Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Public Service Amendment Bill 2012 is a bill which is largely technical in nature but, in the words of the minister responsible, it seeks to simplify the values of the public service from 15 down to five. They will be the terms: service, ethical, respectful, accountable and impartial. As he said, they are more succinct, memorable, easy to understand and will help the service to create an ethical high-performance culture. The one provision in this bill which I do not believe can in any way meet that high aim is the proposed amendment which would allow the Prime Minister of the day, on behalf of the Commonwealth, on terms and conditions as determined by the Prime Minister, to appoint a secretary of a department, who has resigned or whose period of office has come to an end, to any appointment that the Prime Minister may wish—and that could be an indefinite appointment.

We in the coalition have proposed to amend the bill to delete those provisions. I flag that I will be moving those amendments in consideration in detail. I note that the government will be moving amendments in consideration in detail dealing with the original concept of a 'temporary employee' and with another provision, which the minister will no doubt himself explain. In discussions about the bill between me and the minister and his department, we have concluded that the government will accept my amendments and the opposition will agree to the government's amendments.

Before I go on to explain precisely some of the provisions of the bill that we are accepting, it is important to outline why we feel so strongly about amending the bill so that the only people who will be able to be appointed by the Prime Minister as secretaries will remain as they are in the current act, the Public Service Act 1999, which provides that, if a government department is abolished, the secretary can be appointed elsewhere and that, should a secretary have his or her term terminated by the Prime Minister, after appropriate investigation and reporting that person can be appointed elsewhere.

We are concerned on two counts about the proposed extension of the ability to appoint secretaries. One of those is that we have the precedent in New South Wales of the so-called swingers list—a whole bunch of public servants, including secretaries, who no longer have a job and simply remain on the payroll. I think it reached something like 340 at one stage, and it is only now that Premier O'Farrell is in power that he is moving to reduce the list of people who are being paid for doing nothing. This provision would have allowed such a list to develop federally. Although people will say that that is nobody's intent, it is still something that we believe is highly undesirable, and accordingly we will be moving amendments to remove that provision.

The second concern we have relates to the minister's words that I mentioned earlier:

The proposed values—that the APS is committed to service, is ethical, respectful, accountable and impartial—are more succinct and memorable, easy to understand, and will help the service to create an ethical, high-performance culture.

It is always essential that the public service can be relied upon for fair and impartial advice that ministers can act upon. Having been a minister in the previous government, I can tell you it is very valuable to have. Introducing this provision would mean that a particular secretary, by being obsequious to a Prime Minister of the day, could seek to resign and be appointed to a position indefinitely which would be to their personal benefit. This is also against the intent of the act as a whole. The difficulty has shown itself. We have had one example of it. Because there is no provision in the Public Service Act to appoint a secretary who has resigned or whose term has come to an end, the mechanism that has been used on this occasion has been section 67 of the Constitution. The Constitution allows for the appointment by the Governor-General of persons to positions as advisers, and this has been utilised by the Prime Minister in the case of the former head of the Treasury. What has happened in that circumstance has made it very public. The terms and conditions upon which Mr Henry has been appointed are as follows:

ii. the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet be the approving authority for the Special Adviser to the Prime Minister for leave, including long service leave;

iii. for any period that the Special Adviser performs the duties of that office on a full-time basis (40 hours per week), the remuneration and other terms and conditions of employment for the Special Adviser be the same as those that apply to the person who holds the position of Secretary of the Department of the Treasury at the relevant time;

iv. the Prime Minister may agree that the duties of the Special Adviser are to be performed on a part-time basis; and

v. for any period that the Special Adviser performs the duties on a part-time basis, the remuneration referred to in clause (c)(iii) above be payable, and other entitlements accrue, on a pro-rata basis.

The problem is that this appointment as a special adviser was made under the hand of Her Excellency on 21 April 2011 but it was some five months later before it was eventually decided that there was work for him to do, on the Asian white paper. In the meantime, as of 15 March 2012, the head of Treasury would had an income of $615,000 a year, rising to $653,000 on 1 July 2012 and to $805,000 on 1 July 2014.

On 14 February, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet told Senate estimates that Dr Henry was working 2½ days a week. I have received a letter from the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, from Mr Dreyfus, dated 14 August 2012, in answer to questions that I asked in consideration of detail of the appropriations bill.

It says that, as at 27 July 2012, Dr Henry had worked 69 days in total since 5 January at an average of 2½ days a week and that no decisions have yet been taken regarding any future projects in Mr Henry's capacity as Special Adviser to the Prime Minister. That means that, as at 1 July 2012, his remuneration will be $326,500; as at 1 January 2013, $345,500; and, if the appointment continues—and there is no end to this appointment—by 1 July he will be receiving, presuming he remains on 2½ days a week, $402,500.

In addition to that, Mr Henry is permitted to take on other work in the private sector, and he has taken on a position as a director of the National Australia Bank. That would seem to many of us to be a position of conflict of interest but it has been disclosed, as his appointment requires, and he continues in that role as well. We believe that the provision put into the act could have facilitated many more appointments like this. Many of them would have gone largely unknown, because section 67 would not have had to be used.

There are some good things in the legislation which are worthy of response and support. The commissioner will be now known as the Australian Public Service Commissioner, and greater powers do come to him. He is given the power to delegate authority to people who will be able to carry out investigations for him where the workload, were it to be done properly, would simply be too large. Code of conduct amendments will apply in connection with an employee's employment. Section 13(11) of the act is amended to require employees to behave in a way that upholds the integrity and the good reputation of their agency, as well as the APS—which is the current requirement—and to comply with the proposed employment principles as well as the APS values.

A section includes provisions to require agency heads to establish procedures for an Australian Public Service employee to make a whistleblower report and for agency heads to deal with such reports, and provides a regulation making power to prescribe basic procedural requirements that must be complied with by the Public Service Commissioner or a delegate in dealing with whistleblower reports. This amendment will provide that regulations may prescribe circumstances in which agency heads, or the commissioner, may decline to conduct, or may decide to discontinue, an inquiry.

Another part deals with temporary employment. In the original legislation there were only to be two categories of employees—ongoing and temporary. The government has found, on advice, that this was a difficult provision to sustain and it is proposing amendments which will take us back basically to the previous position. Confidentiality of information was also of concern to the government and there are related amendments. It is now provided that persons who are conducting inquiries will also have the cover of being protected.

There is an amendment to the legislative instruments section that provides direction-making powers for the Public Service Commissioner to allow the commissioner the discretion to issue directions on employment matters relating to all Australian Public Service employees, including SES employees, on matters such as engagement, promotion, redeployment, mobility, training schemes and termination. There are some miscellaneous amendments which relate to the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, and they are supported by the opposition. The current provision is a prohibition on reduction rather than active power, and this has caused some confusion. with respect to the delegation of power.

I go back to the original point that I wanted to make, that much of this bill is endeavouring to be aspirational in terms of upholding integrity and not bringing the public service or an agency into disrepute. The current legislation does not allow a prime minister of the day to appoint a former secretary who has resigned, or whose appointment has come to an end, to any position he or she may choose for an indefinite period of time. There are two reasons for this, as I have already said—first, that it could encourage the creation of a list of so-called swingers, or the unattached list as it was known in New South Wales, and, secondly, because it could undermine those high aspirational ideals whereby a secretary of the day could wish to be subservient to a government of the day with the aim of securing employment.

I place on record—particularly because of some debate that has taken place in this chamber recently concerning the determination that the Independents chose to listen to in order that they would support the government and not vote against the appropriation bills and would give an undertaking that they would not vote on a motion of no confidence—that we sought to have our costings done by an independent source because we believed that Treasury had become politicised. That was in order until such time as the hung parliament was evident and the Independents required a briefing from Treasury—from Mr Henry himself—to tell them about the costings of the coalition's policies.

In our costings, we had identified savings of $2.5 billion against the conservative bias allowance, which is the allowance in the budget papers for corrections with regard to new policy—a buffer, you might call it. In that case, the $2.5 billion was disallowed, for want of a better term, by Mr Henry. He said that the allowance was a buffer and therefore could not be the source of any actual budgetary savings. But, in the 2009-10 budget, Mr Henry himself claimed $4.6 billion in savings over the forward estimates from that conservative bias allowance.

We had claimed that $3.3 billion could be saved from across the Health and Hospitals Fund, the Education Investment Fund and the Building Australia Fund. Mr Henry disallowed that. He said that, to claim the savings, we would have had to have identified, prior to the election, which programs were to be cut. He then said there was a secret list of programs—we had asked for that list and he said that it was secret and that he would not release it prior to the election, despite having been asked for it.

Then we came to the NBN, where we claimed $2.4 billion of savings. We said there would be a saving on borrowings because we would not be borrowing the same amount and that there would therefore be savings in interest. We calculated that saving using an interest rate of 5.5 per cent. Mr Henry said no, that he had decided that the going rate for the future would be 4.9 per cent and that he would therefore disallow our claimed amount as a saving. The only problem is that, at the time—in September, when I checked and first talked about these things—the rate was in fact 5.23 per cent.

Next we came to the question of returning people to work and the resultant saving on welfare payments. We said we would save $600 million, but Mr Henry said no to that on the basis that it was a second-round figure. But Mr Henry himself had used a second-round saving of $600 million for the government's purposes with regard to the mining tax.

Then we came to the question of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the PBS, where possible savings of up to 40 per cent had been identified by the government prior to the election. But the government had chosen to use savings of only 23 per cent. So we said there was an additional 17 per cent, valued at $1.15 billion. But Mr Henry said no, our savings could not be allowed, and that therefore there was a further hole in our budget. It is interesting to note that, since Mr Henry disallowed that saving, the government itself has actually booked the $1.15 billion for its own savings.

