In her opening remarks to the inquiry,Lo said she was not aware the process had included a degree of ministerial involvement,“including input into shortlisting and provision of an informal reference”.
I’m a long serving public servant,who has worked with both Coalition and Labor governments.
I’ve always remained apolitical,acted without fear or favour as Public Service Commissioner. I’m an independent statutory officer,and I take that independence very seriously.
While I report to the premier,I’m not subject to the control and direction of the premier,or indeed any other minister.
It’s common for me to be involved in recruitment for senior roles in the sector. From time to time,former politicians,including former ministers,apply for roles in the sector. There’s nothing to preclude them from doing so. Under the ministerial code of conduct,if they do so,they must abide by the process and be treated impartially.
I can state unequivocally that I approached the task of merit assessment with impartiality and objectivity. No pressure was placed on me personally,to achieve a particular outcome. If it had been,I certainly would have resisted it.
In undertaking a merit assessment,it’s not appropriate for a panel to take into account whether the appointment of a particular candidate would potentially be controversial,or unpopular. These are not relevant considerations in a merit assessment.
Instead a panel must focus on whether the qualifications,skills,and experience of the candidate means they have the capabilities to do the job.
I have recently become aware,including through evidence given at hearings of this inquiry and through media reports,of various matters relating to this recruitment process.
This includes the degree of ministerial involvement,including input into shortlisting and provision of an informal reference. I was not aware that informal references were sought for any candidate,nor was I aware that the minister met with Ms Kimberley Cole.
I’ve also recently become aware that the treatment of the third-ranked candidate in the report did not accord with what I believed would occur.
Had I known on 15 June,what I know now,I would not have endorsed the report.
The other independent panel member,the Honourable Warwick Smith AO,who has not been called as a witness before this inquiry,would like me to put on the record that had he known then what he knows now,he also would not have endorsed the report.
In particular,he did not know the minister met with Ms Cole,and he’s concerned about the treatment of the third-ranked candidate.
As Public Service Commissioner,I should not be viewed as cover for a recruitment process,or as a way for other panel members,or the hiring agency,to avoid accountability.