Public Service Amendment Bill 2023 - In Detail
1/08/2023 Item BILLS - Public Service Amendment Bill 2023 - Consideration in Detail
I, too, want to thank the member for Fowler for engaging in this discussion around how we make sure that we have the very best Public Service delivering for the very best country in the world. I inform members of the House that the act already states, in section 10A:
(1) The APS is a career based public service that:
… … …
(g) recognises the diversity of the Australian community and fosters diversity in the workplace.
So we already have something in the act that goes to the matters which the member is rightly advocating for in terms of recognising that diversity in our Public Service is a strength and something which we can strengthen further. This amendment bill would replace a substantially similar section of the act with other words, and, as I noted, the current act already recognises and fosters diversity in the workplace.
One of the key pillars of the government's ongoing APS reform agenda is for the Australian public sector to be a model employer. I think we all know that that expectation is something which every minister of the Albanese government takes very seriously in terms of the conversations we have with our departments and in terms of the responsibilities we have through the Australian Public Service Commission and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
There is already significant work underway—commissioned by the Minister for the Public Service and being led by the Australian Public Service Commission—to promote further diversity in the Australian Public Service. This includes the work that is already underway to develop an APS Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Employment Strategy. The CALD employment strategy is something which will ensure we harness the full talents of this nation, as the member for Fowler spoke about. There is huge benefit in doing so. We recognise that, and that is why we've commenced that work. We're consulting widely in the development of the CALD Employment Strategy—including across the Australian Public Service and other jurisdictions and with the Australian Human Rights Commission, community groups and academic and subject-matter experts—because we want to get this right.
The result of this work will come to government in the coming months and we will consider it closely. Therefore, it is the view of the government that these amendments are not necessary to ensure that the government is promoting diversity in the Public Service. We share the value of recognising that diversity in the Public Service is something which many in this place champion, and we know it will get us the best results—again, not just for the Public Service but for the community which it serves.
The SPEAKER: The question before the chair is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Fowler be agreed to.
I want to thank the member for Mackellar for her engagement throughout this process of the bill progressing through the House and her commitment to building that robust Australian Public Service, which is regarded by all Australians and internationally as one where those values of integrity are key. Going to why the government is not going to support these amendments, I will firstly note that the bill that we have in front of us today. The Public Service Amendment Bill 2023, is part of an ambitious and enduring APS reform agenda. This bill in large part reflects a range of ideas and policy initiatives outlined by the Minister for the Public Service in October 2022 and has been consulted on widely. But it is just one part of our APS reform agenda.
The proposed amendment to repeal the value of 'ethical' and add new values of integrity doesn't, in the government's view, substantially change the meaning of the existing value. The existing value of 'ethical' requires that 'the APS demonstrates leadership, is trustworthy, and acts with integrity in all that it does'. So, the commitment to integrity is already there in the existing act, and, as I said before, we do expect that our Public Service is seen as one where integrity is key to everything it does. Furthermore, we see that the new value of 'excellence' is well represented by the values of being committed to service and respectful—that is: 'The APS is professional, objective, innovative and efficient and works collaboratively to achieve the best results for the Australian community and the government.' So, again, we see that these matters are already addressed.
Going to the questions around the proposed appointment of the Australian Public Service Commissioner, we believe that this is far too highly prescriptive for appointing a very important role that we in this place look to for leadership of the Public Service and that public servants themselves look for in leadership. But we do think that to be that prescriptive about the forming of an independent selection panel, so prescriptive of who could be the chair in saying that it must be a former judge and requiring that in some cases a former judge is the only person who could be appointed as chair, when you are looking for people who have broad understanding, knowledge and experience of the Australian Public Service—its history, the good parts of its culture and what it is seeking to do for the future—may result in unintended consequences.
Then we get to the questions around the proposed appointment of an agency secretary. We believe this is too fundamental a change in the process. It would require a far broader consultation, not just with other members of parliament but with many of those who require those secretaries to be their leaders in these Public Service organisations. What this amendment would do, for the information of members of the House, is repeal existing subsections 58(6) to 58(8) and replace them with the new provisions. The amendment would require the APS commissioner to have sole responsibility to prepare a report and would remove a range of consultation mechanisms that are already there. And I think one of the things we see when it comes to getting good advice to government from the public sector is that consultation and different points of view are a good thing. We don't believe that the case for that fundamental change has been made. It is a substantive decision and one that we think would need quite wideranging consultation.
