3.6.2.6 The alternative viewpoint
240 As has already been noted, Ms Wong's evidence (and that of the other witnesses that she called) painted a very different picture. In summary, it tended to suggest that the problems that arose in relation to the NPP cost estimates of February 2017 were not of Ms Wong's making, and that Ms Wong had been unfairly cast in the role of scapegoat to take the fall for the various difficulties that beset the NPP over the course of its life. The evidence that she led also tended to suggest that, contrary to the opinions to which Mr Arnott testified, Ms Wong's interactions with her colleagues had earned her widespread praise and she was, in truth, a high-performing and widely-respected employee.
241 By her written submissions, Ms Wong contended that:
(1) the concerns that Mr Arnott claimed to have had about Ms Wong's behaviour "…were exaggerated and [were] not an actuating reason for removing her from the role of Internet Banking Manager"; and
(2) the concerns that Mr Arnott claimed to have had about Ms Wong's performance in relation to the NPP "…was not the real reason, and was manufactured as an excuse, to remove Wong from her role as Internet Banking Manager".
242 Insofar as concerned the first of those contentions, Ms Wong relies on a series of factual propositions that are largely (if not entirely) uncontroversial.
243 First, she notes that no attempt was ever made to discipline her in respect of her conduct towards others. Her contention is easily enough understood: if her behaviour was of such concern to Mr Arnott, why would he not have attempted to address it via some form of counselling or disciplinary action? The evidence established that NAB had in place (and Mr Arnott was familiar with) a policy concerning the management of under-performing or poorly-behaved employees; but it was never deployed to address the concerns that Mr Arnott said that he had about Ms Wong and her interactions with others.
244 Second, Ms Wong notes the timing of her removal. As is plain, it occurred not long after it became clear (as it did in early 2017) that the costs associated with the internet banking components of the NPP would be well above what had initially been estimated. Again, her contention is easy enough to understand: she posits that it was, in fact, upon that issue with the NPP - and not upon the concerns that he claimed to have about Ms Wong's behaviour - that Mr Arnott was inspired to act.
245 That contention was the subject of some exploration during Mr Arnott's cross-examination. It is appropriate to record Mr Arnott's evidence:
Now, you were very upset by this budget blowout - alleged budget blowout, weren't you, Mr Arnott?---Was I very upset? No. I mean, I - it was a - it was a concern for the whole group of senior people wrapped around NPP and digital for an extended period of time.
Well - - -?---It was - it was a - it was a - it was a big headache for me and a bunch of others over several months. Yes.
Well, you say in your affidavit that you said to Mr Copeland, "I'm really frustrated. Sene-Li has claimed the costs have blown out for NPP, and this is becoming a nightmare. We're still having so many issues with her, and I think the situation is untenable"?---Yes. Some - - -
I put to you that you were very upset - - -?---In that - in that moment, I - - - - - - Mr Arnott?---In that moment, I absolutely was, and that, for me, was a bit of a - a crescendo point - - -
Yes?--- - - - because I recall very specifically we were - we were in a meeting and it was very late on a given day - it probably was after 6 pm, 6.30 maybe, we were in a meeting room - myself, Bobby Singh, Chris Taifalos, Sene-Li, it was - and Abaran Deep, and it was another one of these meetings around where the numbers were at for NPP, and it was the same pattern as all the meetings we had had before where I was struggling to get sense and good reason from - from Sene-Li about - about where things were at. Todd happened to call me. At that point in time he was two levels above me in a really senior executive general manager role. It was for a completely unrelated matter, but he could sense when I picked up the phone there was something wrong in my voice, and he asked me, "Darren, what's wrong?" And I said, you know, words along the lines of, "Todd, I just - I'm in another meeting about these NPP numbers. Again, it's just - we're struggling, I'm really upset, I'm frustrated", and, yes, I - I used the words, "This is becoming untenable".
Was this in front of Sene-Li or you walked away?---No, this was - I took the call outside the room.
Yes?---In private.
And Mr Copeland at some later stage, you say, was very angry about what had gone on?---Well, I mean, at - at the time he was - he was - he was upset that I was upset, I guess, and he said, "Yes, clearly we have to - we have to do something".
So you reckon - when I say at the time I mean in those days, not just in that phone call, he was independently angry about the cost blowout, wasn't he?---Yes, I mean I don't remember the exact time in relation to some of the meetings, but - but it would have been within the general weeks of some of those other discussions about the -the cost challenge, like the 3.2 to the 5.2 was - was relatively closer.
