The Claim
“Spent $10,000 trying to chase down someone who leaked information to the media about how the Prime Minister deliberately and knowingly used false information to justify opposition to a defence force pay rise.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The core facts of the claim are accurate. Public Service Commissioner John Lloyd's office spent $9,275 investigating a leak related to the Defence Force pay rise issue [1]. The investigation was initiated after media reports in March 2015 revealed that Prime Minister Tony Abbott used incorrect information to justify the government's position on ADF pay, despite warnings from the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) that the data was flawed [1][2].
The leak exposed that the APSC had advised ministers' offices at least twice that data used to bolster their argument—that defence personnel's pay was "catching up" with public servants—did not support the claim [1]. Following the publication of this information, Commissioner Lloyd announced an investigation to identify the leaker, stating that leaking "lets down people who are conscientious and do the right thing" [1].
The $9,275 figure represented the salary costs of the staff member(s) who conducted the inquiry [1]. The investigation ultimately failed to identify the leaker due to insufficient evidence [1].
Missing Context
The claim omits several important contextual elements:
1. Role and Responsibilities of the Public Service Commissioner: The Australian Public Service Commissioner has a statutory duty to promote adherence to the APS Code of Conduct [3]. The APS Code of Conduct requires public servants to "maintain appropriate confidentiality about dealings with any minister or member of a minister's staff" [1]. Not investigating the leak could have been seen within the bureaucracy as setting a poor example and undermining the code of conduct that the Commissioner is responsible for enforcing [1].
2. Scale of the Investigation Cost: While $10,000 is not insignificant, the claim frames it as excessive spending. In the context of government operations and the salary cost of a senior staff member conducting an investigation over approximately one month, this amount is relatively modest [1]. Government agencies routinely conduct internal investigations into code of conduct breaches.
3. The Broader Context of the ADF Pay Rise: The government initially offered ADF personnel a 1.5% pay rise, which was below the 2.7% inflation rate at the time and sparked significant criticism from backbenchers, crossbench senators (particularly Jacqui Lambie), and the defence community [4][5]. Under pressure, the government increased the offer to 2% in March 2015, which was "just above the current inflation rate" of 1.7% at that time [4]. The Prime Minister described the revised offer as "fair and reasonable" and a "modest catch-up" [4].
4. No Legal Action Taken: The investigation failed to identify the leaker, and no disciplinary or legal action was ultimately taken against anyone [1].
Source Credibility Assessment
The original source is The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH), a mainstream Australian newspaper. According to Media Bias/Fact Check, SMH "reports news factually and with minimal bias, while editorial positions lean slightly left" [6]. In 2019, SMH endorsed Bill Shorten of the Labor Party, and their editorial page generally leans left [6]. Ground News aggregates SMH's bias rating as "Lean Left" [7].
While SMH is generally considered a credible mainstream news source, readers should note that the article's framing emphasizes the "failed" nature of the investigation and questions whether public servants have adequate whistleblower protections. The article was written by Phillip Thomson, a public service reporter at The Canberra Times, and published in July 2015, several months after the events in question [1].
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Search conducted: "Labor government whistleblower leak investigation spending"
Finding: No direct equivalent found for this specific type of leak investigation. However, it is important to note that all Australian governments, regardless of political stripe, conduct leak investigations when confidential government information is disclosed to the media. The Australian Government Investigations Standards establish minimum standards for government entities conducting investigations [8][9].
Labor governments have also faced criticism over transparency issues. For example, in 2025, Labor proposed introducing fees for Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, which the Coalition criticized as a "truth tax" [10]. Additionally, the Rudd and Gillard governments faced numerous leaks during their tenure (2019-2013), including the "Kevin Rudd leaks" that plagued the 2010 election campaign, though specific costs of investigations were not widely publicized.
The key comparison point is that leak investigations are standard practice across Australian governments of all political persuasions. The Australian Public Service Commissioner's Directions require agency heads to investigate suspected code of conduct breaches [11]. This is not unique to the Coalition government—it's a standard administrative function.
