A former minister in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) has accused the ACT public service of failing to inform her about critical issues within her portfolio, alleging a “systemic” problem regarding the direction of briefings. Emma Davidson, who was a member of the Greens party, stated that she learned more about significant matters from the media than from her own department, a claim that raises concerns about the functioning of the public service.
In a conversation with Kathy Leigh, the head of the ACT public service, Davidson expressed her frustration over the lack of communication from the Community Services Directorate. During a phone call in August 2022, she said, “I cannot and will not defend public servants who don’t respect the admin arrangements as delegated by the Chief Minister in writing,” highlighting her concerns about governance and the public service’s operational integrity.
Davidson specifically pointed out that the Community Services Directorate was briefing Rachel Stephen-Smith, the minister for adjacent portfolios, instead of keeping her informed as the youth justice minister. She claimed that this misalignment resulted in her being unaware of crucial issues, such as the termination of a contract for Functional Family Therapy Youth Justice, which would leave a service gap despite her clear requests for updates.
Leigh, responding to Davidson’s allegations during a budget estimates session on July 29, 2022, maintained that she was unaware of any complaints regarding public servants not reporting to the appropriate minister. “I hold the conduct of the ACT Public Service in the highest regard, upholding its values of integrity, accountability, and service to the community,” she stated, refraining from further comment on the matter.
The situation escalated when independent MLA Thomas Emerson raised concerns about Davidson’s allegations, suggesting they warranted an independent investigation by the ACT’s Public Sector Standards Commissioner. Emerson stated, “To hear that, as a minister, Ms. Davidson learned more from the media about a serious matter in her portfolio than from her own directorate is alarming.”
In her letters to the budget estimates committee, Davidson detailed multiple instances where she felt sidelined. For example, she stated that the director-general of the Community Services Directorate, Catherine Rule, had been communicating directly with Stephen-Smith while neglecting to update her on critical developments. This included situations involving Indigenous youth in the justice system, where Davidson felt a lack of communication directly impacted her ability to fulfill her ministerial responsibilities.
Davidson’s frustrations were not just limited to briefings. She recalled incidents where she had to rely on media reports for sensitive information, highlighting the failures in communication that affected her role. She emphasized the importance of being informed, stating, “It helps if I have some idea of what the directorate has already done in order to give the right advice about how to navigate complex government services.”
In response to Davidson’s claims, Leigh contended that her understanding from previous discussions was that Davidson wished to raise concerns rather than lodge a formal complaint. She noted that she had contacted Rule following her conversation with Davidson, suggesting that the director-general initiate a meeting to address the issues raised. However, Davidson remarked that subsequent to her discussions with Leigh, communication failures persisted, noting that Rule often missed scheduled briefings and meetings.
The issue has sparked broader discussions about the operational effectiveness of the ACT public service. A spokesperson for Chief Minister Andrew Barr expressed confidence in Leigh and the public servants, asserting that they provide essential services to the community and uphold democratic values.
As the matter unfolds, the implications of Davidson’s claims could lead to significant scrutiny of the processes within the ACT public service, particularly concerning how ministers are kept informed about their portfolios. The situation remains a focal point for both political accountability and the integrity of public service operations in the ACT.