Well, in your email on 16 February to Mr Taifalos, Ms Wong and Mr Singh and you said:
Think about the sponsor's perspective. Todd walked into a meeting yesterday thinking the IB cost was 3.2 million which was the positon you guys presented on Tuesday and suddenly it's 5.2 million so we need to make sure it's as watertight and explainable as possible. I haven't seen Todd so angry in a long time.
?---Yes, that was a separate event. That was specific to the meeting we had where those numbers were presented. This - the - the call I'm talking about was a separate one.
Yes, I know, but - - -?--- - - - off the back of a separate meeting.
And I said to you Mr Copeland was angry about the cost blowout?---As he - as he should be as a sponsor for, you know, a large initiative where there's some serious issues.
And you told him that one day it was 3.2 million and the next day it was 5.2 million, and that was wrong because that's not what Ms Wong had said. Ms Wong had given you different options. She never said to you it was 3.2 mill and then it was 5.2. So you've wrongly presented the situation to Mr Copeland, didn't you?---No, I haven't wrongly presented anything.
Yes?---It was - was Sene-Li presenting the numbers.
And you reported to - well, Mr Copeland was two managers up - - -?---That's right.
- - - from you. And you were accountable for the internet banking platform?---Well, ultimately, yes.
Yes?---I mean, amongst other - - -
That's right?--- - - - accountabilities I had.
And this cost blowout had happened on your watch. Well, you're the manager. This has happened on the project while you're the manager?---It happened in a team that I manage, yes.
Yes, but you're ultimately in charge of that platform?---Yes, absolutely.
Yes. You don't want to fall into the trap of blaming others the way you've done like Sene-Li. I mean, this does - this is you. You're the one responsible?---I - I agree.
Yes?---I'm responsible and I always take responsibility and accountability for - for things in my space, yes. Hence - hence highlighting there's a problem. I mean, what I would say is problem, action. Right? So - so, again, this wasn't one interaction or a week of interaction. There were months of confusion and uncertainty and discussion and inputs and outputs around NPP. Again, I keep stressing it's not just from me but from a number of senior leaders. In retrospect, I probably allowed it to go on for too long but I - like I said, I reached a crescendo point where a senior leader called me at a particular point in time when I was in the middle of yet another meeting about this very topic that we - we had been discussing and dealing with for for several months. And I - I had the bravery to say, "Hey, enough is enough. We need to do something."
246 Next, Ms Wong relied upon evidence going to the esteem in which her colleagues (or some of her colleagues) held her. It is not necessary to traverse that evidence (none of which was relevantly controversial). There was a not-insubstantial volume of material that tended to show that Ms Wong was held in high regard by many of her colleagues. Amongst it was an extract taken from "the NAB portal": a computerised facility through which employees were able to post feedback about their colleagues. That extract made plain that Ms Wong had been the subject of extensive positive feedback. Again, that evidence was put to Mr Arnott and it is appropriate to record what he said about it:
If you could go to - so you were aware, having, of course, made those comments about all this - the feedback in those - in those rows about Ms Wong?---We - yes, they came to me. And - and, again, what I would say is we encouraged people to use this system to call out achievements, to recognise people. So you would expect over a course of someone's employment they would have quite - quite a few of these. One thing I would add is I know that - and I'm, sort of, remembering this now - thinking about this. I know Sene-Li, sort of, promoted that a lot within her team to do nominations. So - so I'm not surprised that there's - there's quite a few for her and the team.
Yes. Well, it's funny you say that because they're not in her team?---Sorry? The - the people who - - -
They're not in her team?---Some of the - yes, well, some of them were from outside the team, as well.
No?---I'm not saying - - -
Not some?---Well, I can see June Lee who was in her team, Damien O'Rourke - - -
Well, when you say her team - Damien O'Rourke was in EP&C?---Well, I say - sorry, working directly with the internet banking platform.
Sorry. Okay. I understand. So you don't mean, necessarily, in Sene-Li's - like, digital business team - you mean in the team in the platform?---Yes - well, the - yes - yes.
Because Jennifer Kelly - Ms Wong gives evidence that that's EP&C - sorry, and June Lee - Ms Wong gives evidence that that was EP&C. Peter Ince reported to Nick Walker so he's in digital technology. Annie Harrison was in NAB branches?---Yes.
Damien O'Rourke - EP&C?---Yes.
Irene Yeung - digital technology. A Naresh Battula who's - digital tester. So he, I think, reported to Sene-Li?---Not necessarily reported to Sene-Li. But, yes.
Okay?---But, again, in the same - in the same - - -
Yes?---In the same sort of team. Again, we - we did a lot to break down barriers so they were working as one team.
