Sir Brian Roche: Public Service Commissioner on the report into Jevon McSkimming and the future for Andrew Coster

The Public Service Commissioner is saying little on the details of Andrew Coster's ongoing employment after his involvement in the Jevon McSkimming scandal.  

A scathing IPCA report has found the former Police Commissioner was among those in senior police leadership who failed to properly address sex allegations against the then Deputy Police Commissioner.  

Coster is now head of the Social Investment Agency.  

His employer, Sir Brian Roche, says an employment process is underway for Coster and can't mention details.   

But he told Mike Hosking someone can be let go for behaviour at a previous job.  

Roche says the key issue is whether the information would have been relevant at the time of employment. 

The Public Service Commissioner says a review into the employment process of Jevon McSkimming was a little unfair to the commission.  

The independent review has been released into McSkimming's reference and probity checks before his 2023 appointment as Deputy Police Commissioner.  

Last week he pleaded guilty to having child sexual exploitation and bestiality material on his work devices. 

Sir Brian Roche says the review raised some valid points for improvements, which the commission is embracing.  

But he told Hosking it would have detected Jevon McSkimming's behaviour had it been given the right information from the right people.  

He says the man was living a double life which he was hiding from his family, his employer, and the Commission. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
So let's look at the employment side of the mix
skimming scandal. The independent report from the Public Services Commission.
How to look at the reference and probity checks used
in employing him? Now, So Brian Roches, of course, the
Public Service Commissioner is with us. Good morning to you,
good morning. Where would you say, well, how would you
summarize what we've got to so far?

Speaker 2 (00:17):
I think we're in a really difficult position. We're in
the position where the public is asking very valid questions
about how did this happen? I think they're fair. We've
got to respond and be seen to be really transparent.

Speaker 1 (00:29):
This isn't a criticism, but having had a look at
the report, it strikes me as one of those reports
that by and large nothing was wrong with the appointment,
but they've come up or drummed up a few new
ideas just so they can say, well, here we go,
we've come up with us. Is that fair or not?

Speaker 2 (00:44):
I think it's a little unfair. I mean, they did
raise very valid points where we could improve. We embrace
those straight away. We've modified our whole practices now, and
you know, we're really confident that we would have detected
this had we had to write them for from the
right people. The IPCA report clearly shows we didn't get
everything we legitimately expected right.

Speaker 1 (01:06):
But having said that, I mean in each is this
specific to a certain senior level of public service appointment?
Because how forensic do you want to go? Where's the line?

Speaker 2 (01:17):
Well, this is very specific for the statutory deputy commissioners,
but we have also strengthened our privity checks on all employees.
It's fundamental to public confidence that they can trust the
people who occupy key positions, and in this situation we
could have done better. We acknowledge it, and we have

(01:37):
done much better in the recent appointment.

Speaker 1 (01:40):
Generally though, it was a solid process.

Speaker 2 (01:41):
Wasn't it?

Speaker 1 (01:43):
It was?

Speaker 2 (01:44):
But we're a learning organization. The whole public sector needs
to continue to learn, modify and innovate. This is a
very good example. We live in a really strange world
where we can have people with alternative lives as mister
mc skimming had. He hid that from everybody, including his family,
his employer and us. We have to avoid that. Again.

Speaker 1 (02:04):
The problem with Hick Skimming was he was, for reasons
best known to himself, active on you know, the company's computer.
If he's not you what do you do with that?
I mean, you know you've got a weirdo, but he's
a weirdo at home. Does that make him no good
at the job?

Speaker 2 (02:21):
It raises questions on character. If people have that sort
of behavior as part of their normal life, it raises
questions in my mind, and I think in the questions
in the minds of many others. We have to avoid
that to the best of our ability. I'm interested that
i FBI, for instance, have light detectors. I'm not suggesting that,
but that is the level of forensic inquiry that's required

(02:43):
for certain people who hold positions in public office.

Speaker 1 (02:47):
Flip side of that as a recruitment issue, isn't it?
Potentially it is.

Speaker 2 (02:51):
It is because people are saying, well, you know, where's
the boundary between my private life? Fully respect that, but
we need to make people really clear. The obstigation is
on them to keep us informed when there are issues
that we need to know about.

Speaker 1 (03:05):
There's sort of three things here, correct me if I'm wrong.
There's his online activity which has a legal implication, his
relationship activity, which is not illegal. And I don't know
what you call it, the cost or aspect of it
where we're all mates and we look after each other.
I mean, is that fair?

Speaker 2 (03:26):
It is fair? And I've got to work through all
of those. It's a matter of public record. I'm in an
an employment process with Andy Coster at the moment. I
want to get through that as quickly as I can.
But I am bound by a legal process and my
obligations as a good employer.

Speaker 1 (03:42):
So how many questions should I ask you on Coster?
And you're going to say I can't say anything.

Speaker 2 (03:47):
That probably covers it, and I know that's frustrating, but
I am not going to create a technical foul.

Speaker 1 (03:53):
Can I ask you as a general concept, because I'm
this is a genuine question that I'm interested in. If
you are in a job and you've done nothing wrong
in your new job, can you exit a person with
them having done something poorly in a previous job?

Speaker 2 (04:12):
I think the issue is if the information had been
available to you at the time of the appointment, would
it have been relevant? And that's at the heart of
this matter.

Speaker 1 (04:21):
And is that legal? Is that a legal thing that
you can pin specifically on and say, legally we're in
the right here or not? We don't know that. Are
we making this up as we go? Along.

Speaker 2 (04:30):
That's the sort of part of the process that I'm
unable to comment on.

Speaker 1 (04:33):
I'm sorry, Okay, if he walks with a check, how
does that play? Do you reckon?

Speaker 2 (04:40):
I think that would be very challenging. That we are
getting into the detail of the process that I'm still
locked into, and I know it's frustrating that I really
just can't comment on that.

Speaker 1 (04:49):
No, I'm just trying to anticipate what's going to happen,
because I just, I genuinely can't work out why a
person who hasn't done anything wrong in his new job
would be exited without a check, given who's employee has
done nothing wrong.

Speaker 2 (05:04):
That's an opinion which I understand. There is a lot
of other opinion that suggests otherwise, based on the messaging
that I'm getting from the public. So I'll just navigate
my way through that. I'll do it as quickly as
I can, and it'll it will withstand third party scrutiny.
That is the test to me.

Speaker 1 (05:21):
What's the timeframe on all this?

Speaker 2 (05:23):
Roughly, I think it needs to be done as soon
as practicable. It's not in anyone's interest for this to
be hanging. It's uncertainty. I value certainty, and so I
will be giving it my absolute highest priority to get
this done, and then I'm happy to talk further with you.

Speaker 1 (05:40):
You're an experienced operator. Have you got a theory as
to what it is about cops that we've been here
before and we may well be here again. What happens?

Speaker 2 (05:50):
Well, I think the actions that have been announced to
bring in sort of an inspector general type thing are critical.
This is sort of the second time in my career
that this has happened. Third, the police are one of
the most important institutions of the state that they have
to be above approach. This report highlights that they aren't.
I think that's to the detriment of all the serving

(06:11):
officers who every day are giving their best for the country.

Speaker 1 (06:15):
Exactly well, so I appreciate it very much, Sir Brian Rodch,
who's the roach, who's the Public Service Commissioner? For more
from the mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to news talks
that'd be from six am weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.