David Shoebridge grills Parliament Services on China tweeter

Greens senator David Shoebridge grilled the Department of Parliamentary Services in Senate Estimates today over the prolific social media poster who is suing Michael West Media.

Funny how the department chiefs all said they had no idea, or very little, about the librarian who sues journalists from their Department of Parliamentary Services library.

We at MWM had written to them five times with questions about the activities of the public servant: emails to Senate President Sue Lines on February 12, Amanda Harmer on January 28 (x2), acting head Jaala Hinchcliffe on December 2, and others on January 31 and February 1.

The requests were detailed. Yet at Senate Estimates yesterday, they stonewalled questions by Senator David Shoebridge, repeatedly saying they would ‘take that question on notice’.

This is “Rough Hansard” (pre transcription) so any changes will be updated. Various DPS chiefs responded to the questions and Senate President Sue Lines had an altercation with Senator Shoebridge. (Updated February 25 with link to transcript here.)

David Shoebridge (DS) – Thank you for your attendance. Mr [Steven] Fox (DPS) might be best placed to answer. In 2021, DPS was sued by journalist Marcus Reubenstein in relation to a series of publications that were made by [the public servant, name withheld] while he was working, and on the company dime. 

Do you remember that legal action against DPS Steven Fox? 

DPS – Thank you. Good morning. I was not in the role in that period. I have been in that role for about 18 months. It precedes my time. 

DS – Do you remember the litigation against DPS? 

Fox – No. I do not. 

DS – Alright. Does anyone have institutional memory of the proceedings? 

DPS – There’s no-one here that was here at the time but we can answer your questions and take them on notice. 

DS – In answers to an earlier round of estimates, it was clear the then Departmental Secretary attended the mediation for those proceedings, Mr Stefanic. And either he or another senior officer was a signatory to a final deed of settlement which saw the Commonwealth make a significant payment. As a result of the actions of [the public servant]. 

Would you produce to this Committee the deed of settlement that was entered into? And whether we are able to in terms of the deed. I’m not asking about the terms of the deed. 

DPS – I’ll take the matter on notice.

DS – You would know the terms of the deed could not override parliamentary privilege? You would know that wouldn’t you?

DPS – I appreciate that and you wouldn’t want me to do something that wasn’t legally possible for me to do and we’ll see what the terms are and come back to you. I’m pushing back on your suggestion if there’s something in the deed that says confidentiality that wouldn’t answer the inquiry to be clear. Ms Hinchcliffe understands the powers of this Committee but also that she has the ability to make a public interest immunity claim, should it be in the public interest.

Senator Shoebridge, please continue. 

DS – Thank you. Was the amount paid in settlement by the Commonwealth to Mr Reubenstein, was it $110,000 or some other amount? If it’s another amount, can you identify it?

DPS – I’ll take it on notice. 

DS – Thank you. Did that include, and if the amount paid under the deed was a set figure – and if you could provide us with that – were there other payments made by the Commonwealth including to their legal costs and what if any legal costs were incurred?

DPS – I’ll take it on notice for you. 

DS – Were there any restrictions or was there any action taken against [the public servant] for costing the Commonwealth more than $100,000 because of the actions he undertook while he was working for the Commonwealth? 

DPS – Any action taken against [the public servant]? I’ll have to take it on notice.

 

DS – Alright. When did you say you commenced, Mr Fox? 

DPS – 18 September, 2023. 

DS – In November 2023, I understand a series of questions were put to DPS by an independent media outlet asking if they’re aware that [the public servant] was engaging in further social media commentary during work hours on X under a pseudonym? 

You were the parliamentary librarian at the time. Do you recall that? They were made to the secretary at the time. Was any investigation done as to whether or not [the public servant] was during work hours using that X account?

DPS – I’ll need to take it on notice. That was handled by the office of the secretary at the time. Mr Stefanic was the officer who had the questions directed at him. 

DS – Between Mr Stefanic and [the public servant], are you in the intermediate management chain?

DPS – Yes. 

DS – Are you saying you weren’t in any way involved in that? 

DPS – I was not. 

DS – That would seem peculiar, the Secretary engages directly with someone — somebody in your employ and you’re totally unaware of it? 

DPS – That was the arrangement that was possibly, and possibly because of the previous issues that were around that you’ve been asking questions about. 

DS – Why are you speculating its relation to previous issues? Did you have some knowledge? 

DPS – I can’t speak for Mr Stefanic’s reason for handling the matter. 

