Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023. The opposition will be reserving its position on this bill, having regard to the fact that the minister has offered to provide a briefing to the relevant shadow minister and that debate on this bill has commenced prior to that briefing occurring. While there are many elements in the bill that the opposition supports, we believe this bill can be improved in several ways. We note the significance the government has placed on these changes, in the second reading speech delivered by the minister, and we will be seeking to have this bill referred to the relevant Senate legislation committee for inquiry.

Australians deserve and should expect a world-class public service in the context of the constitutional democracy as set out in our Constitution. A world-class public service in the context of our constitutional democracy is fundamental to the development, implementation and realisation of good policy and public administration of our nation's resources and tax revenues. In my contribution to this debate, I want to address, firstly, the issue of how this bill responds to the recommendations of the Thodey review, and, secondly, the importance of a strong Australian public service in meeting the needs of the Australian government and, through the government, the Australian people.

The changes included in this bill respond, in part, to the review of the Australian Public Service that was commissioned by the former government and to which the former government responded. It was led by Mr David Thodey AO, a very eminent Australian. The Independent Review of the Australian Public Service provided over 40 recommendations. In its response, the former government had this to say:

The Government respects the experience, professionalism and capability of the public service, both in policy advice and implementation, and we expect the APS to get on and deliver the Government's agenda. In the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, it is the Ministers who are accountable to the public. It is Ministers who provide policy leadership and direction.

This statement is fundamental to a healthy and strong relationship between governments and public officials, departments who acknowledge the relationship and the important position of elected officials who carry out their duties on behalf of voters.

The bill before the House would make changes to existing legislation to address recommendations 2a, 2b, 5 and 6 of the Thodey review, as well as make amendments to clarify current provisions and make certain technical amendments to the act. In response to recommendation 5 of the review, the bill would create a new APS value of stewardship. The APS values are set out in section 10 of the Public Service Act. There are currently five APS values: impartial, committed to service, accountable, respectful and ethical. In response to recommendation 6, the bill would create a requirement for an APS purpose statement to be developed by the Secretaries Board. The Secretaries Board is chaired by the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and is composed of the secretaries of all Australian government departments, the Secretary for Public Sector Reform and the Australian Public Service Commissioner, who acts as the board's deputy chair.

This bill also clarifies the operation of section 19 of the Public Service Act to provide 'that Ministers must not direct Agency Heads on individual employment matters' for the Australian Public Service. The bill would establish measures and impose requirements upon agency heads to create a work environment which enables decisions to be made by Australian Public Service employees at the lowest appropriate classification. This change is in response to the findings in the review that decisions involving risk have tended to be increasingly escalated upwards in the Australian Public Service. The aim is to empower the Australian Public Service to make decisions in line with the delivery of government policy, balancing this with the need to ensure that these actions by the Australian Public Service have accountability to the government, to the parliament and to the wider community.

The bill would also make amendments to allow for the Australian Public Service Commissioner to, at any time, cause a capability review of an agency. This change is in response to recommendation 2a of the Thodey review. Capability reviews would be required for each department, for the Australian Taxation Office and for Services Australia at least once every five years. The reviews would be published alongside agency responses. In relation to the Australian Public Service Commission, the secretary of the Prime Minister's department must cause a capability review of the Australian Service Public Commission to be undertaken under this new mechanism at least once every five years. In addition to the capability reviews, the bill would also require the Secretaries Board to request and publish regular long-term insights reports to make available information about medium-term and long-term trends, risks and opportunities that may affect Australia or Australian society and information and impartial analysis relating to those trends, risks and opportunities.

The bill also responds to recommendation 2b of the Thodey review by creating a requirement to have agencies publish their annual APS employee census results. Finally, the bill also contains minor and technical amendments relating to the sunsetting of the Public Service Regulations 1999 by updating the new Public Service Regulations 2023.

The coalition supports many measures in this bill which provide clarity for the operation of the Public Service and outline the way in which it can deliver better outcomes for Australians. However, we are concerned that the government has not taken this opportunity to outline the core purpose of the Australian Public Service: servicing the Australian people and the elected government. As is outlined in the Australian Public Service Commission's own guidance on the values and principles of the Australian Public Service:

Accountability relationships in the Australian constitutional and legal system may be summarised as:

1. governments are accountable to the Australian people at elections

2. ministers are responsible for the overall administration of their portfolios and accountable to the Parliament for the exercise of ministerial authority

3. public servants are accountable to ministers and, through them, to the Parliament for the exercise of delegated authority.

It is the view of the opposition that this bill presents an opportunity to provide this articulation of the accountability relationship. The position of the Australian Public Service is critical to the delivery of better outcomes for Australians, and the proposed amendments, in particular, to outline the APS purpose are a fitting opportunity to put that role of delivery front and centre.

The opposition believes that, in addition to addressing this important issue, the mechanism of capability reviews as outlined in the bill could be improved by requiring that those reviews are conducted in consultation with the relevant minister. It is important, of course, that these reviews be conducted independently, to provide a clear assessment of how a department or agency is performing and how it is equipped for the challenges ahead. However, we note that these reviews go to the ability to deliver outcomes and policies developed by the government of the day. To that end, including a consultation mechanism with the relevant ministers will provide an important input into the assessment of whether the department or agency has the required posture and resources to achieve these outcomes for the community.

The Australian Public Service has long been and will remain the engine room for the delivery of the will of the Australian people, guided by the elected government and the parliament. The opposition trust that any changes we propose to improve this bill and to ensure that the Australian Public Service is provided with a clear and strong framework for that delivery will receive the support of the government and the parliament.

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the pleasures of being appointed an assistant minister in the Albanese government has been to work with the extraordinarily capable public servants in the departments of Treasury and employment and in organisations such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

Every day, Australians interact with the Australian Public Service—a cafe owner calling Services Australia asking for help after their business has been damaged in a flood; a high school student requesting a book so they can work on a research paper and therefore touching base with experts at the National Library; a new parent accessing parental leave payments through myGov; a teenager applying for their first tax file number after getting their first job; a retiree receiving their medical rebates when they see a doctor. And then there's the work, which is so important, occurring behind-the-scenes—CSIRO researchers exploring cutting-edge science, cybersecurity experts keeping Australia safe from the latest attempted cyberattack.

Those people don't much care about the structures that underpin the Australian Public Service, but, when those structures are right, the experiences of Australians are better, and our APS reform agenda is targeted at ensuring the Public Service works best for Australians. We understand that people need to be treated with respect and dignity. We understand too that, when the Australian Public Service is itself treated with respect and dignity, it will do a better job of serving Australians.