Balanced Perspective
The claim frames the $10,000 expenditure as evidence of corruption or wrongdoing. However, a more balanced view reveals:
Legitimate Government Position:
- The Public Service Commissioner has a statutory obligation to enforce the APS Code of Conduct [3]
- The leak did breach confidentiality requirements regarding ministerial dealings
- Government agencies routinely investigate code of conduct breaches
- The investigation cost represents approximately one month of a senior staff member's salary [1]
- No evidence suggests the investigation was improper or corrupt
Criticisms and Concerns:
- The investigation was initiated after embarrassing information was revealed about the Prime Minister using incorrect data
- The investigation failed to identify the leaker, raising questions about value for money
- Whistleblower advocates argue that public servants who expose misuse of information by politicians should have protections under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013, but this act does not cover disclosures about how politicians use information [1]
- The timing and motivation of the investigation could be seen as retaliatory rather than procedural
Comparative Analysis:
This incident is not unique to the Coalition. All Australian governments investigate leaks, and the cost of this investigation ($9,275) is relatively modest in the context of government operations. The fundamental tension between government confidentiality requirements and whistleblower protections exists regardless of which party is in power.
Key context: This is not unique to the Coalition—investigating code of conduct breaches, including leaks, is standard practice across all Australian governments and is part of the Public Service Commissioner's statutory duties.
TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The factual elements are accurate: the government (through the Public Service Commissioner, not the Prime Minister directly) spent approximately $10,000 investigating a leak related to the Defence Force pay rise issue, and the investigation failed to identify the leaker. However, the claim's framing suggests corruption or improper behavior without acknowledging that: (1) the Public Service Commissioner has a statutory duty to enforce the code of conduct, (2) leak investigations are routine across all governments, (3) the cost is relatively modest for a government investigation, and (4) no action was ultimately taken against anyone. The claim omits the legitimate administrative context that makes this a standard, albeit ultimately unsuccessful, code of conduct investigation rather than evidence of corruption.
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
TRUE
The factual elements are accurate: the government (through the Public Service Commissioner, not the Prime Minister directly) spent approximately $10,000 investigating a leak related to the Defence Force pay rise issue, and the investigation failed to identify the leaker. However, the claim's framing suggests corruption or improper behavior without acknowledging that: (1) the Public Service Commissioner has a statutory duty to enforce the code of conduct, (2) leak investigations are routine across all governments, (3) the cost is relatively modest for a government investigation, and (4) no action was ultimately taken against anyone. The claim omits the legitimate administrative context that makes this a standard, albeit ultimately unsuccessful, code of conduct investigation rather than evidence of corruption.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (11)
-
1
smh.com.au
Will public service leakers have concerns investigated if they have problems with politicians using incorrect information?
The Sydney Morning Herald -
2
smh.com.au
Prime Minister Tony Abbott and employment Minister Eric Abetz ignored warnings that the figures they used to justify the government's backflip on ADF pay were dodgy.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
3
apsc.gov.au
Apsc Gov
-
4
abc.net.au
Defence personnel are offered a higher pay increase as the Abbott Government continues to try to cast aside unpopular policies.
Abc Net -
5
sbs.com.au
Labor and defence lobby groups have slammed the new defence pay deal which will give uniformed personnel a pay rise less than inflation.
SBS News -
6
mediabiasfactcheck.com
LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording
Media Bias/Fact Check -
7
ground.news
Breaking News Headlines Today | Ground News
Ground -
8
ag.gov.au
Ag Gov
-
9PDF
Australian Government Investigations Standard 2022
Afp Gov • PDF Document -
10
afr.com
The Coalition and the Greens have vowed to oppose Labor’s plan to charge for freedom of information applications.
Australian Financial Review -
11PDF
procedures for handling suspected code of conduct breaches
Fairwork Gov • PDF Document
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.