Seem to have a bit of trouble, Mr Arnott, in acknowledging anything positive about Ms Wong, don't you?---Well - - -
I mean, these - - -?---Not - not - not - not necessarily. Of course, looking back in hindsight, given the - the whole experience, but - you know, again, and I - and I said this yesterday, from the period of a terrible outcome at the half year point which was you know, early in her employment there was some improvement. Just after that and in the build up to the end of - end of year process - you know, that this - again, this was a system where people could go in and provide quick comments for people to be able to redeem - - -
Yes?--- - - - for an internal reward. So - and look, again, I know Sene-Li pushed this really hard within her team. And I actually know, too, that from time to time she kind of made a bit of a fuss about them being for herself to try and get people to do it. What - so - so - I - I - yes. There's - there's positive feedback in here. Again, in a - in a organisation of 33,000 people where Sene-Li actually did, from time to time, deliver some - some good outcomes, I'm not surprised there's some good feedback.
Did she work with all 33,000, did she, Mr Arnott?---Absolutely not. I never - I never - never said she did.
Yes. I don't - - -?---What I'm saying is it wouldn't be unusual for some people to call out good things that people have done. I'm sure - I'm sure murderers take to the stand in cases and they get positive feedback from people. Like, everyone has people who like them and know them and give them positive affirmation.
247 Putting to one side his regrettable reference to "murderers", Mr Arnott made no attempt to deny that Ms Wong had been the subject of positive feedback, nor did he suggest that any of it wasn't well-founded. Those realities aligned with the evidence that Mr Mocnay, Mr Zhuang, Ms Jie, Mr Holmes and Mr Sarkar gave. All spoke, to one degree or another, in positive terms about their former working relationship with Ms Wong and their professional observations of her.
248 Ms Wong also suggested that Mr Arnott's appraisal of her behaviour was inconsistent with the performance review rating that she received in November 2016. As has already been explored (above, [227]-[228]), Ms Wong's end-of-year assessment incorporated a "Values Rating" of "C", which was an improvement from the "D" rating that she had received for her mid-year review some six months earlier. Mr Arnott's explanation for that has also already been explored.
249 From those evidential platforms - that is, the absence of any performance-management or disciplinary process, the timing of the decision to remove Ms Wong from her role, the existence of substantial positive feedback and the improvement in Ms Wong's formal performance appraisal - Ms Wong urges the court to infer that Mr Arnott, contrary to the evidence that he gave, was not relevantly actuated by any concern regarding her behaviour.
250 As to the other species of concern that Mr Arnott claimed to have developed - namely, concern related to Ms Wong's management of the NPP process within her internet banking platform - Ms Wong similarly relied upon a series of propositions that arose from the evidence. As will be seen, those (or some of those) were the subject of some controversy (in the sense that conflicting accounts were given).
251 First, Ms Wong contended that the "…evidence clearly established that Wong was, in fact, an excellent performer". In support of that proposition, Ms Wong cited four matters (which it is convenient to replicate from her written submissions - references excluded):
(a) …Wong increased Internet Banking's NPS from between plus 19 to 21, to plus 36 to 50 during her employment. This was the highest NPS across the Digital platforms in the NAB and MacLeod conceded in cross-examination that given the relatively small budget allocated to Internet Banking, Wong did a good job... Indeed, Arnott frequently told Wong that she and her team were doing well and that the performance of Wong's team had improved…;
(b) on 3 February 2016, Copeland, MacLeod and other members of the leadership team surrounded Wong in the NAB kitchen area and gave her what is known as a "hero clap". This was in recognition of the work that Wong was performing on the NPP project at the time…;
(c) as discussed above, there were many other employees at the NAB (including those that reported to Wong and others in management positions) who regarded Wong as an excellent performer…; and
(d) in October 2016, Wong received a bonus of $21,600 pursuant to the STI Plan…and, as discussed above, was rated a "Exceeds C" in her November 2016 performance review…
252 Whether, in fact, Ms Wong was an excellent performer is not for the court to determine. That said, none of the four factual propositions listed above was controversial. Save for specific instances to which attention will shortly turn, Mr Arnott did not cavil with the proposition that Ms Wong was a high-performing employee. He conceded, for example, that she had made improvements to NAB's internet banking platform and that she had earned the "exceeds" component of the performance ranking that he (and others) gave her in November 2016.
253 Next, Ms Wong contended that Mr Arnott was wrong to suggest that there had been, in early 2017, an unforeseen blowout in the costs associated with the internet banking components of the NPP. It is necessary to examine the evidence going to this point in some detail. As has already been explored, the costs associated with the internet banking components of the NPP were explored over a series of meetings that took place in early 2017 (above, [232]-[238]). Mr Arnott's evidence was that, over the course of those meetings, Ms Wong exhibited a poor grasp of what the costs associated with those components were likely to be, which apparently ranged over a relatively short time span between $3.2 million and $7.2 million.