Those amounts added up to $9.95 billion—and the figure for what Mr Henry said was a black hole in our accounts was $11 billion. Mr Windsor could not wait to get on television and say that, because there was a big hole in our budget and we could not do our accounting properly, he would have to vote for the government. From all of this, I think one can see that the impartiality of the Treasury and of other agencies and departments is essential if we are to have trust in the sorts of figures being produced. The bottom line is that, if we did not move our amendments, we might again see instances of people seeking to serve the interests of the government of the day rather than the public interest. We do not think that would represent good policy, particularly when the whole of the bill is designed to be aspirational in nature.

I am pleased to say that, when we come to the consideration in detail, at which time we will be moving our amendments and the government will be moving their amendments, we have agreed that each of us will accept the other's amendments to allow the bill to go forward and keep its aspirational nature intact. We trust that will help to make reality those memorable words the minister used:

The proposed values—that the APS is committed to service, is ethical, respectful, accountable and impartial—are more succinct and memorable, easy to understand, and will help the service to create an ethical, high-performance culture.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to be speaking on the Public Service Amendment Bill 2012 as it gives me the opportunity to talk about the excellent work that that fine body of men and women who populate the Australian Public Service do on behalf of the Australian people and the government of Australia, day in and day out. Around 120,000 of them turn up to work to make our airports safe, to patrol our coasts, to ensure that pensioners and family benefit recipients have their payments made and their inquiries answered, to ensure that tax returns are done on time and that people pay as much tax as they should and no more than they ought, and to ensure that members of the Australian Defence Force are properly supported in far-flung places of the globe as indeed they should be. I should also mention that excellent work of the men and women who assist in providing services to this House.

The bill implements some of the changes recommended in the report, Ahead of the game: blueprint for reform of Australian government administration. The report arose out of the Moran review of the Australian Public Service, a review I had a little bit to do with in a former life. On 8 May 2010, the then Prime Minister announced that the government had accepted all the recommendations of the report. This bill takes forward some of those recommendations for a modern, contemporary employment framework which will help give the APS greater agility and help make it more responsive to the community and to government. Implementation of these reforms will result in greater efficiency and a more effective use of Commonwealth resources. It will facilitate and accelerate the cultural shift of the APS towards operating, as the minister said in his second reading speech, 'more effectively as one Australian Public Service'.

The amendments in the bill are an important part of modernising the Australian Public Service to ensure it has the capacity to cope with the challenges of the future. In every single one of the challenges we face as a nation, the Australian Public Service is at the front line in delivering both the policy advice and the services that will assist us as a nation in confronting those challenges. The amendments will reposition the Public Service Commissioner and the APSC to deliver on the broad reform goals of the public service workplace. The bill will empower secretaries and the leadership group to deliver on the policy goals of the government through greater independence in operation and greater accountability in performance.

There are three significant sets of amendments in the bill. Part 1 of schedule 1 to the bill provides new descriptions of the roles and responsibilities of secretaries, particularly in relation to their stewardship of the Australian Public Service. The revised descriptions make clear the service and performance expected of secretaries, and strengthen secretaries' accountability to their ministers in the performance of their role and in discharging their responsibilities. The new, proposed section 61A of the act requires an annual review of the performance of a secretary to be carried out in accordance with a framework established by the secretary of the Prime Minister's department and the Public Service Commissioner. This will provide greater accountability, transparency and oversight of the performance of secretaries.

The second set of measures will reposition the Public Service Commissioner and the APSC to deliver on broad reform goals and increase their responsibility for Australian government policies on APS agreement making and on pay and conditions. The commissioner will have three broad functions. The first is to strengthen the professionalism of the APS and facilitate contentious, sorry, continuous improvement—probably contentious improvements as well!—in workforce management in the APS. The second is to uphold high standards of integrity and conduct in the APS. The third is to monitor, review and report on APS capabilities within and between agencies to promote high standards of accountability, effectiveness and performance. The bill specifically recognises the commissioner's role as the central authority for APS workforce development and reform.

The third set of measures represent a revision of the APS values. The blueprint recognised the power of values as a foundation for reform and thus took the opportunity to revise the APS values as a means of assisting cultural change, which would in turn help to achieve the desired APS performance. The values and the employment principles are statements about the essential character and philosophy of the APS. They define what the APS is and how it should operate. These amendments seek to implement the blueprint's recommendations to revise the APS values and to establish APS leadership groups. The APS values are to be revised in order to replace the current set of 15 with a shorter set of five, and to introduce a set of employment principles. They are: committed to service, ethical, respectful, accountable and impartial—hard to cavil at any of these being employment principles.

The proposed APS values and employment principles together capture the essence of the existing 15 values, blending contemporary ethics with enduring principles of public administration that go to the heart of the Westminster model. No important concepts have been lost. Agency heads and APS employees will be required to uphold the values and the employment principles. Agency heads and SES employees will also be required to promote them, reflecting the key responsibility that they have as leaders within their agencies to set the tone for the right culture.

It is important that we continually review the legislation that enshrines employment arrangements and the performance of work within the Australian Public Service. It is one of our most important and enduring institutions. From time to time, the capacity of the public service is stretched to breaking point. One of the important functioning principles that we as a government have adopted is ensuring that we run a tight budget and that we return the budget to surplus as promised, and I know that this has placed a degree of strain on public service agencies. But I know with equal force that the men and women of the public service are committed to delivering services on behalf of the Australian government to the people of Australia.

Of course, a tight fiscal environment is not the only threat facing the men and women of the Australian Public Service. We know that there are alternative proposals as to how the APS should be regulated and funded. For example, we know that, if the opposition come to government at the next election, they will make huge cuts to the Australian Public Service in order to fund the $70 billion black hole in their policy costings. This was confirmed as recently as today by the Leader of the Opposition. They have a mammoth target. Make no mistake: to be able to bring in anything like the $70 billion of savings that will be necessary for them to meet their commitments, they will have to take to the Australian Public Service with scissors to a degree that has never been seen before.

We have had a taste of what coalition policies mean for the public service around the country. We have seen what their state colleagues are doing in Queensland, for example, where a recently elected Premier, without forewarning, is taking to that public service. Against the promises and assurances made that front-line services would not be under attack, we are seeing exactly that in Queensland today in the health system, in the education system, in the public transport system—in fact, there is no sector in the Queensland public service that will escape the scourge of public sector job cuts.

In New South Wales, my own state, we are seeing the shape of that looming up as well as the O'Farrell government starts to take a cleaver to front-line services. The people of New South Wales are starting to see front-line services at risk because of the ideological desire to slash public sector and front-line jobs.

It is disturbing that the coalition seems, in some of the statements that have been made by some of the opposition spokespeople, to be embracing the policies of the UK Prime Minister David Cameron's guru Phillip Blond, who seems to be in vogue at the moment. Mr Blond has been advising the coalition about the notion of the so-called 'big society'. There is every sign that the coalition is adopting this conservative government approach to our public services in Australia. We have already heard the family spokesperson saying that a coalition government would cut federal oversight of aged care, child care, employment and family services. We have seen the devastating impact on recipients of aged-care services unless you have a strong cop on the beat, ensuring that those most vulnerable people in our community, people who are reliant on federally funded aged-care services, childcare services, health care and the like are not kept on their game by strong federal oversight.

People in this country will have a lot to fear if there is an adoption of the Blond approach to public sector administration. It is a failed approach. Since it was adopted in the UK, 7,000 charities have been forced to close the door. This is the agenda which seeks to enliven civil society. Have no doubt about it: the 'big society' agenda is nothing more than a big smoke screen for slashing government services and the people who provide those services.

I would like to make a few observations in response to what was said by the member for Mackellar just recently. One of the measures in this bill which I think has merit is the one which enables the Prime Minister to re-employ former secretaries of APS departments to bring them back into service and to ensure that they may commit their knowledge and expertise in the service of the Australian people and the Australian government. We saw an example of that most recently when Ken Henry, a man who has served all sides of politics in this country with great distinction and a man who sometimes has been defamed in this place for the advice he has given to government, has been re-engaged by the Prime Minister to assist in bringing together the Australia in the Asian century white paper to bring dozens of years in economic and social policy advice to bear on that important issue. When that report is finally released I know it will be a great contribution to public policy debate in this country.

I listened carefully to the member for Mackellar's objection to putting in place within the Public Service Act just that sort of arrangement—as I listen carefully to all the comments the member for Mackellar makes in this space. It does not sit easily with her track record that the objections were that somehow you would have a lack of security in the top echelons of the Australian Public Service. The words used were 'a swingers list'. I have to say that the word 'swinger 'and the Australian Public Service are not generally used in the same sentence around this place. That sits very uneasily with their track record in government.

Let us contrast what happened when Labor was elected to government in 2007. You never saw a night of the long knives, but when the coalition government was elected in 1996 you did see a night of the long knives. In the first 12 months, APS departmental secretaries in their dozens were axed from their jobs, as were almost 16,000 public servants.

The coalition's objections are hollow. The bill is a good one and should be adopted in its totality. I commend the legislation to the House.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is nice to have the opportunity to speak tonight on the Public Service Amendment Bill 2012, given the very wide-ranging debate which has been allowed to occur after the comments by the member for Throsby. When I was looking around for some media commentary or discussion on this bill, there really was not much there. This bill has not inspired too many people in the general public. When we look back we see that the second reading speech by the minister was made on 1 March 2012. I am not sure it has inspired the government either, given the length of time it has taken to bring the debate back to the House—some 5½ months have transpired. The panel which created this report headed the Ahead of the game:blueprint for the reform of the Australian government administration was originally commissioned, as I understand, in September 2009. A panel comprised almost entirely of senior public servants were asked to have a look at the public service. The report was commissioned and the report was released on 2 March 2010—again, a little while ago now.