During the nine years of the coalition government, I was shocked sometimes to hear the way those opposite talked about public servants. I remember one Liberal member referring to public servants as people who 'feed on others', and I remember successive Liberal governments using the Public Service like their own private ATM, a way of making cuts to fund programs elsewhere. Under the Liberals, we saw the Public Service during those initial years of the coalition government literally decimated. There was a period where the Public Service was down a 10th in job numbers since the coalition had come to office, and, as a result of those Public Service cuts, we saw harm done to Australians' ability to access services.

The robodebt debacle came as a result of a coalition government that thought that it could make savings by allowing computerised systems to send out debt collection letters, taking the human out of the process. The robodebt royal commission has laid bare the damage that that approach to the Public Service did to Australians. We saw the blow out of waiting times for Veterans' Affairs. We saw the problems of the National Disability Insurance Agency, with people being unable to get the expert support they needed. In agency after agency, the arbitrary Public Service staffing cap meant an overreliance on outside consultants and contractors. Now, there will be appropriate times to use consultants and contractors, but when consultants and contractors were used for policy development or for the delivery of core services, that simply harmed Australians and undermined the ability of the Public Service to build up the expertise it needed.

The Independent Review of the Australian Public Service, led by David Thodey, concluded that the APS lacked a unified purpose, was too internally focused and had lost capability in important areas. These problems were demonstrated by the approach of former Prime Minister the member for Cook, who made clear to the Australian Public Service that he saw them simply as a delivery arm. He didn't want frank and fearless advice from them; he simply wanted the execution of coalition policies. That undermining of the professionalism and integrity of the Public Service meant that, under the former government, the Public Service was not sufficiently responsive and agile to meet the changing needs of government. We need an Australian Public Service that is honest, truly independent and empowered to provide the frank and fearless advice that government needs to defend legality and due process. We need an Australian Public Service which is confident and capable, which can demonstrate thought leadership and which is transparent about the state of the service and its ability to deliver.

Our government's APS reform agenda has four priorities: first, an APS that embodies integrity in everything it does; second, a Public Service that puts people and business at the centre of policy and services; third, a Public Service that is a model employer; and, fourth, a Public Service that has the capability to do its job well. This bill, the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023, supports each of those priorities. It is about restoring the public's trust and faith in government and its institutions. We understand the complexity of the Public Service, with tens of thousands of people working across dozens of different departments and agencies. The work of the Public Service is extraordinarily varied and diverse.

This bill enshrines a new APS value of stewardship. The notion of stewardship has a long history among First Nations people. Within the context of the APS, that means that the values will articulate the culture and operating ethos of the Australian Public Service. That stewardship value has been developed through consultation, with responses from over 1,500 Public Service staff across the country, ranging from graduates to senior executives. The stewardship value means:

… the APS builds capability and institutional knowledge, and supports the public interest now and into the future by understanding the long-term impacts of what it does.

Stewardship involves learning from the past and looking to the future.

The APS will also have a single unified purpose statement, providing a common foundation for collaborative leadership, aligned services and shared delivery. Under this bill, agency heads will be required to uphold and promote the new purpose statement as well as the APS values and employment priorities.

This bill will limit ministerial directions to agency heads. An impartial Public Service maintains public trust. This bill will strengthen the relevant provision in the Public Service Act to make it clear that ministers cannot direct agency heads on individual Public Service staffing decisions. That will reaffirm the apolitical role of the Australian Public Service and provide confidence to agency heads to act with integrity in the exercise of their duties. We will not see, under our government, the sorts of behaviour that resulted in the conflict between the member for New England and his departmental head, an issue that finally came to a head when the member for New England attempted to change the Hansard, which undermined the integrity of the Public Service.

This bill embeds ongoing measures to build Public Service capability and expertise. We need to build the capability of staff and ensure that that expertise is broadened in areas such as data literacy. I want to commend the head of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Dr David Gruen, for his leadership in the APS Data Profession and the way in which professionalisation of data expertise has been so important in the Public Service. We've seen this also in the APS Human Resources profession. The notion of a profession is that it crosscuts departments, builds up expertise across the Public Service and allows high-quality hiring and the nurturing of talent within the Public Service. I hope too that, ultimately, under the Australian Centre for Evaluation that is being established in Treasury, we're able to set up an evaluation profession across the Public Service.

This bill will make regular, independent and transparent capability reviews a five-yearly requirement for every department of state, Services Australia and the Australian Taxation Office. These capability reviews are independent and forward-looking. The Thodey review called for the Public Service to strike a better balance between short-term responsiveness and investing in deep expertise. This bill will build expertise by requiring the Secretaries Board to commission regular, evidence based, long-term insight reports.

This bill will also ensure that the APS employee census, an annual survey, is published in aggregated form, along with an action plan from each agency responding to those results. Again, that's building the culture of transparency and accountability for continuous improvement.

This bill will require agency heads to implement measures that enable decisions to be made by APS employees at the lowest appropriate classification level. That ensures that decision-making is not raised to a higher level than necessary. That's about improving decision-making processes, reducing bureaucratic bottlenecks, empowering staff and fostering professional development.

The Australian government recognises too the importance of a Public Service which is free of discrimination. We know that employment of people with disability in the APS has reduced in the last 30 years, and we need to do more to attract and retain employees with disability. Representation of First Nations people in the Australian Public Service is currently 3.5 per cent—a figure that has hardly budged in two decades. It is government policy that the Australian Public Service meet an ambitious target and increase First Nations employment to five per cent. That involves ensuring that First Nations people have careers in the Public Service of the same duration as non-Indigenous employees. Right now, First Nations people tend to have shorter Public Service careers. There needs to be genuine opportunities for promotion for First Nations people within the Public Service.

We need to ensure too that people from non-Anglo backgrounds have the same opportunities for promotions as those who are of an Anglo background. New analysis by economists Robert Breunig, David Hansell and Nu Nu Win studied promotion prospects within the Public Service over a 20-year period, from 2001 to 2020. There are more than 100,000 public servants in their data set, so their data set runs to literally millions of observations. Their analysis asks the question: 'Who gets promoted?' They find that at every promotion point, Anglo people had the edge. From APS4 to APS5 and APS5 to APS6, the gap is about a tenth. From APS6 to EL1, Anglo applicants were a quarter more likely to win promotion. From EL1 to EL2, Anglo applicants were around 50 per cent more likely to get promoted. From EL2 to SES, Anglo applicants were about 60 per cent more likely to get promoted. The Public Service minister, Katy Gallagher, has asked the Australian Public Service Commission to develop a culturally and linguistically diverse strategy, which will address some of these issues. It is of significant concern that non-Anglo public servants in the past had been less likely to win promotion.

