Signs Australian government patience with Home Affairs is wearing thin

Since early this year the department and Mr Pezzullo have found themselves under attack on several fronts, from legal lapses in the management of Operation Sovereign Borders and the Parkinson report into the "broken" migration system to the handling of offshore processing contracts.

Some of these issues might be excused as the sort of lapses that could be expected to arise from time to time in an organisation as sprawling as Home Affairs.

But there are signs the Albanese government's patience with the mega department is starting to wear thin.

One of these was the decision of Home Affairs Minister Clare O'Neil to appoint former senior bureaucrat Dennis Richardson to audit governance arrangements for contracts for services to regional processing centres.

Mr Richardson's appointment followed revelations that the department hired a firm despite advice that it was being investigated for possible bribery involving Nauruan politicians.

Little more than a week later, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, chaired by prominent Labor MP Julian Hill, has tabled a report scathing of Home Affairs over significant failings in its procurement practices.

The committee takes particular aim at the department's decision to extend a multibillion-dollar maritime surveillance contract until the end of 2027 despite knowing of serious deficiencies in the operator's performance, including not having enough air crew and failing to fit long-range fuel tanks to its aircraft, despite extra payments to do both these things.

Taking into account the extension, by the time the contract expires it will have cost $2.6 billion and will have not been put up for competitive tender in 21 years years.

In a withering observation, the committee said that not only did the episode raise serious concerns about whether taxpayers were getting value for money, but "Australia is lumbered with sub-optimal, out of date technology, rather than having the world's best surveillance...that other nations already have".

But some of the sharpest criticisms are reserved for the department's leadership.

READ MORE:

In its report, the committee highlights public service surveys that show Home Affairs has "consistently ... the worst culture of any large commonwealth department".

"This cannot be brushed aside by grandiose critiques of the survey methodology" or claims that staff want higher pay, the report says.

"The leadership of Home Affairs needs to accept its share of responsibility".

Committee members were also clearly miffed by the way they were treated by senior department executives.

"The committee notes that how senior officials present to parliamentary committees and respond (or fail to respond) to legitimate questions on notice is not just a matter of courtesy or even the accountability of officials to the parliament - it goes directly to integrity in the public sector and...sends cultural signals to a department's officers," the report says.

Even before the report was tabled, there have been questions about whether the behemoth that is Home Affairs is any longer fit for purpose or needs to be broken up. Those questions may become even louder.