DS – That X account … did engage in quite aggressive political commentary, aggressive political attacks. And was happening during work hours. Was any action taken against [the public servant] in relation to again doing that? 

DPS – Good morning. I’m the Acting Deputy Secretary and the Chief Operating Officer. I have the HR portfolio within my remit. I’m very happy to take that question on notice. I understand that there was some consideration but as to what that consideration was, what that actually found, I’m not aware but I’m very willing to take it back on notice and come back to you. 

DS – Was HR involved in the, was there an investigation following that question in November of 2023? 

DPS – Senator, I would be confident about my myself, but I’d have to take it on notice. HR has had some involvement and what that involvement was and what it constituted, I’d like to be able to confirm. 

DS – Okay. We’re left in an uncomfortable situation where we have the whole of the senior management team of the Department here. And nobody can answer whether or not even whether or not an HR investigation was undertaken in relation to a senior researcher for questions that were asked in November of 2023. 

It does seem, given the number of people we have here, and I can name them all, no-one can shed any light on this? 

DPS – That’s a little unfair because the officers have indicated to you they were not the officers at the time. They are doing their best to assist and they have taken it on notice.

DS – That’s not true. Mr Fox was the Parliamentary Librarian at the time. 

DPS – Ms Hinchcliffe has taken the matter on notice. It’s unfair to make that accusation that somehow they have knowledge of this event. 

DS – I didn’t make that accusation. 

DPS – If you wish to make that accusation. They were not the officers. You mischaracterised their evidence. You mischaracterised it. You put words in my mouth. You did. It’s unhelpful when you do that. You’re being unhelpful by making that sweeping generalisation that somehow these officers should know something that happened before they were there. 

DS – To be clear, I don’t know if you heard Mr Fox’s evidence? Did you hear it? Let me finish my question. Would you please let me finish my question? Did you hear Mr Fox’s evidence that he was the parliamentary librarian and had managerial oversight of [the public servant] at the time the questions were directed?

I heard the whole of his evidence which was the former secretary dealt with this matter. Was any disciplinary action taken against [the public servant] as a result of again his inappropriate use of X? 

DPS – Senator, I’m very happy to include that as part of my response when I come back to you. 

DS – Has [the public servant] informed the department that he’s now commenced his own litigation against a series of media outlets? Senator, we are aware that there have been private proceedings that have been launched. Has [the public servant] informed you it’s likely to involve significant engagement about his work and his activities at work which may involve yet more Commonwealth resources? Has he informed you of that? 

DPS – At the moment, my understanding of that is the private legal matter has just commenced. We have not yet had an understanding as to what if any departmental involvement or information might be required. But we are very aware there’s a private matter that’s been launched. 

DS – There’s an obligation if people are working for DPS to be mindful of potential conflicts of interest. Has [the public servant] advised the DPS these proceedings may amount to a conflict of interest as they will inevitably traverse his work as a parliamentary librarian? 

DPS – We are paying close attention to conflicts of interest across the Department. I personally have not sighted [the public servant’s] conflict. I will do so and come back to the Committee.

DS – You say his conflict. If there is a potential conflict that’s been identified. By [the public servant]. So you’re not aware if he has just to be clear? Is that true? 

DPS – I have not sighted his conflict. I’m not saying whether or not he has or not yet declared one. There’s an obligation to as soon as you’re aware of a potential conflict to notify your employer of it? There’s an obligation to be mindful of their personal and work interactions and to declare possible or potential conflicts as they arise. 

So if you would on notice provide any such conflict, notice of conflict to the Committee, indicate, if one has been made, indicate on what date any such conflict was made? 

DPS – Happy to take it on notice, Senator. 

DS – And just so there’s absolutely unambiguous, can whoever is in a position in DPS to answer this, advise if there was an investigation of the X account, whether or not [the public servant] confirmed he was the author of or the owner of such an account? 

DPS – Happy to take it on notice. 

DS – If there was an investigation of the Twitter account, what if any conclusions were made in relation to that investigation? 

DPS – Happy to take that on notice, Senator. I understand it was deleted a few days after the queries were made to DPS. 

DS – Again, if the investigation hit a blank wall because it was deleted, whether or not any actions were taken for deleting a necessary source of investigation.

DPS – I’ll take it on notice. 

—- The author discloses a potential conflict of interest. [The public servant] has launched defamation proceedings against MWM and the author of this story. We are defending the claim. Details here.