process is to raise a public interest immunity claim, not simply flat-out refuse to answer questions. You know a public interest claim is the correct process, don’t you?
Ms J Hinchcliffe: The questions on notice that you’ve raised—and, I’m sorry, I need to find them—
Senator ROBERTS: Question 116.
Ms J Hinchcliffe: We have provided an answer to those questions and those answers have been submitted. I suspect what you’d like to say to me is that those answers are not the answers that you’re looking for and you’d like to press me in relation to those. But we have provided answers to those questions.
Senator ROBERTS: In question on notice 116, I asked you about your predecessor, Rob Stefanic, who
stepped down in absolute controversy, yet you still won’t explain why he stepped down. That’s the answer I’m looking for. Why did he step down?
Ms J Hinchcliffe: That’s not a question for me.
Senator ROBERTS: Who is it a question for?
The President: It’s a question for the presiding officer.
Senator ROBERTS: President, why did Rob Stefanic step down?
The President: I provided an opening statement at the last estimates, at which I said we had lost trust and confidence in Mr Stefanic.
Senator ROBERTS: I asked whether Rob Stefanic intercepted a letter of an employee making a public
interest disclosure, contradicting an affidavit that he made in court. The answer to that question is contained in documents that you have access to, both of you.
The President: Do you mean me, Senator Roberts?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
The President: I don’t have access to those documents.
Senator ROBERTS: Who does?
Ms J Hinchcliffe: I’m not sure what documents you’re talking about. As I said to you at the last estimates that you raised these, these matters are matters that pre-date me. I don’t know what occurred. It seems to me that question, of what Mr Stefanic did, is a question for Mr Stefanic rather than a question for me.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s either you or the President, the presiding officer.
Ms J Hinchcliffe: In terms of Mr Stefanic’s actions?
Senator ROBERTS: Why Mr Stefanic stepped down.
Ms J Hinchcliffe: Sorry, what—
Senator ROBERTS: Why did Mr Stefanic step down?
The President: I’ve answered that question: because the presiding officers lost trust and confidence in the secretary.
Senator ROBERTS: Did he intercept a letter of an employee making a public interest disclosure, and did that not contradict an affidavit given in court? Did he or not?
The President: Who’s the question to, sorry?
Senator ROBERTS: You.
The President: I’ve indicated that those are proceedings I have no knowledge of and nothing to do with. That is not my role as the President.
Senator ROBERTS: Who would have knowledge of that?
The President: I have no idea, I’m very sorry. That’s not a question for me.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you have knowledge of that, Ms Hinchcliffe?
Ms J Hinchcliffe: I don’t, and I’ve said before that I don’t have knowledge of that.
Senator ROBERTS: So no-one knows why he stepped down.
The President: I’ve answered that question twice now, and I’ve answered it a third time. I made an opening statement at the last estimates at which I said the presiding officers had lost trust and confidence in Mr Stefanic.
Senator ROBERTS: What are the details around that, and was his intercepting of a letter of an employee making a public interest disclosure, contradicting an affidavit given to court, part of the reason for losing trust?
The President: I indicated in my opening statement that I was not able to provide any further information. The letter that you’ve talked about, I have absolutely no knowledge of at all. I know nothing about it.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I think that answers your question—in that it was not a relevant factor in losing confidence if the President didn’t know about it.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re required to produce to this committee any information or documents that we request. There’s no privacy, security, freedom of information or other legislation that overrides this committee’s constitutional powers to gather evidence. And both of you are protected from any potential prosecution as a result of your evidence or in producing documents to this committee. As I understand it, President, the default position of senators is that the Senate prevails. So unless you can come up with a public interest immunity, we are constitutionally empowered to fulfil our duty to taxpayers.
The President: I’ll re-table my statement from last time. I made it clear that the presiding officers had lost trust and confidence in the secretary and that it was not able to discuss, at that point, further matters in relation to the secretary. In relation to the matter that you are raising, a legal matter, whether it was me as a presiding officer or the previous presiding officers, which is where I understand this matter has its genesis, none of us would have—it’s not our role as presidents to have that level of depth of knowledge about court proceedings or DPS operations. That is not the role of the presiding officers.
Senator ROBERTS: Who oversees that? Whose role is it? Surely there’s someone with that role?
The President: A court matter is a court matter. It’s nothing to do with the department.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m talking about whether or not he intercepted a letter of an employee making a public interest disclosure. Did he or did he not, and who would be aware of that? Surely, someone must be?
The President: Ms Hinchcliffe has answered the question to the best of her ability. I have indicated, on a number of occasions, it’s not my role as the President. I have no knowledge of the matters you’re raising. We have answered your questions. I don’t know what else I can do.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, I’ve got a new question.
The President: These are matters which go back to previous presiding officers and previous DPS executive officers.
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Stefanic left a rotten legacy. I want to know whether or not he intercepted a letter to an employee making a public interest disclosure, contradicting an affidavit he gave to court.
The President: Senator Roberts, I would hate for the DPS staff who are watching this to think that they are dirty and rotten. They are fine officers. They do an amazing job.
Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t say that.