254 Ms Wong contends that that is an unfair characterisation. She told the court that (as her written submissions put it), "…the estimates she was giving were not 'hard numbers' as she was still in the process of getting the required detail from the Digital Technology team, and she could therefore only give Arnott a rough estimate of what the anticipated costs of the remaining work would be." Ms Wong's evidence was that it was not possible accurately to estimate the costs associated with the NPP work that remained to be completed on her internet banking platform because her colleagues in the Digital Technology team had made significant and regular changes to the scope of that work.
255 Ms Wong denied that the budgetary problems that emerged in early 2017 were unforeseen. Instead, she said, they were the subject of her presentation in September 2016 (above, [224]). She also laid the blame for the fluidity inherent in the costs estimates that were produced squarely at the feet of the Digital Technology team and the NPP project team. It arose, she said, because of changes that were regularly made to the scope of the works that remained to be completed on the project and to the delivery expectations of those in the Digital Technology team who were charged with executing them, neither of which were of her making.
256 Ms Wong maintained that the so-called "cost blow out" that emerged in January and February 2017 was not of her making. Both she and Mr Bligh gave evidence that it was the responsibility of the NPP project team to identify the works to be completed as part of the NPP. Both gave evidence that the scope of works involved in completing the NPP changed regularly (and without their input) over time, and opined that the scopes that were prepared were vague and did not lend themselves to accurate cost estimation.
257 The increase in expected costs that emerged in early 2017 was also driven, so Ms Wong contended, by inadequate resourcing and leadership within, and below-standard execution or delivery from, the Digital Technology team. Ms Wong complained to Mr Arnott about shortcomings that she identified in the Digital Technology team, including in relation to what she perceived to be Ms Hon's limitations (see above, sections 3.5.1.7 and 3.5.1.9) and the lack of "handover" when Mr Singh took over from Mr Sutton (see above, section 3.5.1.10). Mr Bligh gave equivalent opinion evidence about many of those alleged shortcomings, as did Mr Sarkar.
258 Additionally, Ms Wong attributed the predicted increase in costs associated with the NPP that arose in early 2017 to rising costs of resources within the Digital Technology team (see above, section 3.5.1.11).
259 By way of summary, then, Ms Wong's contention was that the NPP (or the internet banking component of the NPP) was beset by a range of problems throughout 2016 and 2017, none of which were of her making or within her power to control; and that the expected increases in the costs associated with the project that emerged in early 2017 were attributable to those problems, and did not fairly reflect any failure on her part to manage or grasp the budgetary requirements of the work that remained to be completed.
260 Mr Arnott was cross-examined about all of the circumstances that I have summarily outlined above (that is to say, about all of the matters that led Ms Wong and others to form the opinions that they expressed about the problems that beset the NPP throughout 2016 and 2017 and about what it was that caused them).
261 Mr Arnott accepted that, from as early as September 2016 (when she spoke to Mr Arnott and others about the Baseline Report), Ms Wong had warned of cost increases associated with the internet banking components of the NPP. He explained that the difficulty that he had was in understanding how those increases had been calculated - a difficulty under which he understood that other senior leaders at NAB also laboured.
262 Mr Arnott also accepted that the scope of the works that were to be undertaken as part of the NPP were regularly changed. He explained that changes to scopes of work on a project of the size and complexity of the NPP were to be expected and he accepted that they were not changes for which Ms Wong was responsible. Nonetheless, he maintained that, as the manager of the platform, it remained for Ms Wong to keep abreast of the scopes of work that would affect the internet banking function and of the costs associated with it. During cross-examination, he observed that:
Abaran [Deep, who led the NPP project team] was managing the broader scope of work across all of our teams and the same problems, despite the same level of complexity if not higher complexity on other platforms, did not exist. So it was specific to internet banking. These concerns were specific to internet banking and seemingly not an issue for the other - for the other platforms that Abaran was delivering into.
263 It was put to Mr Arnott that "one possible explanation for that was that the Digital Technology team in the internet banking platform was really struggling" (in other words, that the Digital Technology personnel who were responsible for delivery within the internet banking platform were not performing at the required standard). Mr Arnott did not accept that that was so. He did accept that, at early points in the project, the internet banking components of the work to be delivered had not been properly resourced.