We are committed to an in-house consulting model. The Australian Centre for Evaluation will increase the evaluation capability across the Public Service. A report prepared for the Thodey review found that evaluation capability was low and 'piecemeal'. So we've established the Australian Centre for Evaluation within Treasury not only to talk about evaluations but to do evaluations. These evaluations will include robust randomised trials. The global commission on evidence, on which I served as a commissioner, has pointed to the need for improving evidence systems around the world. One of the ways in which we're implementing those findings of the global commission on evidence is to establish the Australian Centre for Evaluation in Treasury. Through conducting randomised trials, quasi experiments and other high-quality evaluations, we will raise the evidence bar. We will get a better sense as to what works and what doesn't. That will allow us to scale up effective programs and to redirect funding from ineffective programs towards things that work.

A 'what works' philosophy isn't ideological; it's practical. It is about ensuring that the Australian Public Service works for all Australians. Through this in-house consulting model, and through improving the quality of evaluation right across agencies, we are able to do a better job of ensuring that Australians' tax dollars are spent as effectively as possible and that government has the maximum impact on improving the lives of every day Australians. I commend the bill to the House.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023 and commence by saying that both of my parents, for periods of their careers, served in the Commonwealth Public Service. I am a great advocate for a fierce, frank, fair and impartial public service, serving the interests of the nation and serving the interests of the government of the day, but also being enduring. As much as it is very important that we have elections and a democratic process to ensure the people of this country are choosing at regular intervals the composition of this parliament and the government, it is equally important that we have an enduring continuity that's provided to government from the Public Service. It's extremely important that we take every opportunity to undertake any reforms that enhance and modernise the public sector, and I commend the contribution from the Manager of Opposition Business, where he has indicated that we are a very good faith party when it comes to discussing legislation like this with the government. And we hope that the government are prepared to engage with us in the debate around this bill about ways to potentially improve and enhance it.

Of course, it was the coalition government that undertook the review that David Thodey conducted in the interests of identifying opportunities to enhance and improve the way in which the governance of the APS is structured and ensure that everyone working in the APS is very happy and comfortable and has a pride in serving in the APS because there is that robustness in place.

There are some technical parts of this that I won't delve too deeply into, but one of the principles that is touched on in this amendment regards something that a lot of people in the public probably don't recognise: it is vitally important that politicians don't interfere in or have a role in the way in which employment decisions are made within the APS—apart from with the heads of departments, which, quite rightly and appropriately, are accountable to the political leadership. It is not the place for political leadership to influence the way in which employment decisions are made within the departments. It is vitally important to have that fierce, frank and fearless advice from the public service. We don't want a circumstance where public servants feel that they should tell ministers and political leaders what they want to hear, rather than what they need to hear. That is one of the great things about an enduring public service: you can rely on them—you should be able to rely on them, and I believe in this country you can rely on them—to always ensure that ministers and decision-makers are being given the information they need to make the best decisions possible.

There are some notable examples of very poor decision-making and that was absolutely because those principles weren't followed. One of the great scandals in the history of the Commonwealth government, in the Whitlam government, was the Khemlani loans affair, when proper due process was completely abandoned. Let's just reflect on what happened there. Sir Frederick Wheeler was an extremely famous, lifelong Commonwealth public servant who, in 1971, was appointed as the Secretary of the Treasury and served with great distinction and knighted for his service to the Commonwealth and the Public Service.

Rex Connor, the minister at the time, decided that the usual way in which the Commonwealth raised funds through borrowing didn't need to apply to him, that he had a better way of going out and obtaining funds for the Commonwealth, completely outside a provision of the Constitution, I might add, and completely outside the proper processes, not only of the loan council but of the parliament in decisions to encumber the government with billions of dollars of debt—and I use the term 'billions' in 1974 terms, not 2023 terms—billions of dollars of borrowing outside proper processes of the Commonwealth Treasury. What happened was a very dubious decision of the Whitlam government, not full cabinet, from recollection, where a small group of ministers decided that Rex Connor should be given authority to engage with a gentleman named Tirath Khemlani, who would go out and raise billions of dollars for the Commonwealth outside the proper structures of government and the proper structures of Treasury.

It got worse, of course, because not to be outdone by Rex Connor, the Treasurer of the day, Jim Cairns, also engaged in the process of signing a letter authorising borrowing money in the name of the Commonwealth government without even getting the Prime Minister of the day's—Mr Whitlam—approval, without any process whatsoever. That's the way the Whitlam government ended up conducting itself, deciding they could just borrow money and give letters of authority to people to traipse around the planet, saying, 'I act on behalf of Rex Connor or Jim Cairns, the Treasurer of Australia, and I'm here to engage in a loan agreement with you for billions of dollars for the Commonwealth of Australia. I don't feel the need to inform my cabinet colleagues or have proper approval of executive council. I don't feel the need to engage with the Treasury department,' which are pretty experienced in borrowing money from the Commonwealth of Australia because no-one but them was ever doing it until these two characters came along.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you rise on a point of order, member for Bruce?

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I was just trying to understand standing order 66(a) to see if you would like to talk about robodebt?

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Bruce, take your seat.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is nice to hit a nerve. I am allowed to seek an intervention.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am aware of the standing orders. The member on his feet has sought the call. He is being relevant to the bill before the House. You are the next speaker. You will have your opportunity to ask your questions of the minister after that. I understand there is provision within the standing order to ask for an intervention. Actually, member for Sturt, would you accept an intervention?

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. I would rather keep talking about the Whitlam government and the illegal behaviour of former Whitlam government ministers when it came to the raising of funds outside of the appropriate processes that occur within the Australian Public Service. Because we are here to talk about frank, fearless advice from the Australian Public Service, and it is important that we the worst example of breaking that principle and that covenant, which is what Connor, Cairns and the Whitlam government were engaged in. They were found out, ultimately. It obviously was a significant scandal. Jim Cairns was ultimately sacked by Gough Whitlam, sacked from the Whitlam government. That takes some doing. You really have to hit rock bottom to not be good enough to be in the company of all those characters. But poor Sir Frederick Wheeler, the Secretary of the Treasury at the time, was left in the humiliating and embarrassing situation where he was informed, through established financial channels, that there were ministers of the Crown out there seeking to raise funds outside the proper authoritative channels, to encumber the Commonwealth of Australia. I don't think the full consequence of that was ever properly meted out against the two gentlemen involved there. That was a different era, when the change of government meant that sleeping dogs were left to lie in some ways. A proper full inquiry would potentially have identified conduct that could have even been criminal there, but we'll never know.

But it is such a salient and important reminder that proper, established channels are absolutely vital and that the Australian Public Service should always be empowered and supported by everyone to be frank and fearless and non-political. I believe that we have that circumstance with the APS. I think there is a lot of merit in aspiring to having the entirety of your career in the Australian Public Service. One of the great things about the Public Service is that you can enter it as a graduate, through an intake program, and expect to serve your entire career in the Public Service. I think that's a noble aspiration. We have the benefit of people with decades of experience in their departments and in the Public Service. When they ultimately enter those senior positions, they have spent a life serving in a variety of ways and gently developing and maturing their understanding of government areas of policy expertise.