On 8 May 2010, 25 months ago, then Prime Minister Rudd said he had accepted all of the recommendations of the panel and their report. But, of course, shortly thereafter, unfortunately for the then Prime Minister, he was no longer the Prime Minister. But in any case there has been quite a delay, so their priorities have obviously been elsewhere.

I think it is agreed that we all need to be very carefully about the need to strengthen leadership in the Australian Public Service, because, ultimately, the Australian Public Service serves the people and the government of the day, whose policies need to be enacted. It goes to the public service to initiate and bring those policies to this place in the form of bills, and then ultimately to implement those policies on the ground.

I am not quite sure I agree with the member for Throsby's comments that the public service is on the forefront of every big thing that has happened in the country. I am not so sure I would say that was the case. Really, the public service exists to bring the policies the government puts before the election—or in the case of this government, after the election as well—to the point of initiation and implementation.

It is important that we be very clear that the public service should not in any case be political or self-serving. It behoves the government to ensure that their actions do not politicise the public service in any way. A public service that is seen to be politically partisan in its activities undermines confidence in the public service. That is obviously not the case with the public service. We have confidence in so much of what the public service does. But government and the public service should be very careful in the way the public service is seen to be performing its duties.

The shadow minister, the member for Mackellar, has conducted negotiations with the government minister. This has seen an agreement that there will be coalition amendments that will be accepted by the government and government amendments that will be accepted by the coalition. That is very good news.

In this country, sadly, there is a history of certain appointments having been made by governments. I look back not very far to the Labor government of New South Wales and the creation of a burgeoning unallotted list, which constituted $16 million in salaries each year for SES or very senior public servants who were employed but were not actually required to do any work. So it is probably par for the course that the original concept of this bill, before the amendments had been agreed on, would have seen this government given the opportunity to create such a list.

When we speak of such a list, and the idea of being given a pay grade but no actual responsibilities, it is exactly the sort of thing that can create a perception of loyalties to those who created the list or brought people onto it. I think that is very clearly a bad idea for a public service, because it will in some ways create the view that there is a level of loyalty owed to those who make the appointments.

As the member for Mackellar said after the last election, one thing that had interesting implications was when Dr Henry provided a certain level of advice to the Independents, which undermined and cast doubt upon some of the election figures of the coalition, yet, not long after that, allowed those figures when the government needed the figures to match up for them. Then, he resigned as Treasury Secretary and received an appointment from the Prime Minister, again for quite a deal of money, as I recall—on a pro rata basis for part-time I think it was some $307,000 a year. If you create a system whereby people can be appointed again on an unallotted list—can be appointed to do a particular task—and the Prime Minister gets the opportunity to make those appointments, it can be highly desirable for a person to seek one of those appointments. When you have an important public service position involving an important role in the post-election administration dealing with the Independents and you then go to a government appointed position at the end of the earlier appointment, there is the possibility that some people might perceive that as being something of a conflict of interest. That is very bad for the public service.

It is such a good thing that the Special Minister of State has listened to the shadow minister, the member for Mackellar, and has seen the light in this regard. It was a great example of what actually happened, with regard to Dr Henry. We now see, and maybe the government can also see, that there is a level of risk that it might undermine the position of the public service, or senior members of the public service.

As I said earlier, it is obviously clear to the public service that it must remain impartial, but it is also right for the government of either persuasion not to put people in a position which would cause the public to have less confidence in the impartiality of the public service. It is certainly good that those amendments have been agreed to and that we will see them come up during the consideration-in-detail stage of this bill.

I appreciate the opportunity to make some comments on this matter tonight, and I appreciate the government embracing the amendments that the member for Mackellar has put forward. I think that we will have a much improved bill as a result.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to speak tonight about this important bill, the Public Service Amendment Bill 2012, which is designed to improve the way the Australian Public Service responds to the challenges of the future. This bill and the proposed amendments to it are very significant in terms of modernising the Australian Public Service. As the member for Canberra, I proudly represent thousands and thousands of public servants. I am always enormously pleased when the Labor government delivers improvements to the public service; in this case, measures that ensure the public service has the capability to better manage information. I am a fierce advocate for our public service and for the people who work extremely hard to implement government policy and keep our country ticking.

The technical amendments contained in this legislation ensure that both the Public Service Commissioner and the Australian Public Service Commission are able to deliver on wide-ranging reforms that will benefit public service workplaces. Specifically, this legislation will empower secretaries and others in leadership groups to provide a much greater range of independence and accountability in the delivery of policies. The amendments proposed to this bill will clarify the roles and responsibilities of secretaries. These measures will spell out the services and the performance that is expected of secretaries and will, additionally, strengthen secretaries' accountability to ministers.

There are specific amendments to the employment arrangements for secretaries in this bill. Very importantly, these amendments revise the APS values. They also introduce a set of employment principles that will assist in unifying the APS around an ethical, high-performance culture. The amendments will also modernise the functions of the Public Service Commissioner and recognise the commissioner's role as the central authority for APS workforce development and reform.

This legislation continues the Gillard government's agenda of improving and enhancing the Australian Public Service. The Gillard Labor government have ensured that we have a strong public service. We will continue to build a strong public service. I will continue to advocate for a strong and stable public service. We will always make sure the public service is able to tackle current challenges while keeping growth under tight control.

As every member here knows, I am a passionate and strong advocate for Canberra, for the Australian Public Service and also for the ADF. The reason the public service needs to be defended is the threats and attacks to its integrity and performance by those opposite. The opposition have made an art form out of attacking the Australian Public Service and the integrity of the people who work there. Neither the Australian public nor the Australian Public Service can afford what those opposite could potentially subject the public sector to, particularly in terms of their boom-bust mentality. The budget surplus that the government is committed to will create a buffer against any further global economic turmoil and, however difficult this budget will be, it will not lead to the feast and famine experience that I witnessed firsthand in the 1990s when the Howard government randomly slashed almost 30,000 jobs across the public service and across the nation, and then had to expand public service numbers because of the damage done by those cuts.

The coalition thinks that Canberra-bashing and demeaning the public service is a good thing. I am constantly in committees where I hear of numbers floating around—for example, there is a commitment from those opposite to cut 12,000 jobs, but then it gradually increases. I hear that DMO is going to be added to the list, then I hear that another government agency is going to be added to the list, and then another—it just keeps going up and up. We are probably up to about 20,000 on the public record but, from conversations I have had with those opposite, I think it is back up to about 30,000, which is what we experienced in 1996 nationally. What that meant for Canberra was that we lost between 15,000 and 20,000 public service jobs. That is about two or three suburbs in my electorate. What that meant for Canberra was that house prices plummeted, people left town, and the only real growth industry was removalists. It also meant that we had a few seasons of negative growth when the rest of Australia was growing.

As well as the huge knock-on effect here, with house prices plummeting and the local shops closing down, it also had a significant knock-on effect in the region. One only need speak to my colleague, the member for Eden-Monaro, to understand that. What we saw was a ripple effect right throughout the capital region—because Canberra is a regional hub. It depends on the service, but in some instances we provide up to 50 per cent of services to the region. I think in cancer treatment, we provide up to 50 per cent of treatment for the region; in health, it is between 30 and 50 per cent; in education, between 30 and 50 per cent. We provide a range of services to the region and we also employ a lot of people in the region. When you are looking at the loss of 15,000 to 20,000 jobs, as we experienced in 1996—and I was one of those jobs—then the impact is significant not only for Canberra but also for the region. At the coast we saw that about two-thirds of the houses were on the market—because of the huge regional knock-on effect: on jobs, on house values and on economic growth.

When I go out and do my mobile offices and my community forums, one of the things that my constituents are really concerned about is an Abbott led government, because they know about coalition governments from past, bitter experience. In 1996 farewells were held en masse—every Friday you would go to farewell for 10 or 12 people who had lost their jobs. My constituents know and understand what a coalition government can mean for Canberra because they had firsthand experience of it in 1996. That is when we were plunged into an era in which there were a number of quarters of negative growth, and it took us about five years to get out of it. But we have huge infrastructure programs here now. There are BER programs, there are roads being built and there are cranes on the horizon, whereas I cannot remember having seeing a crane on the horizon in Canberra in the late 1990s and early 2000s. It is wonderful to see so much growth and investment in this city thanks to Labor. There is investment in roads—in the Monaro Highway and in the Majura Parkway—and there is investment in a number of government buildings and in BER programs. There is significant investment in Canberra because Labor is committed to Canberra.

This legislation builds on the capacity of the public service to modernise and meet future challenges. It does not look at the public service as just an expense to which an axe needs to be taken. We rely on a strong and vibrant public sector, and we value it. I remind those listening this evening of the jobs that the men and women of the Australian Public Service do. They perform enormously important functions and do so very quietly. They are the silent heroes; that is what I think I called them in my first speech to the parliament. They are the invisible heroes—they go about their business quietly and serve the nation. They try to make a difference and improve lives quietly at the local level, at the national level and at the international level. Public servants provide our health and aged-care services, deliver to the sick and frail, manage our food production from the farm to the table, educate our children, build our universities and our higher education sector, and ensure that our workplaces are safe and fair—and the list goes on and on.

I have highlighted the huge contrast between those opposite and Labor on the public service. We will always support the incredible dedication and hard work of Australian public servants by improving the way they operate, and this bill goes a long way towards doing so. We have introduced legislation today which will improve and enhance the operations of the Australian Public Service. We are committed to the public service and public servants. We alone recognise and support the thousands of public servants who serve their country every day in so many invisible and quiet ways. This bill will improve the operations of the public service and provide it with better capacity to manage future challenges. I commend the bill to the House.

