Jean John writes: At last someone is doing something to get rid of the man who has effectively used his position and power for years to promote his own agenda without regard for the interests of the Australian people (“If Mike Pezzullo doesn’t like parliamentary democracy, he shouldn’t work for one”).
Mike Pezzullo has left Home Affairs in shambles — every arm of this vast empire, created to satisfy the ambitions of Peter Dutton, is in chaos. He found the perfect partner in Dutton who he was able to manipulate, and between them they ran it as their personal fiefdom. I can’t wait for the inquiry to reveal the extent of involvement of the previous minister for Home Affairs in many of its dubious decisions.
Finally the most powerful public servant has been brought to his knees by his own foolishness in leaving a written trail of his political interference.
Catherine Rossiter writes: I was always totally opposed to Pezzullo and Dutton’s push to bring all the national security/border/immigration functions into one mega-portfolio, as were the heads of the AFP, ASIO and other key organisations. If there is only one minister with responsibility for all those functions in the cabinet, how is the cabinet able to have a serious discussion when there are no other ministers with knowledge of the ins and outs of an issue?
Bernard Stever writes: Sacking Pezzullo straight up simply sends the wrong message — perhaps after examination by a parliamentary committee or when the Australian Public Service commissioner releases their investigation report. After all, apparent wrongdoing notwithstanding, the context of his behaviour needs to be examined — along with the others involved. Publicly.
For too long these types of alleged moral/ethical failures have been swept away by sacking, with those involved often retaining generous benefits. As the Chinese saying goes, kill the chicken to scare the monkey. So many bad actors transition to well-paying jobs without any apparent consequence.
At the very least this case should send a loud message to our political classes (elected or otherwise), our senior officials in the public sector and the taxpayer/electors who ultimately fund these boondoggling schemers. They’ve apparently kept doing the wrong things for so long and never expected to be held accountable for their actions.
John Attwood writes: Time to sack him? Nah. That time has well passed!
Cheryl Coleman writes: The rise of Pezzullo in the Australian Public Service reflects a phenomenon that is seen worldwide across corporations, politics and bureaucracies, i.e. the promotion of individuals with an overweening self-belief that brooks no criticism, who spend valuable time plotting against their “enemies” and rule over their “kingdoms” in the manner of the aristocrats of old.
Their role becomes all about themselves and so any suggestions that they may not always be perfect is seen as a personal attack and ruthlessly condemned. Consequently, only individuals who slavishly support such a leader are tolerated in the leadership circle so alternative views are even further marginalised.
In this complex world we need leaders with a realistic understanding of their strengths and weaknesses and an ability to build a team that compensates for any deficiencies. A healthy dose of self-doubt should be a prerequisite for leadership — not a reason to preclude an individual from consideration.
As workers and voters, we need to be sceptical of overconfidence and delusions of grandeur in our leaders. They are indications of a propensity to develop a cult rather than the responsive and thoughtful organisations we need to respond to our current challenges.