I'll conclude on a point that is raised in this bill: the principle of re-empowerment of the Public Service, away from consultants and the outsourcing of decision-making. I think there has been a drift, over decades, across multiple governments, towards looking for opportunities to engage external providers to come in and do reviews and analyses of ways in which particular difficult problems can be addressed. I think politicians at times like to be able to say, for example, 'We got KPMG in, and they did this review and said we should do all these sorts of things, and their logo is in the top corner of this report, which means that it's got some kind of greater robustness than something undertaken internally.' I actually dispute and reject that, because I think the subject matter experts in these areas are well and truly within the Public Service. I think the Public Service is at its best when the political leadership has confidence in it and gives confidence to it and says, 'We don't need some external consultant at extremely high cost to come in and tell us how to address a challenge or a problem that you are actually an expert in.' Invariably, of course, the people working for the consultancies are former public servants, so we just engage them at much higher cost than we did when they were salaried to the Commonwealth, to give an answer that we could get from the Commonwealth.

There are certainly times when and reasons why external, impartial and independent sources of analysis and information should be sought, but I think that we should be re-empowering the Public Service at every opportunity. They should have our confidence that they will be the first port of call for developing and providing solutions and suggestions to government. To the extent to which this bill may be able to facilitate that, that would be tremendous, but, as the member for Bradfield, the Manager of Opposition Business, has said, we in the coalition, when it comes to this bill, would like to engage further with the government. We haven't had the opportunity yet to talk to them about not only what's in this bill but broader elements of the Thodey review. It's a review that we commissioned in government and that we have broad support for. We hope that we will be able to engage with the government, through this bill and other opportunities, to all work together to enhance and empower our Public Service.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Public Service Amendment Bill 2023 is the next step in rebuilding the Australian Public Service after, frankly, a decade of degradation, disrespect, disregard and decay. I thought of those four 'd' words, but, having listened to the previous contribution, I'd have to add 'denial'. I've said before that Christopher Pyne sent that member here to make us miss Christopher Pyne, as he would certainly win the boring Olympics! But really, that level of denial about the decade that is gone, the privatisation by stealth, the attacks on the Public Service's independence, the politicisation, the appointment of mates, the overuse of consultants and the logo fetish without taking any responsibility. He waffled on for 10 minutes about the Whitlam government 50 years ago—nothing about robodebt. I'm still waiting for anyone over there to apologise for that disgraceful scandal in public administration perpetrated on their watch. They want to talk as if that's somehow the fault of the Public Service.

Great societies have great public services, and great public services need great public servants. It's an honourable profession. If there's one word that I'd use to characterise how the government should see its responsibilities with respect to the Australian Public Service, I'd say 'stewardship'. That means understanding that the Public Service is a form of societal capital. It's been built up over years, decades or indeed a century, and the government of the day must understand their responsibility to leave the Public Service in as good or better shape than they found it for the governments, the societies and the community that comes afterwards. The Public Service is Australia's institutional memory. Really, you cannot contract out your brain, much as this mob have tried with the overuse of the big four consulting firms to do things which can and only should be done by skilled public servants. As the previous speaker said—I couldn't disagree with a lot of the substance, it's just the denial about the level of responsibility which the previous government bears for the state we find ourselves in—it's the Public Service that society rightly expects to remember the public policy lessons of decades past. Only the Public Service should and could be expected to remember the lessons of royal commissions from the 1920s and the 1930s, the history of relations with foreign governments and so much more. Only the Public Service, not private consultants, is bound by those eternal values of impartiality, accountability, ethical advice and decision-making.

I want to read a quote from a book by Tony Judt, Ill Fares the Land. It's just a few sentences:

Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For thirty years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest: indeed, this very pursuit now constitutes whatever remains of our sense of collective purpose. We know what things cost but have no idea what they are worth. We no longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world? Those used to be the political questions, even if they invited no easy answers. We must learn once again to pose them.

Frankly, if anyone thinks that governments are going to be challenged, provoked and advised in that way with a set of foundational public values by the big four consulting firms or so-called independent contractors then they've got rocks in their head. It is the role of the Public Service to give governments frank and fearless advice, whether they like it or not. We hear the words, but the former government set a culture of fear and disrespect and disregard over the Public Service so that, as we saw through the robodebt royal commission, they were frankly too scared and cowered to give the government advice which they needed to hear. Those values of public service and advising in the public interest contrast with the record of the Liberals: of privatisation, of contracting out, of wasting literally billions of dollars on overheads for labour-hire workers, casual workers and the big four consulting firms—a global cancer on public services right around the world—and of casualisation. Their record is the very opposite of stewardship.

Probably the tool which is most responsible for the situation we find ourselves in was Tony Abbott's policy of staff caps, continued by all of them for 10 years—the ASL caps. It was privatisation by stealth. Here's a fact: when Tony Abbott and the Liberals were elected, their one policy for the Australian Public Service, literally their only policy, was to cut the number of public servants by 15,000. Why? It bore no relationship to service models, delivery, outcomes or society's needs. It was because that was the number that we had when John Howard left office. That was it. That was the rationale. So in all the time after John Howard left office in 2007 to when we came to government, the population of the country had grown, we had an ageing population, we had the new NDIS, we had deteriorating strategic circumstances requiring more investment in defence and myriad needs, yet in real terms the Public Service was cut by 25 per cent.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

See, they yell and they scream and they don't want to hear it. When you cut the Public Service, yet Australia has grown, you say to secretaries and government departments, 'To get the work done, you have to contract this out.' That is their only choice. In a private business, to randomly control one of your cost inputs, or one of your levers, is completely irrational. But that's what those opposite did to the Public Service. If we were writing emojis into Hansard, at this point we'd have 'facepalm', 'head explosion' and a few others that I probably won't mention.

What happened, though? With this privatisation by stealth, we've inherited government departments with thousands upon thousands of casual labour hire workers—permanently temporary, a shadowy shadow workforce, sitting there at desks doing the same work as the public servants sitting alongside them. But the private labour hire companies clip the ticket on the way through—literally thousands of them. In this budget the government put forward an initiative to convert 3,000 of these people to permanent jobs, with a saving over the next four years of $800 million. Through the audit committee, which I've been a member of for seven years, we proved, year after year and inquiry after inquiry, that those opposite wasted billions of dollars. That is on the national debt for the next generation to repay because of their ideology of privatisation and their hatred of and disregard for the notion of a public service and the public sector. It is based on a flawed view that somehow the private sector is always more efficient. It's just not true; it's rubbish—as, interestingly, the previous speaker actually acknowledged, without taking any responsibility for the situation we find ourselves in.