I do note that the Thodey review recommends that this should be a joint function of the APS commissioner and the secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, so it would be going against that recommendation. And we believe that it's appropriate that the secretary of the lead coordinating agency—that is, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—is involved in that very important appointment process for a secretary of a department. Thank you.
While I share the member for Wentworth's passion for ensuring Australia has the best quality Public Service anywhere in the world, I would have to respectfully disagree with the description of this bill as 'weak.' This bill gets things done, some of which have been waiting to happen since we received the Thodey report back in 2019. I also note that we can't dismiss the important processes that are started when you do things such as a royal commission, as was characterised just then. You do those deep royal commissions so that you can get the answers that only a royal commission can give to government around the sorts of improvements that we need. As the Prime Minister, the Minister for the Public Service, the Minister for Human Services and others have said, we are committed to reviewing that report, giving it due regard and, if necessary, legislating a response to that report. But I note that we brought this piece of legislation into the parliament prior to receiving that report. Some people in this place might think they can predict what was going to be in a royal commission report. We had to wait to receive that report to respond to it.
On the specific proposals in these amendments, it is important that we recognise that this bill is one part of an ongoing APS reform agenda, an agenda that has been developed over the last year. The consultation that has happened included some 11,000 people engaging. When we go back to 2019 for the Thodey review, I think there were 400 consultation sessions that were part of that review. We've had deep engagement when it comes to speaking with members of the Public Service, past and present. We've had engagement in this forum and other parliamentary forums. I do want to thank not just those who have engaged in the consultation but all of the public servants who engaged in this process. We had deep engagement with the Public Service in developing this piece of legislation.
What we are concerned about in particular with these amendments is that, while they are both detailed in nature and propose quite dramatic change, they haven't gone through that same process of consultation. There is a concern from the government that, when it comes to changes to the appointments of agency heads, including secretary appointments and making them disallowable instruments, that would head us in Australia more towards a system where you have political contestability over who those appointments are. I would hate to think that you get to a point where, to cut a deal in the Senate, you are changing who is the secretary of a department to appease someone's political interests. It would be the sort of thing—and we've seen this in other countries—where you see appointments overpoliticised because they become effectively subject to Senate confirmation hearings. You would see, potentially, appointments held hostage in the Senate and departments going without secretaries for months and months after they've been announced by the government.
When it comes to the other issues around changing and adding further values for the Australian Public Service, we believe that much of what the member has rightfully identified as the sorts of guidance that you'd want to give to public servants is already captured. The existing APS value of 'ethical', which I referred to before, is:
The APS demonstrates leadership, is trustworthy and acts with integrity, in all that it does.
We already have a section in the act as it stands today that states:
The APS is a career-based public service that:
… … …
(c) makes decisions relating to engagement and promotion that are based on merit…
That is already there. The existing APS value of 'accountable' states:
The APS is open and accountable to the Australian community under the law and within the framework of Ministerial responsibility.
We believe that these appropriately capture and send the right message to the Public Service. I note that it's an obligation on every public servant to uphold those values. I think there's also an obligation on all of us when we engage with public servants to uphold those values. So, while I really do welcome the deep engagements we've had from a range of members on this bill, the government won't be supporting these amendments.
A value that the member for Wentworth and I share that is very deeply held is the value of consulting and listening to people and making sure that we respond to those consultations. I want to very briefly note that the consultations on this bill involved 1,500 responses, received through consultation between 24 March and 28 April. We had public servants at all levels respond. We took a really deliberate decision as a government to make sure that we didn't just get feedback from those who are often involved in the development of government policy. We reached out across the service—people at all levels within the service.
When it comes to, particularly, the consultation on the new value of stewardship that we're inserting in this bill, we wanted to talk about what that meant in practice. I was really encouraged to see some of the reports we got back around what stewardship would mean for public servants in terms of recognising that long-term obligation they have. As I've said before, our public service is an institution, and we should treat it as such.
I want to note the other actions the government has taken when it comes to those broader questions of integrity measures. The government has established the National Anti-Corruption Commission. It's been in operation for a month today and something that many people in this place should be rightly proud that they have helped bring to life. We have announced an independent review of public-sector board appointments and processes. We have established the APS Integrity Taskforce. We've had some work led by the Australian Public Service Commissioner to establish a range of measures to strengthen behaviours and outcomes-based performance management within the public sector.