264 Under cross-examination, Mr Arnott was taken to an email that Mr Taifalos circulated on 24 February 2017 to Mr Bligh and Ms Wong. In that email, Mr Taifalos identified what he described as "serious concerns regarding NPP (and possible other Digital) estimates and the way we do things" (emphasis original). It was put to Mr Arnott that the problems that Mr Taifalos identified in that email "…were problems largely the responsibility of the digital technology delivery employees", to which he responded:
Well, I mean, I can sort of step through it and make an inference if you would like me to. I mean, firstly, bullet point 1 says, "Estimation problems". Estimation is not exclusive to tech. Estimation comes from people in various roles across the team. "Program governance", not specific to tech. Everyone in a leadership role has a role to play in governance for any project, including NPP. "Program process problems", that sounds like a broader program thing, not a specific tech thing. Likewise, the bullet point below. So I don't understand the inference you're making…
265 The topic then moved to the fact that the scopes of work to be completed on the project had been the subject of regular change with "…no change to the [internet banking] budget":
That's one of the things that Ms Wong was complaining about, wasn't it?---Yes, but from this - from my recollection, the - again, the NPP program was a multi-hundred million dollar program. They divided up that program into its constituent parts, and those constituent parts have constituent parts. Dollars are dished out to teams, to platforms, to deliver their scope into the program. I actually agree, for a long time the program said, "Hey, we hear there are concerns here but we want to leave the budget that we've set for these teams as they are, and we will look at the collective of the program to figure out if at any given point in time we can allocate more dollars to these things or where we need to make trade-offs". So there's nothing that's a revelation in there.
No?---If there's no change to the IB budget, that's the program making a decision that they don't need to adjust the IB budget at that point in time. I know as it turns out, across all of our digital platforms, there were adjustments to the budget because all of them realised to at least a small degree, some change in scope, some change to scope being realised as executed and any number of issues which occurred during the execution of the - the - the project, so the fact that there hasn't been a change to the IB budget for NPP, it's kind of insignificant. It's just that's the program saying, "Hey. We might hear concerns, but we're leaving that budget as it is for now, and we will figure it out if we need to, over time."
Well, it says here the change request, mobile has received $[redacted] in additional funds for change requests, and IB has received nothing?---Well, I - there might be a valid reason for that. I mean, from - from my recollection, the - the total dollars going to mobile were - were greater than what we were spending on internet banking, so that may have been for something quite specific that the program governance group agreed needed to paid for, whereas for the internet - - -
Weren't you part of that group?---Whereas, for the internet banking team, it might have a case of saying, "No. We're going to hold the budget where it is, and we will see, over time, how we're - how we're tracking."
Yes?---And in the end, actually, what I would say is that decision that was made by the program was proven to be sound, because the - the foreseen cost blowouts that - that Sene-Li was presenting at that time were never realised, so it was actually the right thing, in hindsight.
266 Mr Arnott was also challenged about his affidavit evidence that Ms Wong had "demonstrated that she wasn't prepared to take any accountability" for the issues that emerged in relation to the NPP in early 2017:
- - - you talk about a discussion with Mr Wong about taking - Ms Wong about taking accountability for the forecast cost blowout:
It's not my fault. I'm getting -
this is - Ms Wong says:
I'm getting the estimates from the tech team. The requirements for [the] NPP aren't clear -
etcetera, and then you say:
I considered this response to be unacceptable from a senior leader, as it demonstrated she wasn't prepared to take accountability.
But, Mr Arnott, it's a team effort. I think we said earlier, they needed, for the internet banking platform to work in the NPP, it needed digital tech, EP&C and the digital business all working together. Right. And if one or two areas aren't up to it, that's going to make it hard for everyone, isn't it?---I don't disagree with that. Yes.
What's wrong, then, with Ms Wong attributing the fault in the cost blowout to the tech team and the scopes being changed?---What - what was wrong was I was having conversation with Sene-Li saying - all of us. Again, it wasn't specific to me, all of us, and those names I mentioned before, we were looking at this: "We have concern - it doesn't make sense. We've had this increase of 5.2 to 3.2," and we can argue about whether that was chain-specific or a whole bunch of other things. Her reaction to that wasn't, "Damn. I'm disappointed too. I want to work through this. How can we resolve it? What do we need to do? What can I do better?" It was "not my fault - technology's fault - not my problem. Why are you having a go at me?" It was defensive. It was confrontational. It was the typical Sene-Li reaction and behaviour that I saw. That's what I'm pointing out. That's unacceptable, as a senior leader in my team, to say, "Yes. I agreed in my role purpose statement that it is my accountability to be across all the numbers and to be ultimately accountable for delivery on this platform." It's unacceptable to - to sit there and point the finger and go, "Not my fault - it's tech." Right. And that's the reaction that I got, so that's what I'm pointing out.