I will say: there is absolutely a role for good consultants, commercial advice, a fresh set of eyes, sometimes surge capacity, international lessons and jurisdictional comparisons. There is expertise from time to time that you don't have in the Public Service, and that's perfectly fine. But let's not pretend: the billions of dollars of work that flowed at great expense and great profit to the big four consulting firms was body shopping, as it's called—stuff which should and could have been done far cheaper within the Public Service, stuff like grant assessments, business cases and business plans. Why on earth was this stuff—low-level routine rubbish, frankly—to contract out, given to the big four consulting firms? It was a false economy from the so-called party of fiscal discipline over there with a trillion dollars of Liberal debt—wasted money.

Labor's policy, unashamedly, is to remove the staff caps and save money—who knew! You employ more public servants in the right areas and you actually save money—a thing those opposite still fail to accept. They say all the stuff but they don't get the core point; they created the mess because of their ideology. We are unashamedly reinvesting in the Public Service.

We heard the start of a scare campaign earlier this year from the Leader of the Opposition. Remember him in question time: 'Labor is employing 10,000 more public servants.' He started that line, and then the PwC scandal erupted—haven't heard that line since! I think that's driven home the point to the public: yes, we can save money and rebuild the capability of the Public Service now and for the next generation by bringing some of that work in-house. Wait and see whether that scare campaign returns!

There's also—and the previous speaker touched on this—what I've termed the logo fetish. I hope if something good comes from this disgraceful scandal at PwC, it's that, once and for all, the media, the public and people in this place, and, frankly, ministers, get over the logo fetish. I've been a senior public servant myself. I've had the experience with Labor and Liberal governments that, when you do a piece of work and you're an expert in the area and you send it up, and they go, 'I'm not so sure about that'—it was worse with the Liberal governments but not across the board—you then go to KPMG or PwC or EY or one of them, and say, 'Can you do this bit of work; here's what I want you to do,' and they put your work with their logo on it, and, somehow, it's a form of magic. There's a demand side to this equation, not just a supply issue. That's something we all need to take some responsibility for.

It leads to my next point: there's no such thing as an independent consultant. It is a fiction. It is a fantasy. The Auditor-General said that very clearly to the parliament a number of times through the public accounts and audit committee. He does not accept that there's an independent consultant. There's not. Like I said, there's a legitimate use, but, at the end of the day, you get the draft report. I've had that experience myself when we had a minister of the other persuasion who said 'No, all program evaluations have to be done by an external firm.' So you put it out for $75,000—a cheap bit of work, frankly—and get it back on a Friday night. It's due back on a Sunday and it's rubbish. Then you look, and the firm has sold us back someone who, frankly, you got rid of about a year ago because they weren't any good. They did this work. You sit there and make tracked changes on a Sunday. They accept them and give it back to you, and that's the independent report. That's too often what goes on. That's a frank exposition of the reality. There is no such thing as an independent consultant. You can partner with consultants. You can get external capability. You can get grunt. You can get intellectual experience. But they're not independent, and we should stop pretending that they are when we're paying the bill.

This bill responds to the independent review of the APS led by Mr David Thodey, the former CEO of Telstra. It was commissioned by the former Liberal government. It was nice to hear that they now say they support it, because they wouldn't implement it. Prime Minister Turnbull commissioned it. Then they got the report, and Prime Minister Morrison went 'Well, we're not doing that; the Public Service is here to shut up and do what they're told.' That is basically what he said to them. In the first address as Prime Minister, he said: 'We'll do the policy. You'll do the implementing.' In a narrow sense, of course that's true. Of course governments decide. But it is the Public Service's responsibility to brief governments whether they want to hear it or not. That's part of how our system of government works. The Public Service does not just work for executive government. It was created in the Constitution and it's also accountable to this parliament separate and different from its accountability to ministers. Like I said, frank and fearless advice is so critical.

The final thing I would say on the notion of the APS value of stewardship is that it's incredibly important that we add that value in as a new Public Service value. The APS values articulate the culture and the operating ethos of the APS. They reflect the expectations between public servants and the government, the parliament and the community. They should change very slowly. They really should stand the test of time and they shouldn't be changed lightly, so it is a significant thing that the government is legislating a new value. It was developed through extensive consultation and input from over 1,500 APS staff across the country, from graduates to senior executives, and it outlines the stewardship value as meaning 'The APS builds capability and institutional knowledge and supports the public interest now and into the future by understanding the long-term impacts of what it does.' All APS employees, from the last person in the door last week at the most junior level to the most senior secretary, the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, are bound by those values. Unlike consultants, it is the Public Service, which the public ultimately can trust, that is bound by those values.

Stewardship involves learning from the past and looking into the future. It's actually a conservative value because it involves conservation of the capital you've inherited—the knowledge which should be valued—as well as cultivation, leaving things in a better place than you found them, seeing your role as part of the whole, preserving public trust and promoting the public good. It also has deep roots in Australia. It's a First Nations Australians value, with our country's original stewards caring for the country over tens of thousands of years and untold generations. And so, whilst it's a value that this legislation is inserting or imposing on all public servants to be accountable for, I will close close to where I started. It's also a value that governments—this government and governments that will come after us—and secretaries must also hold dear for their responsibilities to steward the Public Service for the next generation.

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The need to reform the Public Service is pretty clear. The recent robodebt and PwC scandals have blown wide open the fact that the APS is not functioning as it should. Is it the bastion of frank and fearless advice it's meant to be? Does it have the intellectual capital required to be the main source of advice to government? The Thodey review, to which this bill responds, says that the answers to those questions is no.

But I also think that this legislation is an inadequate and untimely response to the problem. The Public Service Act already sets accountability as a Public Service value and says that the APS is open and accountable to the Australian community. The act sets out, as a main objective, to establish an apolitical Public Service that is efficient and effective in serving the government, the parliament and the Australian public. But after years of resourcing neglect, Australian departments do not have the capability or the permission to live up to this objective. For decades, governments have demanded more efficiencies within departments. This means reduced resources with increased expectations. The long-term effect of demanding more output with less budget has resulted in a hollowing out of the public service. The government has a huge task ahead of it in rebuilding the Public Service. It is going to take decades of concerted effort to get departments to where they should be. But this bill is not the right way to start, nor is it coming at the right time.

I want to make it clear that none of my comments are intended to reflect on the public servants within the APS who turn up to work every day and commit to performing their obligations with the greatest of care. Particularly in the last few years of COVID response and restrictions, departmental staff have been working above and beyond. My comments are about the fundamental structures, hierarchies and practices that have evolved within the Public Service that need reform. The Thodey review confirmed in 2019 the finding that had been made a number of times in recent years that APS capability is no longer fit for purpose. The Thodey review noted a weakened Public Service results in weakened service delivery for Australians, and that's the key issue. Yes, the Public Service needs to be delivering advice and support to government, but it is also the interface between government and the Australian people. The Thodey review report says a rundown public service results in 'direct and adverse impacts on the APS's ability to deliver for the community'. That report outlined two fundamental concerns: firstly, that there has been a trend of outsourcing core ongoing Public Service work to contractors; and, secondly, that the APS is suffering from creeping politicisation. This could not have been more accurately illustrated than through the PwC and robodebt sagas of the last few months.