The President: I think that’s what you’re implying. I took that as—
Senator ROBERTS: I said he left a rotten legacy.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, don’t speak over the President.
The President: I’m not making a comment about that. The Presiding Officers acted swiftly. We lost trust and confidence, and he was terminated. We acted very swiftly in filling the position with Ms Hinchcliffe, and what we hope and what we’re looking forward to and what is currently happening within DPS is that we are restoring trust and confidence within that department. That is our role.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll say it again. He left a rotten legacy. Many of your fine employees have come to me telling me of that, and still they’re very concerned about the legacy he left—what he actually did. I will ask if you can take it on notice to find out whether or not he intercepted a letter of an employee making a public interest disclosure, contradicting an affidavit given to court.
The President: I can’t take that on notice because it’s not my business.
Senator ROBERTS: If you don’t know, then tell me who does know. Who should that question—
Ms J Hinchcliffe: I’ve already said to you that I don’t know that information and that the person who would know that information is Mr Stefanic.
The President: This is a court matter. It’s not a DPS matter. It was a court matter.
Senator ROBERTS: He was paid by taxpayers, as are we—all three of us. We all have a responsibility, don’t we, to taxpayers?
The President: Absolutely.
Senator ROBERTS: Why are you disrespecting the Senate and the taxpayer in this?
The President: Senator Roberts, you are asking me about a court matter. If you ask me about a DPS matter, of course I will answer to the best of my ability, and it will be a truthful and transparent answer. I can’t comment in court matters. They’re not my purview. I am responsible for the running of Parliament House, DPS, the PBO and the Department of the Senate. That is the extent of my responsibilities.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking a simple question. Who is responsible? Who can I ask this question of?
The President: Ms Hinchcliffe just told you: the previous secretary. It’s his matter. It’s a court matter. It’s not a DPS matter.
Senator ROBERTS: Someone oversaw it. He intercepted a letter of an employee making a public interest disclosure. Surely that affects everyone, ultimately.
Ms J Hinchcliffe: Senator, I’ve answered your question. I don’t have any knowledge of this. The person who you would need to ask is Mr Stefanic. If you’re asking about his actions, you would need to ask him.
Senator ROBERTS: Ms Hinchcliffe, your department and what you do is immune to freedom of information requests. The only chance the Australian taxpayers and the fine employees of DPS have to hold you and the department accountable for your conduct is through questions we, as senators, ask. I’ve asked you to provide answers, and you’ve point blank refused. How are you meant to be accountable and transparent if you don’t answer questions this senator puts to you?
The President: That characterisation is incorrect. The secretary has not refused. She has answered questions to the best of her ability. Both Ms Hinchcliffe and her staff are working very, very hard to restore trust and confidence not only within DPS but with all senators in this room. Of course we have a responsibility to answer your questions as they relate to DPS. This does not relate to DPS. It relates to a former secretary on a court matter. I can’t be any clearer on that.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand that, but it still remains the fact that apparently he intercepted a letter of a DPS employee making a public interest disclosure. That must bother someone. Please, someone.
Ms J Hinchcliffe: I’ve answered the question about my knowledge of this matter and who you would need to ask about whether or not Mr Stefanic intercepted the letter. I don’t know the answer to that. You would need to ask him.
Senator ROBERTS: So there is no-one—
The President: I think the actions that the Presiding Officers took in terminating the previous secretary indicate that we are very concerned about DPS and its reputation, so to suggest that no-one cares is, again, an incorrect characterisation. We acted as swiftly as we could. The secretary was terminated. We’ve acted extremely quickly to replace him, and I am very optimistic that with the new leadership at DPS we have a very, very exciting future.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we will need to conclude. We may be here next week for you to continue
questioning.
Senator ROBERTS: Can I just have one more question?
CHAIR: One more, and then the coalition has the call.
Senator ROBERTS: It must bother your employees—taxpayer employees, whom you serve and for whom you are responsible—that someone wrote a letter and that letter was intercepted in making a public interest disclosure. Why does that not raise a simple answer in you to say, ‘I will find out’?
Ms J Hinchcliffe: I’ve answered your questions here today about my knowledge of this matter and about who you would need to ask about your suggestion that the secretary intercepted a letter. I’ve been very clear with this committee about my views on the use of taxpayers’ money: that everything that we do as a department is spending taxpayers’ money and we need to be very clear that we are getting value for money. You heard the conversation I just had with Senator Hume on that matter and the work that I’m doing to ensure that we are really clear in the department that we are spending taxpayers’ money wisely and well to support each of you in your business here in
parliament. That is what we are here to do.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve had 14 senior executive service staff leave their senior positions in the last three years. That tells me something.
The President: If I could state—I think it should be on the record—I think the matter you’re referring to is a matter that goes back to 2018.
Senator ROBERTS: And when did Mr Stefanic leave? When was he removed?
The President: In December.
Senator ROBERTS: Of 2024. That’s six years in which he was doing—
The President: But none of the officers at the table, including me, including the current government, had anything at all to do with this matter.
Senator ROBERTS: That speaks to low accountability in your predecessors.
The President: It’s seven years ago, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair.
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!
Using your first name