Because you didn't like when Ms Wong complained about other departments and them dropping the ball, did you?---I didn't what? Sorry.
You didn't like when Ms Wong complained about other departments and accused them of dropping the ball, did you?---No, not in the way she did it, absolutely not. No. That - we had really good open forums and team practices that facilitated open discussion and dialogue together as a group, not pointing fingers behind closed doors.
Well, she's not pointing a finger behind closed doors. She's having a conversation with you where you're unhappy with what's going on with the budget. You can hardly say she's having - doing it behind closed doors?---It's - again, it's the way it has been delivered, so picture I'm having a one-on-one discussion with Sene-Li, who's a direct report of mine. I'm talking about this notion of accountability: "You need to take some accountability for these numbers and for where things are at." There wasn't even a - an acknowledgement of any wrongdoing on her part, any better approach, any question of okay advice, or whatever it might be. The typical things I would say would come up in a discussion like that with your people ..... it was - it was defensive, accusational: "It's not my fault. Don't blame me." You know, that - that sort of pattern of behaviour.
You - - -?---Again, I can't repeat it enough: that's unacceptable for a senior leader in - in - in a - in a place like NAB.
Even when there's validity to the things that she's saying?---The - even - it - well, yes, it - even if there's validity in any concern being expressed, there's a right or wrong way to have a conversation about that and/or accept part accountability or responsibility for something. Yes.
267 It was put to Mr Arnott - and he agreed - that the internet banking platform was not the only digital platform that experienced cost blowouts related to the NPP. He drew a distinction between the way that those difficulties were handled by the other platforms and the way that Ms Wong handled them:
The fact is the NPP - NAB Connect and NPP also had budget problems, didn't they?---Well, in - I would say in total, in terms of the NPP work hitting the digital team, yes, there were - there were challenges. It was a large program. Critical dates - we've spoken about the importance to the organisation. Yes, there were - there were lots of issues. Again, this is not about "were there issues?" This is about how were the issues handled and articulated. And I can[']t say it enough, there's a stark difference in how they were acknowledged, articulated and treated in internet banking versus the rest of the teams, and - - -
Okay. Well - - -?--- - - - our professional judgment was that a lot of that was - was due to the way Sene-Li was operating.
268 Having accepted that he had had a hand in drafting it, Mr Arnott was also cross-examined about the 21 March Meeting Summary that Ms MacLeod sent to Ms Wong after their meeting of that day (at which Ms Wong was informed of her removal from the role of "Manager[,] Internet Banking" - above, [34]). Although lengthy, it is appropriate to replicate the course of that cross-examination:
If we can go to, under the first bold heading, the last bullet point:
Lack of transparency and clear articulation of risks and issues -
I put to you, Mr Arnott, that that is, in fact, not correct, and Ms Wong was regularly articulating to you the risks and issues within the platform in verbal and - conversations and emails, wasn't she?---Sene-Li may have been highlighting risks and issues that she saw in the platform, but not a transparent and articulate way.
Well, I mean, transparency is where you actually set out in some detail what's going on and not looking to hide. I mean, is that what you would understand transparency to be?---Yes. I think that's a fair - yes.
You could hardly accuse Ms Wong of lacking transparency. She made it very clear to you, perhaps in a way you didn't appreciate, in terms of her style, but she certainly made it very clear to you, on a regular basis, "Mr Arnott, this is a problem. These are the issues. Look. Help." You agree she was doing that?---Well, I - I - no. I - I think if - if you think about transparency, transparency relates to clarity. Right. And I - I said numerous times yesterday that a number of us struggled to get clarity from - from what Sene-Li presented, despite me and many of the people who shared that view doing their own deep dive and analysis on things that she was presenting, so if - - -
Well, that's the next point, isn't it: clear - - -?---If - if - if transparency - well, I - I think they're - they're related. Right. So, transparency and clarity, I would say, are somewhat similar in definition.
All right?---You know, anybody could say anything and say, "Well, I'm being transparent." Doesn't mean it's true.
Okay. Well, bullet point 1, under the second bold heading:
Despite the NPP program running for more than 12 months, the underperformance and cost increase has only been called out in recent weeks.
Mr Arnott, Ms Wong called out cost increases, or warned of them, in September 2016?---She did. She did.
I put to you that she did not only call that out in the recent weeks prior to that email?---Well, I think we're referring specifically to the ones that were in that recent period, which we touched on yesterday, where there was a rapid increase in costs over a period of - of - of days, at one point. This is - this is related to a specific component of reporting the underperformance and - and cost increase, not the - you know, not the whole piece over the preceding 12 months. I mean, it was a very long program that ran over several years. The concern was, we got so far in, and we got to a point where it felt like, to all of us involved at a senior level, that there were things coming up and changing almost on a daily basis, so that's - that's what we're referring to there.