We have all borne witness to the ongoing investigation and extensive media coverage of external contractor PwC's use of confidential information acquired in 2015 while assisting the government in drafting new multinational tax laws. So many questions have been raised about the interaction between sensitive government policy and the private sector. It has been revealed that PwC had more than half a billion dollars worth of contracts with the federal government in the last few years. The issue has highlighted how dependent the APS on the consulting industry, which is entirely inappropriate—and I say that as an ex-consultant myself. This is exactly what the Thodey recommendations identified, and these were generally ignored by the former government in 2019. The APS is bound by values and codes of conduct and has an obligation to serve the public and the government of the day. External contractors have none of these requirements. More importantly, the outsourcing of core work to contractors hollows out the ability of the APS to advise. It removes the core purpose of the APS. Outsourcing core work redesigns an APS into a briefing hub that relies on external advice rather than supporting a workforce that can provide quality, considered and situationally aware advice. A well-resourced, capacity-rich APS will always provide better advice than a contractor and won't leak secrets to clients.

The robodebt debacle goes to Thodey's second fundamental concern: the creeping politicisation of the APS. The horrors of the robodebt scheme and the effect of this scheme on the lives of so many Australians cannot be underestimated. But how did this happen? How did a theoretically apolitical APS that delivers frank and fearless advice manage to implement this unlawful and immoral scheme? Well, it didn't. The APS that implemented this scheme was following the instructions of government without challenging or questioning the principles. The APS that implemented this scheme was not serving the public. In 2017, a Senate committee found that a 'lack of procedural fairness is evident in every stage' of the program, which 'should be put on hold until all procedural fairness flaws are addressed', but nothing happened. Robodebt was implemented as directed by government without frank and fearless advice from the APS. This is the problem that we should be addressing. So what does this bill actually do? We've just heard from the member for Bruce about these problems but not much about how this bill will actually change anything.

At the outset I do applaud the Albanese government in its announced commitment to rebuild the APS. It requires a long-term commitment to the task. I acknowledge the narrative that this bill is the first step, but it's not a step. This amounts to platitudes which will do nothing to operationalise a rebuilding. If rebuilding the APS was akin to rebuilding a house, this bill is choosing the colour of the roof tiles. I worry that this bill will detract from significant reform as we all pat ourselves on the back because we've started.

So what does this bill actually do? Firstly, the bill legislates a few of the rhetorical elements of the Thodey review but does not include the substantive recommendations. Secondly, it adds in an APS value of stewardship, which is not a Thodey recommendation, given that stewardship is a function, not a value. It requires an APS purpose statement to be prepared by the Secretaries Board. This seems like labour-intensive and arduous lip service when the APS is already bound by the Public Service Act and APS Values. The third thing this bill does is require agency heads to create a work environment that enables decisions to be made by APS employees at the lowest possible classification level. I'm assuming that this is to attempt to dilute some of the top-heavy decision-making in the APS hierarchy, but it makes no sense to me that this, which is not a Thodey recommendation, is a priority. It's not clear that it even belongs in legislation. I worry that the government is touting this bill as part of long-term thinking when actually it's a piecemeal, knee-jerk reaction for the need to action.

So what actually does need to happen? Before we can even begin to have conversations about how to rebuild the APS, we need to hear the response from the robodebt royal commission. Understanding the failures of the past is essential to equipping us for the future. If we really want to improve and fix the organisations in front of us, we need to know what went wrong, which is why I'm introducing a second reading amendment, which has been circulated in my name, to suspend any further work on this bill until the robodebt royal commission has reported. There is no point undertaking royal commissions if we don't hear from them before deciding how to respond. The royal commission report is expected in a few weeks. Surely, it's worth listening to it before deciding on the highest priority reforms.

Secondly, we need to respond to the Thodey review—and not just the rhetorical elements. We need legislation or regulations that strengthen the power of the APS Commissioner, clarify the distinct roles of the Secretary of PM&C and the APS Commissioner and strengthen the merit based processes for appointments and termination of secretaries.

Thirdly, we need to undertake a comprehensive review of the APS Values, preferably after receiving the robodebt royal commission report. A comprehensive review should focus on each group of employees and their relationship with government and the parliament, their relationship with the public, their workplace relationships and ethical behaviour.

Fourthly, the government needs to commit to long-term, substantial resourcing of the APS. This means enough money for the APS to hire well and when it needs to, enough money that the APS can develop or redevelop in-house expertise and won't have to farm out to contractors for advice and enough money that public servants are not skewing their programs, advice or delivery in favour of political goodwill and therefore budget.

Fifthly, we need to re-establish the correct relationship between government, the APS and the public. The APS must be regarded as a significant institution in its own right as part of responsible government under the Constitution. I refer to Andrew Podger AO's comments in this regard and defer to his experience. He said:

The partnership between Secretaries and Agency Ministers is therefore critical: it requires trust and mutual respect, and confidence in the confidentiality of communications between the two. Equally, the degree of independence of the APS, and hence of Secretaries, must be recognised. The relationship should be along the lines of trustees, each respecting the other's role and responsibilities; not quite equals (as the APS does 'serve the Government') but not the 'principal-agent' relationship which has emerged since the 1980s let alone the 'master-servant' relationship which I have detected in more recent times.

Finally, we need to make ensure that APS leaders are fully equipped to lead. Concerns about leadership and leadership responsibilities within the APS have been raised regularly over the last two decades. It seems ludicrous that we've been talking about leadership concerns in the APS for two decades. I'm told these conversations have resulted in some strengthening of requirements and expectations and improvements in training and development for APS leaders. Thodey recommended that 'performance management of secretaries should be robust and comprehensive', and 'robust processes should govern the termination of secretaries appointments'. I urge the government to prioritise the reform of APS leadership and to ensure departmental secretaries are appointed on merit, with a full understanding of purpose and responsibilities and a commitment to the rebuilding of expertise and capability in their departments.

In conclusion, and to quote the Thodey review again:

APS capability has arguably deteriorated and is not fit for the future. The approach to all aspects of workforce management lacks strategic direction and is below best practice in many areas.

But I ask the government to consider these three points: (1) reform of the APS is essential for our government and our democracy to function, so it should be done comprehensively and strategically; (2) the timing of reform is critical and we must wait for the report of the robodebt royal commission in order to learn from past mistakes to prioritise our reform for the future; and (3) reform must be substantive, not rhetorical and it needs to be backed by appropriate resourcing and budget. We need government to act decisively. I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"The House declines to give the bill a second reading until such time as the report on the Robodebt Royal Commission is handed down".

