Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) | Hansard source

The Public Service Amendment Bill 2023 comes to us in the context of widespread concerns about the capability and independence of our Public Service—whether they are still willing and able to provide the frank and fearless advice on which our system government depends. There are untold recent revelations and scandals, such as those unearthed under the robodebt royal commission, where independence was clearly lacking. And what was the consequence of that lack of independence? A failed, illegal policy was implemented, which ultimately drove some Australians to take their own lives and caused untold misery in other people's lives. It was utterly unconscionable and must never happen again.

To prevent it from happening again we need deep reform in our public sector. But my worry is that this bill is not delivering the deep reform that we need. It is delivering a series of tweaks, each one sensible and worthy of our support, but it falls well short of what the Australian people were promised and reasonably expected from this government. It is not enough for this government to do slightly better and to have slightly more integrity than its predecessor. The government has spoken extensively on the robodebt scandal in this House, in the papers and across the political divide, but, frankly, when it comes to implementing changes that will make a significant difference it is falling well short. We need complete transformation. The APS must be built and rebuilt around the principles of integrity and service. We are a long way from there, and there is a lot of work that is needed to get there. Frankly, this bill doesn't take us far enough towards these goals. It barely moves us in that direction at all.

To provide some context, as members would be aware, the Thodey review in 2019 laid out a reform vision for the Australian Public Service. In the past year, the minister has put a fair amount of work into consultation and engagement to test and develop some of Mr Thodey's recommendations. Today, some 3½ years after the report was finalised, we have the first piece of legislation resulting from that report. Unfortunately, what we don't have is a comprehensive response to the review either from the government of the day or from the new government. Right now, we don't have a clear idea about which recommendations are supported by the government and which are opposed. We don't have a roadmap for the implementation of the recommendations beyond what is contained in this bill, and we don't have certainty about where the APS will be in two, five or 10 years time.

In fact, all we really have is a high-level speech from the minister in October last year, where she set out a reform agenda with four components: integrity, client-centred service, an APS as a model employer and capability. These principles and components are all fine in principle, but a vision isn't enough. We need details about how and when the government is going to achieve this vision, what the priorities and trade-offs are and how this bill fits into the bigger picture. Without those details, it's hard to know whether this government is serious about APS reform, because this bill, frankly, doesn't go very far. It creates a new APS value, mandates the creation of a purpose statement and changes some sensible but minor governance changes. It is certainly not a reform bill.

For a government that spent many years in opposition waging a campaign against the diminishment of the public service and that has had a year in office to develop its agenda, I honestly expected more and so did the people of Wentworth. I expected a bold and ambitious piece of reform that would start to rebuild the APS's capability and restore trust and faith in this vital national institution.

The amendments I will move will not be agreed to in this place; the government has made that clear. My intention was not that they would become law but, rather, that they would shine a light on what we ought to see from this bill. Firstly, they would require the government to provide a formal written response to the Thodey review so that we know what they intend to implement and when. Secondly, they would require the government to adopt all of Thodey's themes as an APS value, instead of simply stewardship. The others include integrity, merit and openness—absolutely critical values for the Australian Public Service. Thirdly, they would expand the new rules around the APS census so that they would apply to the parliamentary departments as well as the public service departments. There is no obvious reason to me why an employee of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, for instance, should enjoy more transparency over their agency's morale and performance than the Department of Parliamentary Services.

Finally, they would require the government to table a statement whenever it appoints an agency head, outlining the recruitment process. These are the most senior appointments that the government makes to the services. This would not prevent any captain's picks from being made, but at least it would make it transparent when a position was not advertised or if no other candidates were considered. This statement would be disallowable, meaning that this chamber or the other place could potentially veto the appointment of an agency head. This would be a new power for the parliament, and I think one that would be rarely, if ever, used. But the potential exercise of the power would change the incentives for the government making these appointments. I believe it would also change the incentives for senior public servants, discouraging them to become too aligned with one party or another.

Some people may think that this is the stuff of parliament and the stuff of the Canberra bubble—that people back in our constituencies don't care about this—and that is frankly wrong. It was just last week that I was talking to John, a key businessman in my constituency, and he was telling me about his deep disappointment in the politicisation of these important public appointments. He comes from business, and his desire for government is that they have the best people for the job—not the friends of the people in power. Again, what I'm putting forward here today would increase the transparency and accountability of our public services. I think that, from what the government actually campaigned on, these are values that the government said they care about. But, when it comes down to it and when amendments are presented to them, they're not willing to support this.

Each of these amendments would strengthen our public sector and also demonstrate that this bill could be far more than what it is. I will be supporting this bill, but I will also be urging the minister to go further and live up to the commitments the government has made with respect to the Australian Public Service and to integrity more generally.

See this speech in context