Well, the evidence you give, Mr Arnott, is that things changed over two days, on 15 and 16 February. That's what you say. That's your evidence?---Well, that was certainly part of it. Yes.
Well, that's not changing on a daily basis in a general sense. That's just a period of two days where there's some uncertainty about costs, in a project that went for, from what you say, like, over a year and a half. That - do you accept that?---I - I would say it's very unusual for a number to turn into a number that's $2 million greater in the space of a day or two. That's not - that's not normal.
But I showed you yesterday this internet banking platform options evaluation from February 2017, and again, I say to you that these were not hard and fast, as they call it, bottomed out numbers that Ms Wong was giving you. She was giving you various options, wasn't she?---There is a document where Sene-Li presented options. Yes. Again, what I would say is the same thing I've said numerous times, which is a lot of - a lot of us who consumed those numbers couldn't make sense of them - - -
Yes?--- - - - and how they were derived.
But you would - you agree that this was a complex project - - -?---Absolutely, yes.
- - - with many moving parts even within the internet banking platform?---Yes.
Scopes were changing?---Scopes always change in projects.
Yes?---And yes, that wasn't immune to it. Yes.
There was an issue with - this is pointed out in a document I showed you yesterday. There was a bit of an issue with change realisation and change requests?---Yes. There was - there was certainly dispute about what constituted one or the other. Yes.
Yes. That's right. And there were difficulties in underperformances in the digital technology team that were going on over a period of time?---There were, likewise other teams as well. Yes.
Yes. I understand. And there was a bit of an issue with the resourcing of EP&C with Mr O'Rourke and needing eventually to get Mr Taifalos?---Yes.
Right. Well, Mr Arnott, I put to you that it is quite ridiculous, in those circumstances, to attack Ms Wong for calling out cost increases in January and February 2017 as one of the reasons for removing her from her role?---Well, I - I - I disagree with - with that. I mean, to - to put things simplistically, it - it wouldn't have been called out to this extent if a number of senior leaders actively involved in that program didn't see the same thing that both Catherine and I saw. This is not a surprise to anybody. This was - this was a known fact, if you like, across the key people wrapped around this project, so if one of us are wrong, all of us are wrong.
And you had been warned in September 2016 that there were some cost problems in relation to the internet banking platform, by Ms Wong?---Yes, which was a different point in time and doesn't necessarily relate to what ended up happening in that period of January/February of 2017.
Yes?---Yes. I - I - I agree there were some call outs back then. Yes.
Yes. But it - - -?---Likewise, there were call outs for the program on other platforms too.
But it just seems it's not true that the cost increase had only been called out in recent weeks. Cost increases had been called out throughout the back half of - the back half of 2016?---With - I mean, I - I - I feel like I'm just repeating it, but again, the - the - the issues in preceding weeks leading up to this were far more significant than whatever previous issues were worked through in relation to the costs and scope, and whatever else, around the NPP. We all felt like, as leaders, there was something fundamentally wrong with how Sene-Li was presenting and articulating the position. We also felt as though - which was probably even a more important point in many ways. Her behaviours around those numbers were inappropriate. That's what this is all about.
Yes?---It's not about what happened six months earlier. It's about what happened in the - you know, in the weeks leading up to this.
And that's the issue for you. It was her behaviours that was the real problem?---Over the case of her employment, I would say, on balance, if we're talking about outcomes versus behaviours, this is obviously, based on her - her ratings. The systemic issue with Sene-Li was absolutely her behaviours and the impact she was having on people.
And it didn't in truth, Mr Arnott, have anything to do with the cost increase, so you say, in January and February 2017, and that was just an excuse that you wanted to put in there to buffer the reasons for terminating or removing Ms Wong from her role as program manager?---Well, I - I can't talk about the termination, because I wasn't a part of it, but - - -
Sorry - the removal. Yes?---But I - I disagree with that. I think, in many ways, what happened with the NPP - and again, all of us in key roles around that saw her to be a major issue in what was being presented, not anybody else, but a lot of it was - was centred around her, and that was the educated opinion of a bunch of senior and knowledgeable experienced people with high exposure to that project. In many ways, my view is the NPP issues brought to light in probably a more visible way to more people than otherwise the issues have been exposed around her behaviours.