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Public Service Amendment Bill. In preparing to do this I read the report Ahead of the game: blueprint for the reform of Australian government administration to see what propositions were being included; I also read the explanatory memorandum to the public service bill. I agree that many changes were proposed to the legislation by the report which will modernise the public sector and create a sense of change and reform—and this will be to the betterment of the country. The Public Service Amendment Bill makes a number of amendments to the code of conduct for public servants and to the changing values and employment principles for APS employees, both of which are specified in the Public Service Act 1999.

The Public Service Amendment Bill has been introduced in response to the report Ahead of the game: blueprint for the reform of Australian government administration, which was released in March 2010. The bill aims 'to strengthen the management and leadership of the public service and embed new practices and behaviours in its culture'. I think that all of us in this chamber would agree that doing so is an absolutely necessary undertaking, because the public service provides advice and direction to ministers, and this shapes the policies and key strategic services and programs as well as the interrelatedness that exists within a federation. To that extent, the public service fills its role tremendously.

The report Ahead of the game: blueprint for the reform of Australian government administrationproposes reform to the Australian public sector in four key areas. The first is:

… forge a stronger relationship with citizens through better delivery of services and greater involvement of citizens in their government …

If the legislation enhances this, then our implementation of the legislation has significant merit. The second is:

… strengthen the capacity of the public service to provide strategic, big-picture policy and delivery advice addressing the most difficult policy challenges of the day …

The third is:

… invest in the capability of the public service workforce through improved recruitment and training processes, greater mobility and alignment of working conditions across agencies, and a new, more consistent approach to employee performance …

I would assume that all the members of the Senior Executive Service would be subject, as much as were other public servants, to such requirements so that, if they were working on contract, they would then on merit apply for the position again and that, if they won the position, they would be appointed in accordance with normal prevailing practice. We have seen some variation to this practice, and this is of concern. When you give unfettered power to an individual or a small group of individuals, some practices come into play that are not consistent with merit selection processes in the public sector.

The report also states:

The blueprint recommends nine key interdependent reforms which seek to deliver better service for citizens; create more open government; enhance policy capacity; reinvigorate strategic leadership; introduce a new public service commission to drive change and provide strategic planning; clarify and align employment conditions; strengthen workforce planning and development; ensure agency agility, capability and effectiveness; and improve agency efficiency. I would have thought that our current public sector does a lot of that now. Under the tweaking, the one that excites me most is its responsiveness in the way in which it will engage with citizens, the private sector and relevant sectors for which it develops programs, policies and strategies that will make a difference to the lives of all Australians.

Let me assure you that many constituents in all electorates will welcome these changes if they happen uniformly. But, equally, let me assure you that they will be very cynical and will continue with their anger and frustration. It is an opportunity to create ongoing employment for senior public servants outside their contract, guaranteeing them a continuance in employment with no significant change in salary. The recent Ken Henry appointment reflects this to some extent. That is where I have constituents raise with me the golden opportunities that are given to individuals within senior executive positions and the salaries that continue beyond the expired contract into new roles, where appointments are often seen as political. Every Australian would love the opportunity to go into a new role without having to go through a merit selection process, because people see themselves as having skills commensurate to the types of tasks required for the jobs in the public sector.

Every Australian worker knows that, on the expiration of a contract, they are without a job until they find another through a process of competing, on merit, for a new position within an organisation. They would love the opportunity to be directly appointed to a high-salaried position without going through that process. The blueprint sets an ambitious and interlinked reform agenda that seeks to improve services, programs and policies for Australian citizens. Above all, it recognises that, to be strong, the APS must make the most of the talents, energy and integrity of its people. I would have thought the appointment processes would require integrity whereby, once you finish a contract, you compete for a position on merit and undertake that role. I have been in the position where, as a public servant, you look to the whole fabric of integrity within the bureaucracies you work in. The proposed reforms therefore seek to boost and support the APS workforce and leadership and to embed new practices and behaviour into the APS culture. I do not have a problem with that. I think it has significant merit.

Of concern, however, this bill will give the Prime Minister greater power to extend the employment of departmental secretaries, allowing the Prime Minister to create new positions for secretaries who have resigned or whose contracts have ended. Wouldn't it be great if we could offer the same opportunity to every Australian in the workplace, so they did not have to compete and could be given high-salaried positions on a basis equal to that proposed? The Prime Minister recently did this when Mr Ken Henry resigned from his position as Secretary of Treasury in April 2011, being appointed as a 'special adviser' under section 67 of the Constitution.

The unattached list is common practice in the public sector at both national and state and territory levels, and there are people who have spent considerable time on unattached lists receiving salaries provided by the taxpayers and the battling families of Australia. I would hope it is not a practice that will see the transition of retired members or secretaries into special appointments without a merit selection process. I acknowledge that we have to seek skills and expertise when we assign a task that requires thinking outside the square. But there are other ways in which we have done it successfully in the past.

Former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, in his 2020 forums, sought the views of ordinary Australians and people with jobs and specialised knowledge in particular areas to be part of the forward thinking that he had in mind when he established the Rudd government's credentials in the period in which he led government. I did not see him appoint particular advisers to continually give him advice. Should this legislation be passed, the Prime Minister will have the power to create similar roles for any secretary who resigns or whose contract has expired. I wonder if that would apply to somebody who reapplied for their position but did not win it on merit and were given the opportunity of being slotted into a plum role.

The coalition does not oppose the body of the bill. At present the Prime Minister only has the power to appoint departmental secretaries to another role if their department has been abolished or if she has terminated them from their position, both being rare occurrences in the current public sector. The changes to section 60 will allow the Prime Minister to appoint departing departmental secretaries to new roles should they resign or when their terms of service expire and are not renewed. This has the potential to be the beginning of a practice similar to the New South Wales unattached list, which applies at the chief and SES levels.

Another interesting thing I read was that there would be minimal financial implications, although the report itself states:

In a number of areas, reform would require an up-front investment. For example, a new funding model would be required to support the APSC’s additional responsibilities, including the coordination of workforce planning and agency capability reviews. Similarly the citizen-centred reforms, such as developing and establishing an APS-wide citizen survey, would require some resourcing early on.

Over the long term, however, it is anticipated that the reforms (when implemented as a package), would deliver efficiencies and a return on investment. By building capacity and improving effectiveness, several reforms will drive effectiveness and efficiency gains across the APS such as reducing the burden of internal red tape.

All the way through, the report is embedded with some tremendous thinking around the changes that are required, but it does not diminish the importance of public servants.

What diminishes the importance of the process is the way in which this legislation will allow the Prime Minister—it does not matter whether it is a coalition or Labor government—to make appointments outside of the normal, expected behaviour that has predominantly governed the way in which appointments are made in the public sector.

I support the coalition's proposition to amend the legislation by removing changes to section 60 of the Public Service Act, which will allow the Prime Minister to extend the terms of departmental secretaries who have resigned or whose contracts have ended. I support the sentiments expressed by the member for Canberra that public servants do play a key and vital role, that their pathways and their career progression are certainly based on merit standards. It is based on a set of criteria and they know with certainty that they have the opportunity to apply and be part of their or another agency. I think there are many meritorious elements of Ahead of the game, but I certainly could not support a proposition that gave unfettered power to a prime minister to appoint whoever.

Sometimes within the public sector you do not have the particular type of knowledge or skill that is required in the shaping of a strategic direction or the detailed advice in respect of legislation. This could apply to specialised areas of advancing scientific fields, such as gene technology. In those instances there is not a problem in bringing in the right people to provide the level of advice. We have used committees effectively for that range of expert advice without having to appoint a retired or senior public servant—secretaries in particular—at the whim of a prime minister. It is better that we have integrity within the public sector and that we never diminish it.

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the government's Public Service Amendment Bill. The bill is significant in that it is part of the government's ongoing program of measures to strengthen the integrity and professionalism of the Australian Public Service—a cause to which this government and preceding Labor governments have made major contributions over the past four decades. The bill represents part of the government's response to the report, Ahead of the game: Blueprint for the reform of Australian government administration, prepared by the advisory group on Reform of Australian Government Administration. In particular, the bill captures the blueprint 's recommendation that APS values be revised and restated as a 'smaller set of core values that are meaningful, memorable, and effective in driving change'. This recommendation was based on extensive consultation by the advisory group among APS staff and the wider community. It is this focus on 'core values' which I wish to concentrate on in my remarks today.

On 8 May 2010, then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced that the government had accepted all of the recommendations in the blueprint report, and said in particular:

We are committed to building an Australian Public Service with a culture of independence, excellence and innovation—in policy advice and service delivery.

From my personal experience as a UN official, in which capacity I was closely involved with the creation of the UN Ethics Office, and from my current role as Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, I am well aware of the need for strong organisational efforts to give meaning to ethics codes and standards. Anyone who has worked in any organisation will know from experience, or from common sense, that merely publishing a code of conduct will not, of itself, entrench ethical practice. As management guru Chester Barnard observed as long ago as 1928, competent and committed leadership in managing the values of the organisation is an essential function of the executive in any enterprise.

Former Australian Public Service Commissioner Andrew Podger made much the same point in his State of the Service report for 2004, when he observed that the APS values needed to be strengthened by institutionalising them in the day-to-day practices and procedures of departments. This is necessarily a task for the leadership which the bill addresses directly.

According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the OECD, the core values of a public service are the basis for judgement about what is proper and improper in serving the public interest:

Values, stated in public documents (such as legislation), shape citizens' expectations about the mission and activities of public sector organisations. There is also a growing recognition that public servants are not solely motivated by financial rewards for performance, and that public service values play a role in promoting the performance and integrity of government.

It is appropriate, therefore, that part 1 of schedule 1 to this bill provides new and enhanced roles and responsibilities for APS departmental secretaries, particularly in relation to their stewardship of the Australian Public Service's professional values. The bill strengthens secretaries' accountability to ministers in performing their roles and discharging their responsibilities. The bill's changes enhance both the independence of the processes for appointment and termination of departmental secretaries and the continuity of departmental leadership by countering perceptions that secretaries' terms in office may be tied to the electoral cycle.

