The allegations initially made against a federal food authority suggested "fake" or "manipulated" interviews were arranged for pre-selected candidates. A subsequent external investigation did not find evidence supporting this but instead found inappropriate hiring processes.

The report outlined examples of executive level positions at Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) that were not offered on merit with a "clear" favouring of candidates the selection panel members had personal relationships with.

First triggered by a public interest disclosure made in January 2018, it found some hiring and promotion processes were skirted and and documentation left incomplete or missing.

The incidents occurred over a three-year period between 2016 and 2018 and primarily concern five examples outlined by the disclosure.

It alleged a number of recruitments made during that period were unethical with selection processes made to look neat on paper. It alleged these actions were done by a few senior staff members within a certain friendship "clique".

While the subsequent investigation didn't support all the allegations made, it did find evidence promotions weren't always made on merit.

"There is evidence beyond the [public interest disclosure] that some FSANZ employees have concerns that promotions made in the agency are not always based primarily on merit but rather, on relationships within the organisation," the report read.

"The review has discussed the evidence that as a minimum provides some material which might reasonably be seen to support this perception."

Among the examples was a senior public servant at FSANZ who sat as both an interview committee member and delegate in the promotions of two other staff members to executive level 2 (EL2) positions.

The salary range for these roles at this time was between $111,000 and $146,000.

Under the agency's current workplace policy, delegates were expected to maintain a level of independence from the interview committee. A former policy said interview committee members could not also be a delegate unless there were special circumstances.

Evidence suggested the senior public servant had a personal friendship with both promoted executive staff but it was his acting as both an interview member and delegate role during the process that the report deemed "inappropriate".

The senior public servant responded in writing at the time it wasn't possible to avoid this situation as FSANZ was a small agency with highly specialised scientific recruitment needs.

FSANZ has 111 staff members on the books as of June 2020 and 58 of those hold executive level positions.

The report also found advice given by the senior public servant to certain candidates to undertake interview coaching sessions prior to selection interviews showed favouritism during the hiring process.

The promoted staff members were also found to have indications suggesting preferences for certain candidates over others due to personal relationships.

Emails between one of the promoted executive staff and a candidate who later received an executive level 1 position reflected a friendly relationship after the interview. The report noted the use of a smiley face emoji in the executive public servant's reply to the candidate, congratulating them on doing well.

They had also referred the candidate to interview coaching sessions as they had been directed to by the senior public servant during their earlier promotion.

Other examples outlined in the investigation, including further allegations of favouritism, were found to have no supporting evidence.

While the investigation was in response to a single disclosure made in January 2018, the report said there were three complaints made by three agency employees.

READ MORE:

The investigation ultimately did not find any of those named had committed misconduct, warranting disciplinary action.

A FSANZ spokesperson said those named in the report were later told of the issues raised and had undertaken formal discussions with them. It's not clear if any additional action was taken against them beyond a formal discussion.

The food standards authority said it had acted on all the report's recommendations and employed a HR manager to provide monthly reports to the CEO.

It added the report's findings were also referred to the Merit Protection Commissioner in June 2018, where it allegedly found no evidence that warranted further investigation under the Public Service Act.