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

Do you have a seconder?

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion.

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

I thank the member for Wentworth. The original question was that this bill now be read a second time. To this the honourable member for Curtin has moved an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I'll state the question in the form that the amendment be disagreed to.

Anne Stanley (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make my contribution to the debate on the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023. Millions of Australians interact with the Australian Public Service every day. They are helped, advised and assisted by hardworking, loyal and knowledgeable people who care deeply about the job they do and how they can support everyday people in the best way possible, whether it's interactions with Centrelink, Medicare, the National Library for research, applying for a tax file number or assistance with the NDIS, and so many more different touchstones. They encounter professionals who make a positive difference every day. These dedicated staff who work for the Public Service are important to every Australian.

A strong, well-funded, fiercely independent Public Service is vital for good government, and it's also vital for a healthy democracy. This bill amends the Public Service Act 1999 so that the Albanese government can take the steps necessary to rebuild the Australian Public Service, which, unfortunately, has not always enjoyed the support it has deserved in the recent past.

This bill and the Albanese government's broader APS reform agenda are to restore the public's faith and trust in government and its institutions. It is unhealthy to be second-guessing decisions made, and furthermore distrust in public institutions is not healthy for the good working of our society. A Public Service that provides advice to government without fear or favour ensures that decisions made by government will always be in the best interests of the society it serves. They avoid costly missteps and keep government running smoothly and efficiently. Trust is vital for a democracy to function properly and deliver a better life for the people who live within its boundaries.

The Public Service Amendment Bill 2023 will strengthen the core purpose and values of the APS and ensure that the APS has the capabilities and expertise necessary to effectively function and deliver accountability and transparency in our institutions. It will do this in four ways: add a new APS value of stewardship that all employees must uphold; require the secretaries to oversee the development of a single unifying APS purpose statement to be renewed every five years; require all agency heads to uphold and promote the new APS purpose statement in addition to the APS Values and the APS Employment Principles; and strengthen and reaffirm the APS apolitical nature by strengthening the act to make clear that ministers cannot direct agency heads on individual APS staffing decisions. The bill will ensure that there is an apolitical merit based approach to APS management matters devoid of political interference. This is key to maintaining an impartial public service.

This bill will also build the capacity and expertise of the APS. It will do this in two ways: by making regular independent and transparent capability reviews a five-yearly requirement for each department of state, Services Australia and the Australian tax office; and require secretaries' boards to commission regular long-term insight reports to explore medium- and long-term trends, risks and opportunities for Australia. This bill will also introduce the following two amendments: it will require publication of agency APS census results and an action plan that responds to these results, and require agency heads to implement measures to enable decisions to be made by employees at the lowest possible classification for those decisions. This, in turn, will reduce unnecessary hierarchy and empower APS employees.

The new APS value of stewardship will articulate the culture operating ethos of the APS. It will reflect the expectations of the relationship between public servants, the government, the parliament and the Australian community. This value is the result of extensive consultation, with the input of over 1,500 APS staff of all levels, graduates to senior executives, across all of Australia. Informed by these consultations, the bill outlines the stewardship value meaning, which will build the APS capability and institutional knowledge and support the public interest, now and into the future, by understanding the long-term intent of what the Public Service does.

In 2019, the Thodey independent review of the Australian Public Service was given to government. It was a 384-page document detailing the challenges that the Australian Public Service was facing but also what could be done to ensure it was fit for purpose and served the Australian people. The review concluded that, whilst the APS was not broken, it lacked a unified purpose, was too internally focused and had lost capability in key areas. The APS needed substantial changes so that it could better respond and prepare Australia. The bill responds to the recommendations 2a and 2b, 5, 6 and 32 of the Thodey review.

The Albanese government will also implement policies to improve the employment of First Nations people within the Australian Public Service. For the last two decades the percentage of First Nations people employed by the APS has been around 3.5. The Albanese government intends to increase this to at least five per cent. The APS will look at culture and commit to actions to ensure that the APS is attractive to First Nations people and that it provides them with rewarding careers. Rewarding careers that will mean First Nations people will be encouraged to stay and build their careers within the Public Service, especially in leadership roles.

Since the Thodey review was given to government, Australia has faced the COVID-19 pandemic, increasing national disasters, turbulent global economic conditions and increasing geopolitical tensions. The importance of an agile and adaptive APS has become increasingly necessary for the proper functioning of government services. The importance of the values and principles of the APS—impartiality, commitment to service, accountability, and respectful and ethical commitments—have also been highlighted. Core values that underpin the APS are the values that we expect from our Public Service. We want a public service that acts with a clear purpose, with the long-term implications of decisions and the actions at the forefront, and we want it to be fearless in giving impartial and truthful advice when needed.

It is for those reasons that the Albanese government is delivering on several of the recommendations in the Thodey review for this bill, delivering on the amendments to the Public Service Act so that reform is embedded in the legislation that guides and governs our public service. I also want to take a moment to personally thank all the public services that work to support our community in Werriwa and around Australia in whatever capacity they do. I want to note how much your work is appreciated and how much it is needed to improve how we live and how we interact with each other. I commend the bill to the House.

Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Public Service Amendment Bill 2023 makes amendments to the Public Service Act 1999 and is a key element of the Albanese government's APS reform agenda. The need for ambitious and enduring reform of the APS is clear. The independent review of the Australian Public Service, led by Mr David Thodey, concluded that the APS lacked a unified purpose, was too internally focused and had lost capability in important areas. The Thodey review called for a Public Service that is trusted, future fit, responsive and agile to meet the changing needs of government and the community with professionalism and, of course, integrity.

This bill delivers on several important recommendations of the Thodey review, recognising that the case for reform has only strengthened in recent years. The COVID-19 pandemic, natural disasters, geopolitical disruptions and increasing economic volatility have highlighted the importance of an APS that acts with agility and common purpose. The experience of recent years has also highlighted the enduring importance of the existing APS values to be impartial, committed to service, accountable, respectful and ethical. To model these values and embody integrity, the APS needs to be honest, truly independent and empowered to provide frank and fearless advice and to defend legality and due process.

The APS needs to listen to and engage with the Australian community, developing policy and delivering services with empathy and in a spirit of partnership. We should expect greater transparency about the state of the Public Service and its ability to deliver. That helps build trust in government—in the institutions of our great nation. We want the APS to be confident and capable, acting with a clear purpose, demonstrating thought leadership and taking a long-term view of the implications of each decision and action.

Reform of such a large and complex organisation takes time, and it takes sustained effort and commitment. That is why the Albanese government is introducing amendments to the Public Service Act to embed reform in the legislation that guides and governs the Public Service. The Albanese government's APS reform agenda has four priorities. They are: firstly, an APS that embodies integrity in everything it does; second, an APS that puts people and business at the centre of policy and services; third, that the APS is a model employer; fourth, an APS that has the capability to do its job well.