It is perhaps not surprising that the many complex challenges facing the Australian Public Service today attract less public attention than those other major issues which engage most Australians. What is happening in the One Day International? Who is winning in the NRL or the AFL? Will Black Caviar run away from the field again? Or who is on next week's Q&A? This is perhaps inevitable, but it may just reflect the fact that, as a community, we tend to take 'good governance' for granted. And as a community, Australians should be entitled to take good governance for granted. But good governance does not just happen, and it is not just the responsibility of governments: it takes vision, effort, commitment, resources and a supportive community. Whether the task is delivering better education and health care, or better access to justice, or better use of public funds, or better resistance to corruption, better defence, better policy advice to government, or any of a thousand other 'goods', the capacity and willingness of the public service to deliver its part of the 'good governance' package remains crucial to public trust in government.

The bill therefore reflects many of the changes in Australian public administration which have occurred over recent decades. The shift away from central control to a more flexible operating environment, while retaining a principles based approach to decision making and a strong focus on core values, is the key to understanding the bill's objectives.

In responding to the blueprint report's recommendation that the 15 APS values from the 1999 act be revised to 'a smaller set of core values that are meaningful, memorable and effective in driving change', the bill addresses longstanding concerns about the Howard government's amendments to the Public Service Act 1999, which were intended to legislate the APS Values and Code of Conduct, primarily so they could be used for disciplinary purposes. Many critics at the time observed that the proposed formulation of the APS values was vague, ill-defined and conceptually incoherent.

In commenting on the proposed changes, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts commented:

… the expectations imposed on employees by the APS Values must be clear. In view of the potential seriousness of allegations of failure to uphold the Values, which could result in termination of employment in the APS, it is vital that they be easily interpreted.

Five years later, Commissioner Podger reported that much still needed to be done to embed ethics and values in practice. The State of the Service report for 2010-11 reiterates that message. Values and ethical practices cannot simply be stipulated. They must be built into the way an APS organisation manages and selects staff. They must be the basis of all internal and external communications and dealings—especially with ministers. They must be modelled at the top and at all senior levels and they must be the subject of careful monitoring and continuing professional development education.

The restatement of APS values in the bill is a critical part of meeting the blueprint report's recommendations. The core values themselves have been reduced from 15 to five in number: impartial, committed to service, accountable, respectful, and ethical—forming the acronym ICARE. Interpretation of the new values in the specific contexts of individual APS workplaces is to be a primary function of the Public Service Commissioner, working with departmental secretaries. All APS employees are to be bound by the code and are required to uphold the APS values. Agency heads and members of the SES are also bound by the code, and will have an additional responsibility to promote adherence to the APS values.

Integrity and ethics in the Australian Public Service have been longstanding concerns of Australian Labor governments, from 1976, when the Whitlam government established the Coombs Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration, to today. This government's particular contribution to the task have been significant. On coming into office in 2007, we enacted the 2007 Standards of Ministerial Ethics, which, among other things, endorses the professional independence and integrity of the Australian Public Service as a public, non-partisan resource. We initiated a parliamentary process to develop the forthcoming parliamentary members' code, which will complement the Standards of Ministerial Ethics. We initiated a parliamentary process for a comprehensive review of whistleblower protection measures in Australia and overseas. And, on the basis of the committee's report, we are developing draft legislation, which I sincerely hope will come before the House in the near future. As part of the government's commitment to accountability and integrity, we established the new statutory office of Information Commissioner and appointed a former Commonwealth Ombudsman, Professor John McMillan, as commissioner, to ensure transparency in APS and government decision making.

This government commissioned the review and report by the advisory group on Reform of Australian Government Administration. The report Ahead of the game: blueprint for the reform of Australian government administration made wide-ranging recommendations concerning the future management and structure of the Australian Public Service, all of which were accepted by the government. The bill now before the House is evidence of the government's commitment to ensuring that the blueprint's recommended changes are made, both in legislation and in the daily practice of the Australian Public Service at all levels.

The Australian Public Service is a unique enterprise and a uniquely valuable one in a democratic society. We have seen for some time, public services everywhere being subjected to higher levels of scrutiny and criticism, and greater expectations of efficiency, service and responsiveness to governments and the public at large. We have known for some time that merely legislating for ethics does not work. Equally important is a commitment to recognising the crucial role played by departmental secretaries, and the public service leadership generally, in ensuring a culture of integrity and public trust in our public institutions. Tone at the top—for many years the mantra of the audit profession—applies equally in this context. Setting this tone is one of the key responsibilities of the leadership in any organisation which seeks to function with integrity. I commend the bill to the House.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Public Service Amendment Bill 2012. This bill seeks to make a number of amendments to the Public Service Act 1999 to ensure that the Australian Public Service is able to continue serving the Australian government, the parliament, and the Australian public to a higher standard of ethics, efficiency and effectiveness.

It is no secret that the policy of the Liberal Party when in government is to reduce the number of public servants. This is a line that is consistent with other states at the moment. But, when I have the opportunity to speak with public servants in Canberra, through relationships I made before coming to this place and still have contact with, there is an element of frustration from these people at the growing amount of compliance and burdens that surround their day-to-day activities. I have no doubt that public servants work extremely hard and that they go home physically exhausted from trying to maintain and upkeep the compliance provisions that are thrust upon them. I also get the opportunity to witness the frustration that surrounds the Customs staff—our front-line staff—as resources are taken from them. I returned recently from the Somali coastline on HMAS Anzac, where I spent time with Australian Defence Force personnel who are eminently frustrated with Labor's cutbacks in defence to the tune of roughly $2 billion and the impact those will have on their lives.

When we in the coalition talk about reducing public servants, we are not talking about reductions at the frontline: it is the back-end office—back-end staff—that we will be focusing our energies on. How can the government, when it comes to public service amendments or reform, ask Australian businesses and mums and dads to tighten their belts with continually increasing new taxes—I think there have been 30—when we have seen the public service grow by roughly 22,000 personnel?

When I talk to businesses in my electorate of Wright and ask them for feedback on how their day is made easier by the number of public servants that are there, I am often met with a very similar result, or a comment of: 'My day has not got easier; in fact, it has got harder. I am burdened with compliance.' The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry-Westpac survey for the 17th consecutive quarter has indicated that the single biggest inhibitor of business growth is government taxes and compliance.

On 8 May 2010, the then Prime Minister announced that the government had accepted all the recommendations made in the earlier March release report, Ahead of the game: blueprint for the reform of Australian government administration. This report outlined a comprehensive reform agenda to position the Australian Public Service to better serve the Australian government and the Australian community. It is an agenda that requires modernisation of the Public Service Act, bringing it into line with contemporary needs. The amendment of the bill will strengthen the management and the leadership of the Public Service and help to embed new practices and behaviours into its culture.

When we talk about new practices and new behaviours, the Public Service is quite an oddity. As a businessman, which I was before coming here, when you go through a line item you do not start with a bucket of money whereby you have the mindset, 'If we do not appropriate this line item, we will lose it.' Business does not do that. That money drops to the bottom of your balance sheet and it becomes net profit. So when we look for areas of waste or areas in which we can be more efficient or diligent there are a number of commercial practices that can be used. I understand that in the cold, hard light of reality administrators should not or cannot on occasion treat their position as commercial, but it is interesting to do an analysis on the difference in mindsets. This bill recognises that the delivery of high-quality services and policy advice requires effective and committed leadership, supported by a Public Service that is efficient, driven by its desire to serve the community and contemporary in its outlook.

Presently, the Prime Minister has the role to appoint departmental secretaries to another role if their department has been abolished or their position is terminated. Both of those situations seem rare. Of concern, however, is that this bill will give the Prime Minister greater powers to extend the employment of departmental secretaries, allowing the Prime Minister to create new positions for secretaries who have resigned or whose contracts have ended. The Prime Minister recently did this with Mr Ken Henry when he resigned from his position as Secretary of Treasury in April 2011, then to be appointed as a 'special adviser' under section 67 of the Constitution. Should this legislation be passed, the Prime Minister will have the power to create similar roles for any secretary who resigns or whose contract has expired. This is a measure that would add to the number of public servants and, as such, is in conflict with our policy, which I mentioned earlier, to reduce Public Service numbers.

Overall, the coalition does not oppose this bill. However, the coalition proposes to amend the legislation by removing changes to section 60 of the Public Service Act that will allow the Prime Minister to extend the terms of departmental secretaries who have resigned or whose contracts have ended. At present the Prime Minister has only the power to appoint departmental secretaries to another role if their department has been abolished or if she has terminated their position—both being rare occurrences. The changes to section 60 will allow the Prime Minister, at will, to appoint departmental secretaries to new roles should they resign or when their terms of service expire and/or are not renewed. This has the potential to be the beginning of a practice similar to the New South Wales unattached list, which applies to chiefs and SES levels.

Before coming to this place—I am only a new member—I had no idea there was such a thing as an unattached list. I have learned, and will share with the Australian people, that an unattached list is quite a common occurrence in government where, when the tasks or duties of high-ranking officials on normally superior wage bands are complete, rather than their taking a back seat, as in the commercial world, or looking for another job, these guys are kept on an 'unattached list'. I cannot point to anywhere in the commercial world, the corporate world or mum-and-dad businesses where that practice exists. It bewilders me.

Whilst this legislation is at the moment limited to secretaries, it sets a precedent and is contrary to our policy to reduce rather than increase the public payroll. In New South Wales Premier O'Farrell is moving to end the unattached list, with a reported initial saving of $16 million a year by removing 250 persons from the list. If we have state governments moving to reduce these lists and the current legislation moving to introduce the list, I can only stand here and say that I am proud to be a part of the Liberal Party camp. If the Prime Minister has the authority to extend the employment of departmental secretaries indefinitely, there is potential for even greater politicisation of these roles to occur.

