Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

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.

See this speech in context