This bill supports each of these priorities. At its heart, this bill and the Albanese government's broader APS reform agenda is about restoring the public's trust in our Public Service, in government and in our institutions. The reforms in this bill will strengthen the APS's core purpose and values, build the capability and expertise of the APS and support good governance, accountability and transparency in our nation. The Australian Public Service is a complex organisation made up of tens of thousands of people working across dozens of departments and agencies. The work, naturally, of the APS is incredibly varied and diverse. To ensure that the APS works as an integrated organisation—as one APS—the Thodey review recommended strengthening the APS's purposes and values. Amendments in the bill deliver on this intent and support the government's APS reform priority to create an APS that acts with integrity in everything it does.

This bill adds a new APS value of stewardship. The APS values articulate the culture and operating ethos of the APS. They reflect expectations of the relationship between public servants and the government, the parliament and the Australian community. The new stewardship value has been developed through extensive consultation, with responses from over 1,500 APS staff from across the country, all the way from the graduates to the senior executives. Informed by this consultation, the bill outlines the stewardship value as meaning, '… the APS builds capability and institutional knowledge, and supports the public interest now and into the future by understanding the long-term impacts of what it does.' By requiring all APS employees to uphold stewardship, the bill will strengthen the important and enduring role that all public servants play as stewards.

Stewardship involves learning from the past and looking to the future. It involves conservation and cultivation, leaving things in a better place than you found them. It involves seeing your role as part of the whole, preserving public trust and promoting the public good. Stewardship has deep roots in Australia. As all honourable members know, First Nations Australians are the country's original stewards. There is no doubting that; that is a fact. Caring for country over tens of thousands of years and multiple generations is what First Nations Australians have done.

To compliment the addition of stewardship as an APS value, this bill will require the Secretaries Board To oversee the development of a single, unifying purpose statement for the APS. This will provide a common foundation for collaborative leadership, align services and share delivery across the many departments and agencies that make up the APS. It will contribute to a shared sense of purpose for tens of thousands of APS employees, reinforcing a one-APS approach. This purpose statement will be developed through consultation by the service, for the service and it will not be set in stone. The bill requires that it be refreshed every five years, accounting for the APS's evolving role over time. The purpose statement should guide the way the APS works.

The first APS value is for the APS to be impartial, and this value is crucial to the successful operation of the service and to maintaining public trust. It is important that we defend it. Having an apolitical and merit based approach to APS employment matters devoid of political interference is key to maintaining an impartial Public Service. This bill will strengthen the relevant provision in the Public Service Act to make it clear that ministers cannot direct agency heads on individual APS staffing decisions. This will reaffirm the apolitical role of the APS and provide confidence to agency heads to act with integrity in the exercise of their duties and powers.

The bill also embeds ongoing measures to build the APS's capability and expertise. Talented, committed people are the foundation of our Public Service. To be future fit, the APS needs to continually build the capability of its staff to create a skilled and confident workforce to remain a robust and trusted institution that delivers modern policy and service solutions for decades to come. The APS needs to be future focused, looking ahead to solve the challenges facing Australia. The Thodey review noted concerns that the capability of the APS has been eroded over time. It also called for the APS to strike a better balance between short-term responsiveness and investing in the deep expertise required to grapple with long-term strategic policy challenges. This bill will help the APS to maintain that balance and build expertise by requiring the Secretaries Board to commission regular, evidence-based, long-term insight reports developed through a process of public consultation. These apolitical and evidence-based reports will encourage the APS to engage with academics, experts and the broader Australian community on long-term policy challenges. By partnering in this transparent way, the APS can build trust in its expertise and understanding of cross-cutting issues that matter to all Australians.

Transparency can shine a light on the culture and make-up of the APS and prompt changes to ensure it remains a great place to work for people from all walks of life. The Thodey review called for the APS to adopt best-practice ways of working by reducing unnecessary hierarchy and empowering APS employees to make decisions. This recommendation was prompted by findings that decisions involving risk tended to be increasingly escalated upwards in the APS. This bill introduces a healthy counterweight to that tendency by including a provision to require agency heads to implement measures that enable decisions to be made by APS employees at the lowest appropriate classification level. To be clear, this isn't about pushing work or risk down to an inappropriate level. Instead, it is about ensuring that decision-making is not raised to a higher level than is necessary. Ultimately, it is about improving decision-making processes, reducing bureaucratic bottlenecks, empowering staff and fostering professional development. All of those things will be done with an appropriate level of shifting decisions and empowering employees at the appropriate level. It's important, of course, that managers don't use this as an opportunity to shift work, and I'm sure that they won't. More so, it is to make sure that they're developing their people and no allowing inertia to stop the important work of the Public Service.

The challenges facing Australia over the coming decade are immense. The APS will continue to play an integral role in meeting the changing needs of government and the community with professionalism and integrity. The Thodey review provides an important blueprint for ongoing public sector transformation that can endure while adapting to changing needs and circumstances. Our government has responded with its ambitious APS reform agenda. By amending the Public Service Act, this bill advances that agenda significantly and locks in important reforms. Through this and other measures, we can uphold and build the public's trust and faith in government and one of its most important institutions, our Australian Public Service.

The APS makes a real difference to the lives of all Australians in delivering essential services, and that's true in my electorate of Solomon, too, where public servants play a very prominent role. I'm glad that I've been successful in having the DFAT office in Darwin increase its footprint in recent times. It's a win for the Northern Territory, helping to deepen our international linkages with our immediate region, especially with Indonesia and Timor-Leste, and it's something we want to see more of. The APS needs to reflect the whole of Australia in its hiring decisions but also in a balanced geographic spread of its regional offices, such as those we proudly host in Darwin. I'd like to highlight in particular the Commonwealth APS Academy campus initiative in data and digital training for entry-level jobs. This APS Academy campus is based at Charles Darwin University, in my electorate, and will provide vocational education and training courses. It will have 300 spots open to Darwin residents wanting a career change or to boost their skills in digital roles in the APS. The academy is set to open this year, with graduate placements to follow in 2024.

Like the private sector, the APS is struggling to find enough people with the technical skills to fill roles in the data and digital space. That's why this academy program is the latest positive step in the right direction to deal with this issue and, ultimately, to keep those workers in the APS. The CPSU's NT branch welcomed the announcement of this new APS Academy, with regional secretary Kay Densley saying:

New jobs and new opportunities in the Territory are welcomed after years of the Coalition Government's cuts to APS jobs and services.

And CDU vice-chancellor Scott Bowman said he was 'delighted' with this innovation.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member will be granted leave to continue when the debate is resumed.