In Queensland we are making reductions to the public service; we are trying to reunite the state with economic credibility and accountability. Whilst the loss of our credit rating in Queensland is not completely attributable to the public service, ultimately our credit rating is diminished by the fact that we are spending more than we are earning. We are spending more than we are earning, so, as a result, tough decisions have to be made.

I feel for the public servants who will ultimately lose their jobs in New South Wales, in Queensland and, in the future, here in Canberra. However, I remind the Australian Labor Party when making these appointments in the future that history has a tendency of repeating itself. We are a government that ultimately pays back enormous debts and we are a government that ultimately tries to reduce overheads. Bear that in mind when in government and trying to make prudent fiscal decisions.

For all the good things that this bill might bring to the Australian Public Service, it is Labor's way to surround themselves with those who may toe the political line. Convenient appointments of ex-department secretaries into other roles under the discretion of the Prime Minister is not something that needs to be endorsed by legislation. As of 13 March 2012 the former head of Treasury will make $615,000 a year, rising to $653,000 and then, by 2014, to $805,000 a year. Not a bad gig if you can get it! On 13 February 2012, Ms Renee Leon from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet told Senate estimates that Dr Henry was working 2½ days a week. Assuming it is still the case that Dr Henry is engaged in the Prime Minister's office for 2½ days a week, he could be picking up around $402,000 a year by 2014—not a bad salary for someone who is part time. I suspect that Dr Henry is not actually claiming that as he is now a director or involved with the National Australia Bank in some capacity.

I first learnt about Dr Henry's involvement with the Australian Labor Party when I had the opportunity to read The Australian Moment, a book recently put out by George Megalogenis. Up until that point I had no idea that Dr Henry had actually spent some time in the offices of previous prime ministers, including Bob Hawke. He also did some work with Paul Keating on the floating of the Australian dollar. I cannot take anything away from the guy's capacity, but it does bring into question the capacity of politicians' salaries, which are on the public record, when we start looking at salary bands of around $805,000. Ours tend to fall into insignificance, yet we take the political heat of defending those in the electorates.

The coalition will seek to amend the legislation by proposing the removal of section 60 of this bill. The public sector should at least be seen to be non-political or impartial. These amendments seek to protect those public servants who go about conducting their duties without any bias. We support merit selection. We support a transparent application process. I think with the political tack that Dr Henry has shown in the past in serving prime ministers of this nation one can only assume that he has left himself exposed in accepting a position with, by all accounts, a limited, non-transparent application process for the position that he currently holds in the Prime Minister's office. Those comments are on the public record. I believe that the position was not advertised. There were no selection criteria to apply. It was just a very cosy, friendly little thing: 'You're with us now.' As a result, the government has led with a glass jaw on this. I would not support further practices along those lines being continued.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am fortunate enough to be a member for a seat based in the ACT, and that means that I have the privilege of representing, meeting and working with a large number of public servants. Public servants form a significant part of my constituency and I am proud of the work they do and the contribution they make to a better Australia. Labor is committed to the highest standards of integrity and conduct in the Australian Public Service. We on this side of the House understand the importance of a strong, effective, efficient Public Service. There is a similar tradition on the other side of the House, a tradition that goes back to Robert Menzies, a tradition carried through with the member for Wentworth, a tradition that recognises that it is through having strong and dedicated public servants that we are able to implement policies that we believe will create a better country.

But I am concerned when I see in this place the growing incursion of American-style attacks on public servants—the notion that government is not the solution; government is the problem. Nowhere is that epitomised more than in the coalition's pledge to cut 12,000 Public Service jobs as the first way of filling their massive funding gap. It is through that almost Pavlovian response that whenever coalition members are asked how they will manage to meet their budget shortfall, what cuts they will make, they go immediately to firing public servants. The member for Wright said that he feels for the Canberrans who would lose their jobs were an Abbott government to be elected. I am sure my constituents are grateful for his concerns, but I suspect they would rather just keep their jobs.

We see these sorts of antics when the member for North Sydney is giving particular examples of the Public Service departments that he would axe. The member for North Sydney is an honourable man, but when it comes to speaking about Public Service departments he has something of the Rick Perrys about him. Members of the House will remember Governor Perry as the man who dropped out of the Republican race when he could not manage to remember the third government department he was going to cut. The member for North Sydney has said that he will cut at least three government departments. The only difference between him and Governor Perry is he can remember them.

He wants to get rid of much of the department of health, which he believes is overstaffed—odd, really, given that it employs about the same number of public servants that it employed when the Leader of the Opposition was the minister for health. He wants to get rid of much of the department of climate change, and the department of defence materiel is also in line for the cut.

We on this side of the House have a different view of the Public Service. Our view is that there is a valuable contribution made by public servants. Obviously those closest to my heart are those in my own electorate, but nationwide there are public servants day in, day out making a contribution to building a better country. In May this year I moved a private member's motion calling for a strong Public Service. The motion moved:

That this House:

(1) recognises the important role played by the Australian Public Service in upholding and promoting our democracy and its key role in ensuring stable government;

(2) commends the Australian Public Service on continuing to be one of the most efficient and effective public services in the world; and

(3) condemns plans by the Opposition to make 12,000 public servants redundant.

In terms of the importance of a strong Public Service, I draw the House's attention to the Centre for Policy Development's report The state of the Australian Public Service: an alternative report. Authored by James Whelan and commissioned by Miriam Lyons, CPD's executive director, the report goes through a range of aspects of Public Service reform, including pulling out some quotes from parliamentarians about the importance of the Public Service. The report, for example, notes the member for Wentworth judiciously observing:

I think the critical thing to ensure is that Government delivers its services efficiently at every level but you’ve just got to be smart about it.

That is what we have in this country: one of the most efficient and effective public services in the world. We saw that when the global downturn hit. The rapid fiscal stimulus that saw Australian household payments out before Christmas 2008 was only made possible thanks to dedicated, hardworking public servants. We were able to put in place rapid fiscal stimulus, and we were able to do it in a way that was directed to households thanks to the efficient work of public servants.

When dealing with natural disasters, public servants are there making sure people receive their government payments, sometimes within days of a disaster hitting. There are public servants going into workplaces to make sure that conditions are safe. There are public servants keeping infectious diseases out of the country. There are public servants finding the best ways of protecting our natural environment. There is more to the Australian Public Service than the work they do in policy development, implementation and service delivery. There are a range of jobs performed by local public servants, and those public servants are often contributing to their community outside their hours. I see their passion for community translating into a greater local benefit in the ACT with our higher than average levels of volunteering and participation in sport and recreation.

In other states of Australia we see exactly that dedication as well. When the Queensland floods hit, for example, Centrelink worker Gillian Harman spent a month volunteering in flood-hit Queensland, in Dalby. After she finished volunteering, Centrelink worker Ms Harman returned home on Sunday night and the next day went straight back to work in her Centrelink office in Guyra, northern New South Wales. As the then minister for human services, the member for Sydney, informed the House, Ms Harman was tragically killed that Monday going home from the office.

I remember once hearing Vice President Al Gore make the point that on September 11 at the Twin Towers it was the government workers who were the only ones running up the stairs. When natural disasters hit, we are proud to have strong public servants doing the job that they do so ably.

What concerns me is the coalition's strong commitment to making Public Service cuts. Their policy at the last election, 12,000 public service cuts, appears to be just the tip of the iceberg. Asked on 7.30 on 8 May whether or not the coalition would get rid of 20,000 Public Service jobs, the member for North Sydney refused to rule it out. Of course the coalition has form on this. They went to the 1996 election saying their plan was to reduce departmental running costs by two per cent. I actually have a copy of this policy document in my office. You can even see on the back, 'Written and authorised by Andrew Robb,' now the member for Goldstein.

Did the coalition do just that? Sadly, no. They went much further. They had said they would achieve their targets by not replacing a proportion of those who left over the first term of the coalition government through a process of natural attrition with no forced redundancies. They said there would only be up to 2,500 positions. That is what this policy statement with 'Andrew Robb' on the back of it says. But when they came to office we saw, in 1996-97, 10,070 public servants retrenched; in 1997-98, 10,238; in 1998-99, 9,061 public servants. So upon winning office the Howard government got rid of about 30,000 public sector jobs—about 10 times more than they said they would. The CDP report notes:

The Coalition’s desire to reduce the size and cost of the Australian Public Service taps into ‘small government’ movements that have been prevalent here and in other western countries since at least the 1970s. The values, visions and policies of these movements are currently expressed by the Tea Party in the United States and ‘Big Society’ in the United Kingdom.

I note that the Minister for the Public Service and Integrity has said that he will support the amendment proposed by the member for Mackellar. But I do want to correct something that has been said by a number of opposition speakers: that these changes have something to do with Ken Henry. That in fact is not the case. The intention to broaden section 60 of the Public Service Act had been part of proposed amendments since 2006, initiated under the former government. I can understand why those opposite are keen to bring Dr Henry into this debate. Their attacks on Dr Henry are in some sense symbolic of how far they have moved from good economic policy.

Let's remember the career of Dr Henry, a man appointed as the Secretary of the Treasury by Peter Costello, a man who has faithfully served governments of both sides, somebody who advised the Hawke and Keating governments and, through his experience in the downturn of the early nineties, a man who was able to move rapidly when the global financial crisis threatened. He is also a man who assisted the Howard government in implementing the goods and services tax. He is somebody who operates very much in the bipartisan traditions that Australians hold dear.

