Following the report’s release Ms Holgate said:“As I stated when I offered my resignation,I had done nothing wrong in this matter,other than failing the ‘pub test’ for some.”

Based on a series of interviews with current and former officials and staff,the 40-page report found there was “contradictory evidence” as to whether Ms Holgate informed the former chairman John Stanhope she intended to buy the watches.

It could also not establish whether Mr Stanhope had approved the commitment of funds for this purchase but found the then-board did not consider or approve the purchase of the watches.

“There is no documentary evidence that the board approved the expenditure and none of the board members interviewed recalled any discussion about the purchase of the Cartier watches,” it found.

“Board members interviewed indicated that the purchase and gifting of the watches did not fall within any formal policy regarding rewards,recognition or incentives.”

It said it was the unanimous view of the non-executive board members interviewed that they would not have approved the purchase of the watches.

“There is a tacit acceptance by interviewees that the purchase and awarding of the Cartier watches was not consistent with public expectations of board members and executives… in their management of the enterprise.”

The report found the purchase of the watches was “inconsistent” with the obligation imposed by legislation on the board relating to the proper use and management of public resources.

It also revealed Ms Holgate had phoned a “more junior employee” to instruct them to buy the watches in November 2018 from the Cartier store in Collins Street,Melbourne.

“The purchaser stated that,shortly thereafter,[they] received a text message from the former CEO which contained a screenshot of the particular watches that were to be purchased.”

Ms Holgate told investigators the watches were “openly celebrated” and “at no point did any board member (or anyone else) raise any concerns of this choice of gift”.

But the board members who were interviewed “consistently stated” the first time they became aware of the watches wasduring a Senate Estimates hearing on October 22 last year.

Mr Stanhope said in his interview that he was not required to approve expenditure by Ms Holgate or her office,the report says.

He also said he had “expressly sought management’s advice as to why he,as the chair,did not authorise/approve the CEO’s expenditure”.

The findings questioned whether it was appropriate that the chief financial officer,an Australia Post employee in a subordinate role to the chief executive,should have been approving Ms Holgate corporate credit card expenses,and said they may not be “an effective ‘check and balance’”.

The department said the review had limited powers and could not compel production of documents or other evidence.

“Interview attendance was voluntary. Individuals who declined,or did not respond to,a request for an interview may have relevant information that could not be taken into account,” it said.

The inquiry was given an expanded remit to examine the broader governance arrangements and management culture at Australia Post. This included examining whether the Australia Post board,which includes several Liberal Party figures including former federal party director Tony Nutt,acted within their obligations as chief executive and directors and whether this was consistent with the “ethical expenditure of money and use of public resources”.