Well - - -?---I - so, I agree that the - the main thing with respect to - to Sene-Li, and the main reason why I called out to Todd and Catherine that I thought her role was untenable, was because she was having a terrible impact on people, including myself, and her behaviours simply weren't acceptable. Like I said, there's no doubt in mind - and I'm sure Catherine would attest to this too - that she would have received a D again for this half year period, and I'm not sure what her performance outcome would have been, but that wouldn't have been great either. Right. That - that is a fundamental issue.
But what had really happened, in truth, Mr Arnott, is that the cost increase reflected poorly on you because that was ultimately your responsibility, didn't it?---I - I - I disagree. I think, you know, if I look back at my performance over the years at NAB and the success I had there over a long time, I think one of the key things about how I operate is I'm always prepared to take accountability and responsibility for my teams. The action we I undertook here, which I said, as I said earlier, I think was a brave one, was to say there seems to be, based on all the evidence we have, a specific problem centred around a specific person, and again, I say the proof is in the pudding, because, when Sene-Li was removed from the role and Adam Dinneen came in, the team stabilised very quickly. People were happy, and if you like, I can give specific examples of people's feedback to me about what happened after that, and the outcomes for NPP were greatly improved. This doomsday scenario that Sene-Li was putting forward never eventuated. Right. So - - -
Well, we're going to come to that?---So - so, I just - the proof is in the pudding. Right.
But in your own affidavit, you say, at paragraph 17:
I had overall responsibility for delivery costs.
Are you saying that, where there was a blowout in the NPP project, that was not your responsibility?---Well, let - let me - let me say it again. You've - you've got to look at the hierarchy for an - an organisation and where accountability starts and ends. Does it - does it end with the CEO, the board, shareholders? I mean, I had an overall accountability for a number of platforms in my remit. I had 50 or 60 projects happening at once. I had a big team of people. I had hundreds of people working in the structure underneath me.
Yes?---I had a broader role to play on a digital leadership team. Of course, when there's an issue within my team with a person or a platform or a project, or whatever it might be, there's a degree of accountability and responsibility that I have, likewise Catherine in her role, likewise Todd in his role, likewise the CEO, likewise the board. That's how big companies work. I tried my very best, and I was well rewarded as a leader at NAB for way - for the ways in which I reacted to and handled problems, and I - I thought I handled this particular situation to the best of my ability, and I would never shirk responsibility or accountability for this, and in the end, again, I would argue the action that we undertook and - and the call out that I made to say this is untenable, the call that I made to - to get Adam Dinneen, who was already in a big role, to cover this remit, it all paid off, because it worked, and we recovered, and everyone was happy.
Well, I put to you, Mr Arnott, that in relation to costs increases on the internet banking platform, you didn't do a good job, and you fell asleep at the wheel, and that's why costs blew out?---I - well, I - I disagree, and so do a number - number of leaders who assessed what happened at that point in time.
And rather than take responsibility, because you have overall responsibility for delivery cost, you threw Ms Wong under the bus and blamed all of it on her. That's what you did, isn't it?---I disagree.
269 Mr Arnott was also cross-examined about NAB's performance management policy. Consistently with the contention that she advanced, it was put to him - and he acknowledged - that he had not taken any steps to apply that policy to Ms Wong prior to February 2017. There then ensued the following exchange:
Yes. And the reason that [matters came to a head] in February 2017 is because there had become a costs blowout on the project which had embarrassed you. That was what motivated you?---It's - I can honestly say it is not at all about embarrassment. Again - I've said it numerous times - it was about the behaviours, and what we were all seeing around the NPP. That was a - that was a catalyst, if you like, that brought together a year and a half of pain to get to that point. It was a - it was a pivotal moment, in the sense that, like I said, I called out, in very definitive terms, to my two People Leaders, one of whom was an EGM - very senior person - I said, "This is untenable."
You did?---And that's - I can't believe that, you know, I had to say that about a senior manager within - within my team. That's a - that's a pretty significant action.
It is, and what had happened was that, throughout 2016, Ms Wong had called out issues and concerns about the NPP project, hadn't she, yes or no?---She - yes. Yes.
Yes. And she had been complaining to you about problems that were besetting her team on the NPP?---She had raised a number of issues and - - -
Yes?--- - - - concerns and risks and - yes.
And blaming other people in those complaints - it's always someone else's fault, yes?---She - she - she often did. Yes.
Yes. Yes. And you didn't like it, did you?---Well, of - of course as a people leader, I didn't like it, because it wasn't acceptable.
270 Mr Arnott denied that he was concerned about, or in any way actuated by, the fact that Ms Wong had made any of the complaints or inquiries that she made. He impressed upon the court that "…the raising of issues [was] not the problem…it's the behaviours and the - the specific actions we saw around NPP and a whole bunch of other things during her employment."