But we have seen some frankly scurrilous attacks in this House on Ken Henry's reputation, I think probably stemming from the coalition feeling sore about the $11 billion black hole that Treasury identified in their 2010 election costings. These are costings that the opposition decided they would have done by a team of accountants, who were later found guilty of professional misconduct for claiming they had carried out an audit where in fact they had done no such thing. It was possibly better than using a catering firm to do your costings, as the member for Cook has advocated, but not much better. Those costings were later found to be out by a cool $11 billion. The response of those opposite is akin to the response of a rich kid whose maths teacher has told him he has got an answer wrong and goes straight to the principal and asks for the maths teacher to be fired. In the case of Dr Henry, they set about attacking his reputation, suggesting that the costings exercise was somehow political.

That was a low point, and a departure from what I think has been a strong tradition, on their side of the House as well as ours, that respects public servants and recognises that they impartially serve both sides of this House. I think no-one has done that better than Dr Henry. He has made his fair share of criticisms of Labor policies and coalition policies. But he has a core set of beliefs, he is driven by the value of making Australia a better place. I would call on those opposite to allow cooler heads to prevail and to focus their attentions on reforms, not on playing the man.

In the couple of minutes remaining to me, let me simply note that the bill proposes further amendments to the Public Service Amendment Bill 2012. That bill implemented legislative changes recommended by Ahead of the game: blueprint for the reform of Australian government administration. Those changes included a range of amendments aimed at good governance to sustain an Australian Public Service that is fit for purpose. The changes were: the provision of a performance framework for departmental secretaries, with the minimum length of initial appointment to be five years; and the revision of APS values, recognising the Public Service Commissioner's role and allowing the commissioner to undertake a special review in specific circumstances.

The first set of amendments in the bill concerns temporary employees and will restore the provisions currently in the Public Service Act that provide for subcategories of non-ongoing employment. The second concern is the protection of information and immunity from civil suit provisions. The amendments make it clear that information obtained by entrusted persons who are acting under the direction of the commissioner, or the authority of those assisting the commissioner, are protected from unauthorised disclosure or use. The amendments in this and the parent bill are an important part of modernising the Australian Public Service.

Every year, thousands of young and not so young people move to the ACT to take up jobs as graduates in the Australian Public Service. I am enormously pleased that, through a difficult period of efficiency dividends, Public Service departments are continuing to hire new graduates. I call on all Australian young people to consider a career as a public servant; it is a challenging one but a worthy one. Public servants in my electorate and throughout Australia are working hard to build a better country. I commend them for their work and I commend the bill to the House.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to follow the member for Fraser and I commend him on the way in which he has used this legislation to demonstrate that he is in support of public servants—and who would have expected that from a member from the Australian Capital Territory! I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Public Service Amendment Bill, which, as we have heard from a number of speakers, amends the Public Service Act 1999, with the intention of revising the Australian Public Service values; clarifying the roles and responsibilities of secretaries and amending their employment arrangements; revising and clarifying the roles and functions of the Public Service Commissioner; and improving the day-to-day workforce management of the Australian Public Service through a range of operational amendments.

The purpose of this exercise, we are told, was to position the Australian Public Service to continue to serve the government to a high standard and to equip it to meet current and future challenges and the expectations of the government in the Australian community. Those are all very worthwhile objectives. In the main, the coalition supports the broad direction of this bill, with one very significant exception which I will come to.

I would like, in the brief time available to me, to make essentially three points. The first is that we on the coalition side of the House, as much as those on the government side of the House, are strongly in support of the proposition that a high-performing Public Service is very much to be supported and desired. The second observation I would like to make is that some key recent trends in the Public Service tend to increase the urgency of improving the efficiency and performance of the Public Service, which, as we are told, is the objective of this bill. I want thirdly to make the point that one aspect of this bill that the coalition does not support is the provision which would make it easier to redeploy departing departmental secretaries.

Let me turn to the importance of the Public Service. Some 160,000 Australians are employed by the Australian Public Service, with the biggest number employed by the Australian Taxation Office and Centrelink, and the rest being employed in a whole range of other departments and agencies. It is certainly an uncontentious proposition that a high-performing and well organised Public Service is vital to the good operation of government. Under the traditional Westminster model that applies in Australia, departments manage and implement government policy across all of the range of policy areas for which government has responsibility. So the Public Service has a critical role to play in the overall system of government. As the former Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Peter Shergold, has noted, the range of things that public servants do is wide:

They deliver welfare payments and health benefits, identify labour market opportunities, issue passports, scrutinise tax returns and decide on migration visas. They administer grants and award contracts. Every day they make decisions that affect the hopes of citizens.

Therefore it is exceptionally important for the lives and wellbeing of Australians that all of these tasks are carried out as well as they might possibly be.

The blueprint for the reform of Australian government administration—the document which underpinned the legislative changes the House is now considering—made some key points about the importance of the Australian Public Service. It noted that Australia's prosperity would be influenced by the ability of the Australian Public Service to tackle future domestic and global challenges and that the Australian Public Service needs to respond to organisational challenges, including a tightening labour market and fast paced technological change. The report noted that capacity to provide high-quality, innovative and forward-thinking advice to government would be critical for addressing future challenges. I think we can all agree with those propositions.

That brings me to the second area that I wanted to address in the time available to me, which is to look at key recent trends in the Public Service and ask ourselves whether those trends are consistent with the objectives set out in the legislation before the parliament this evening. The question, really, is whether we are seeing the efficiency and effectiveness of the Public Service improving or, under this government, being threatened. We have certainly seen a massive blow-out in the size of the Public Service. Between the last full year of the Howard government, 2006-07, and this year, 2012-13, there will be an increase of some 20,000 staff in the APS.

I have asked a question on notice in parliament of every cabinet minister as to how many new departments, agencies, commissions, government owned corporations or such bodies have been created within their portfolios since the Rudd government was elected to office. Not all ministers have so far responded but, to date, some 34 different bodies have been identified—ranging from NBN Co., with about 1,300 staff, to the Australian Qualifications Framework Council, with three staff. Total staff across all those newly formed entities number around 4,700.

So we are seeing a growth in the Public Service. On ordinary principles of productivity and efficiency, when you see growth, at the very least you want to see a corresponding increase in output. Ideally, you want to see a greater increase in output to achieve an increase in productivity. That is, you want to see more being delivered per unit of input—in this case, per unit of labour input. I am sorry to say that it is hard to be satisfied that we are seeing that improvement in productivity.

What we have seen is an extraordinary increase in regulation and in the volume of legislation which is being generated. In the 42nd parliament, some 409 acts were given assent; and in the 43rd parliament, to date, some 273 acts have been given assent. The government would say that that is evidence that everything is going marvellously well. A competing view is that we are seeing an explosion of regulations being imposed—in many cases, ill-considered and poorly-thought-through burdens upon citizens seeking to live productive lives.

We could look, for example, at the introduction of the carbon tax, with its thousands of pages of legislation and the massive bureaucracy to administer the legislation. According to a report in the Australian 118 officials in the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities are part of the Senior Executive Service. Certainly it is an uncontentious proposition that the department of climate change has proved to be a very happy source of employment for a large number of people, many of them on very large salaries indeed by community standards, bearing in mind that according to taxation statistics 90 per cent of Australians are earning less than $100,000 a year. A very large number of people in the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency are earning significantly more than that.

Another area which raises concern about the efficiency of the Public Service, the purported object of the changes in this bill, is the increasingly chaotic administrative arrangements of the Rudd government and subsequently the Gillard government. The general principle for good administration in business and in government is to have a clear organisational and reporting structure so that you can then have clear accountability and good outcomes.

Unfortunately, the Rudd government and then the Gillard government have followed arrangements which have been the absolute antithesis of these principles. Historically, it has been accepted that you would have a cabinet minister appointed, with executive and political responsibility for each department of state. The cabinet minister would be supported by a junior minister, and in some areas there would also be support from a parliamentary secretary.

This produced a clear and logical structure. Each portfolio was represented in cabinet by one minister and each ministerial portfolio had one department. This meant, amongst other things, that junior ministers and parliamentary secretaries could operate clearly within the confines of one portfolio and there was a clear and direct relationship between the department and the portfolio minister. This basic approach was entrenched in reforms made in the late 1980s by the then Hawke government.

Unfortunately, since the commencement of the Rudd government we have seen a very significant deviation from this approach. Mr Andrew Podger, a former health department secretary and former Public Service Commissioner, has analysed these changes—both from those perspectives and in his current capacity as Professor of Public Policy at the Australian National University. He has been very critical of the approach to public sector administration under the Rudd and Gillard governments. It seems that what we have is a move from simplicity and accountability to complexity and confusion.

Certainly, the traditional rule of one portfolio and one cabinet minister has gone out the window. Following the most recent reshuffle by the current Prime Minister there are now six portfolios with more than one cabinet minister. Even more problematically, some cabinet ministers have responsibility across several departments. For example, Greg Combet is Minister for Industry and Innovation within the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education. He is also Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency within the department of the same name. Bill Shorten is another cabinet minister who has two portfolios—one within Treasury and one within the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.

This approach of multiple cabinet ministers across portfolios can tend to mean a lack of accountability and a lack of clarity as to who has ultimate responsibility. I have no doubt that these arrangements will lead to administrative confusion and inefficiency and will undermine the critical relationship between a department and its minister, which is so important if the work of government is to be done effectively and if public servants are to be able to work clearly and effectively to achieve the priorities of the government of the day.

The chaotic arrangements that have been put in place under the Rudd and Gillard governments mean that many ministers are now required to manage multiple relationships with multiple departments and, more problematically, the departments are required to manage multiple ministers. No doubt there are also practical problems arising such as different departments using different IT systems and the question of whether it is necessary to have departmental liaison officers from multiple departments in the office of one cabinet minister.

The performance of this government when it comes to getting the best out of the Public Service has been a long way short of the rhetoric that underpins the bill before us this afternoon. If you look at how effectively cabinet government worked under the Rudd government, it is pretty clear that the guiding principle was to sideline cabinet as a proper decision-making body and have most decisions made by a kitchen cabinet, comprising the then Prime Minister and three other ministers. That chaotic approach has been reflected, I would argue, throughout the entire Public Service as it seeks to respond to the priorities set for it by government. If the government is not doing a good job of setting those priorities then necessarily the Public Service is not going to be very efficient and productive.

The final point I want to make is to highlight the perspective the opposition takes on one particular element of the bill before the House, which is the proposal to amend section 60 of the Public Service Act so as to give the Prime Minister the power to extend the terms of departmental secretaries who have resigned or whose contracts have ended. This is something that the Prime Minister recently did when Mr Ken Henry resigned from his position as Secretary of Treasury in April 2011 and was then appointed as a special adviser under section 67 of the Constitution.

If the bill before the House passes in its present form, the Prime Minister will have the power to create similar roles for any secretary who resigns or whose contract has expired, but without the scrutiny that is required under section 67. The coalition's concern is that, amongst other things, this is a measure that risks materially adding to the number of public servants and we do not think it consistent with good principles of public administration. It contrasts with that law, as it presently stands, under which the Prime Minister only has the power to appoint a departmental secretary to another role if that secretary's department has been abolished or if the Prime Minister has terminated that secretary from his or her position. Both of those things are relatively rare occurrences.

The amendment which is proposed in the bill before the House would allow the Prime Minister to, effectively at will, appoint departing departmental secretaries to new roles should they resign or whenever their terms of service expire and are not renewed. In the coalition's view, this has the potential to be the beginning of a practice similar to that which has been pursued in New South Wales for many years of having an unattached list at the senior executive service level within the Public Service. I am pleased to note that, in New South Wales, Premier O'Farrell has moved to end the unattached list arrangements, reportedly to secure savings of $16 million a year, by removing some 250 people from the list. The coalition is very concerned that this amendment would lead to a similarly wasteful and profligate approach in the administration of the Commonwealth Public Service, so that is an amendment we do not support.

I close by reiterating that we on this side of the House are very strong believers in the importance of a productive and efficient Public Service. To the extent that the amendments in this bill are designed to increase the productivity and efficiency of the Public Service, they have our support. We note that there is something of a gulf between the objectives stated in this bill and the way in which the Rudd and Gillard governments have conducted themselves and managed the relationships between ministers—particularly cabinet ministers—and the Public Service, which has tended to reduce the efficiency of the Public Service. We certainly hope that the objective of increasing productivity and efficiency is one that can be achieved and that this bill will make some contribution towards that. (Time expired)

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank members for their contribution to the debate on the Public Service Amendment Bill 2012. I thank the members for Mackellar, Cowan, Hasluck, Bradfield, Wright, Throsby, Canberra, Fremantle and Fraser. I thank you all for your contributions.

Today is the third anniversary of my father's funeral. I mention that purely because it allows me to tell a story of the Australian Public Service. It allows me to tell a story of the day my father died, which was just three years ago. The day following my father's death, my mother and I went to visit Centrelink. We went to visit Centrelink because mum had to rearrange her pension. I thought it was an interesting exercise accompanying mum and showing her all the love, care and support that she would expect her son to provide. But I was also interested in watching the performance of Centrelink on that day, when they had to deal with a grieving, frail 78-year-old who had lost her husband of 51 years.

When mum arrived with me at Centrelink she was sad and teary but she had things that she needed to do, documents to fill in. The people at Centrelink were simply fantastic. They supported mum. She needed to be supported. They provided her with the comfort that she needed and they provided her with the care and consideration that she needed. It made me proud. It made me proud as a parliamentarian, it made me proud as a son and it made me proud of the way in which that service was delivered by our Public Service.

We are in Canberra, the capital of the Australian Public Service. If that event happened at Woden it would be pretty good. If it happened at Parramatta we would be pretty pleased. If it happened in Sydney or in the Perth CBD we would be pleased. But it happened in Whyalla, 400 kilometres north of Adelaide. It showed me what care, consideration and capability our Public Service could provide when it cradled my mum at her time of need.

Centrelink is a fantastic organisation put together 15 years ago by a government not only seeking efficiencies but also seeking to ensure that it delivered services with care, consideration, compassion and precision—and, my word, does it work well.

This bill does make important amendments to the Public Service Act 1999. The government has accepted all of the recommendations made by the advisory group on reform of Australian government administration. The group's report, Ahead of the game: a blueprint for the reform of Australian government administration, outlined a comprehensive reform agenda to position the Australian Public Service to better serve the Australian government and the Australian community. It is a reform agenda that requires the modernisation of significant aspects of the Public Service Act, bringing it into line with contemporary and foreseeable needs.

The amendments in the bill strengthen the governance of the Public Service. The amendments in the bill strengthen the independence of the Public Service. The Australian Public Service is fundamental to the success of our country and our society. Our high-performing public sector is like a golden thread running through our history, building our nation while binding our nation together. The commitment and expertise of our Public Service directly affects the lives of all Australians.

The bill clarifies the roles and responsibilities of secretaries to better reflect established practice and it strengthens the independence of secretaries. This bill restores a gold standard. The appointment and termination of departmental secretaries will return to the integrity and consistency of our public sector that has been supported for generations. The 1922 act provided that all appointments as permanent head—that is, secretary in today's terms—were made by the Governor-General. From the late 1940s, Prime Ministers Chifley and Menzies saw the chairman of the Public Service Board advise the Prime Minister of the day on suitable candidates who could be recommended to the Governor-General for appointment. That system fostered a cadre of leaders who helped successive Australian governments transform our Public Service and build a nation. It was these leaders whose contribution created the modern Australian Public Service that was able, in the words of former Prime Minister Robert Gordon Menzies, to 'supply honest advice and to carry out honest and fair administration for whatever government or minister it may serve'—leaders such as Sir Robert Garran, the Solicitor-General and father of our Constitution; and Sir Arthur Tang, who laid the foundations for the Department of Foreign Affairs and helped build a modern Australian defence organisation. He cultivated leaders such as the great Western Australian, Dr Herbert 'Nugget' Coombs, the former Governor of the Commonwealth Bank, who helped rebuild World War II Australia and committed our Public Service to work towards full employment.

Most nations created in the past 100 years have not been successful liberal democracies. Indeed, very few nations created since 1900 have enjoyed anything like Australia's success. I am fond of saying no other nation has enjoyed our nation's degree of success since our states came together to create the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. A quality public sector leadership has helped us in our mission and it has ensured our success. So it is preferable to restore the situation where the Governor-General is responsible for appointing departmental secretaries, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister would receive a report from the secretary of the Prime Minister's department before making a recommendation in this regard. That report must be prepared after consulting the Public Service Commissioner and, for appointments, the relevant minister. This would strengthen the independence of secretaries. The revised formulation makes clear the roles and responsibilities of secretaries and the relationship between secretaries and ministers. Together these changes provide for continuity of leadership and strengthen the integrity and transparency of the appointment process.

This bill establishes the Secretaries Board with a clear mandate for the stewardship of the APS. Likewise, the bill revises the roles and responsibilities of the senior executive service, making clear that its role includes promoting cooperation in the delivery of outcomes across portfolio boundaries. The functions of the Australian Public Service Commissioner will be modernised to recognise the commissioner as the central authority for Australian Public Service workforce development and reform, an authority that will take a leading role in ensuring that the service has the organisational and workforce capability to meet current and future needs. Together these amendments will strengthen the management and leadership of the Australian Public Service. It is the senior leadership of the Australian Public Service that is critical to driving the changes needed to enable the service to meet its challenges both now and in the future. This will also ensure that the expectations of both the government and our citizens are met.

The bill also establishes a more succinct set of APS values, which continue to reflect enduring principles of public administration that go to the heart of the Westminster model of government. The values and employment principles together define the character of the APS and guide the way in which it conducts its activities and serves our community and the government. They continue to articulate the culture and operating ethos of the Australian Public Service and underscore its professionalism.

The bill also contains a number of other operational amendments aimed at more effective management of the Australian Public Service. These amendments are informed by the experience of the operation of the act over the last 12 years. I note that the shadow minister, the member for Mackellar, will move an amendment to the government's bill. The government will accept this amendment in the spirit in which it is made and in the interests of achieving meaningful reform supported across this parliament. It is important that the Public Service legislation supports a service that is fit for purpose. This bill provides for a streamlined contemporary employment framework that will allow greater agility and responsiveness from the APS to our community and to the government. It will facilitate greater efficiency and more effective use of Commonwealth resources.

The bill will also accelerate the cultural shift towards operating more effectively as a unified Australian Public Service, a 166,000-strong service that is accountable to ministers, equipped to deliver the government's priorities and responsive to the complex needs of our Australian community.

One of the most fantastic and enjoyable things a minister for the Public Service can do is engage with our graduate program. I have heard speakers in this debate today refer to the importance of that graduate program. Around the world, we see governments engaged in slashing and cutting budgets, and on occasions that has meant that graduate programs have been compromised in those public services. I can state unequivocally that the value of a graduate program is not simply that it allows our Public Service to continue to recruit the very best; it also keeps our Public Service always with a youthful bent, with a capacity to look attractive to the young people it needs to recruit into its future leadership cohort. If any members are interested in our fantastic Australian Public Service graduate program, I as Minister for the Public Service and Integrity will be very happy to ensure that they are able to engage with that program and to see the quality of our graduates and the leadership that they will bring to our Public Service in the future. Ours is a Public Service that is working in the interests of all Australians, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks of the year. As I am fond of saying: every hour of every day of every week, a public servant is looking out for us. I thank them for that. And I thank the opposition for their support of this bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.