Josh Burns (Macnamara, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I know there are millions of Australians who were at home watching the first part of my contribution to the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023, and they were anxious throughout the winter recess for me to continue my contribution on this important bill and to find out how it finishes. Allow me to indulge all of those people at home. This is a really important bill, and we are here in this place back debating this bill, the amendments to our Public Service, because we fundamentally believe in our Public Service. We believe in the importance of having frank and fearless advice coming to government, and we see the consequences of when that dissolves or when that is watered down.

Over the winter break we had the presentation of the royal commission into robodebt's report to the Governor-General, and I think for every member of this place it is a moment to reflect on when that breaks down, when the Public Service in this country loses its sense of ethics and loses its sense of what is in the national interest—led by a government who had an agenda to come after some of the most vulnerable people in our society, while also getting the advice that it was potentially an illegal scheme, yet choosing to pursue sending out automated debt notices to vulnerable people all around the country. Instead of having any shred of accountability, what the former government did was just continue with their program of targeting vulnerable Australians with their robodebt scheme.

This royal commission shone a very bright light on not only that awful piece of public maladministration but also the violations of many rights of Australians, where people deserve not to be intimidated or bullied by their government into paying illegal debt notices, where people should be free from that. You think about some of the ways in which they were frivolous with the expenditure of public money, when they spent $30 million on an airport that was only worth $3 million after they'd purchased the land off a Liberal Party donor, yet they went after people who had very little money and who were receiving public social safety net benefits. They were the people to which the former government, led by former Prime Minister Scott Morrison, former ministers Stuart Robert and Alan Tudge and many others, sought to administer this robodebt scheme.

We want to make sure we are investing in our Public Service. We don't want to see the mistakes of previous administrations, where they completely gutted the capability of the Public Service. We want to lift up the capability, the culture and the service the Public Service gives to not only the government but also, most importantly, the people we are all privileged to represent. That's what this bill is all about. The bill will strengthen the Public Service's core purpose and values, build its capability and expertise and provide institutional support for the indispensable principles of good governance, accountability and transparency.

Many of the measures in this bill go back to the recommendations in the 2019 Thodey review, which were given such short shrift by the previous government. The bill makes it clear that ministers cannot direct agency heads on employment matters. This will stop the dangerous trend in recent years of ministers trying to structure their departments to suit their political agendas and installing their acolytes at all levels of the Public Service. It was extraordinary that the former Prime Minister appointed his former chief of staff to lead the Public Service. It is hardly any wonder that we saw the Public Service being used in political operations and in political cover-ups as occurred under the previous administration.

The bill will install regular capability reviews as a requirement and will mandate at least one long-term insight briefing each year. This will allow better assessment of its performance and will give positive reinforcement to those members of the Public Service who are doing their jobs in the way they ought to be done. Australia is best served by a strong, independent, non-partisan and confident Public Service, by a system in which public servants know they can give ministers honest advice without the fear of political retribution or a rapid end to their Public Service careers. This will be a long process, because the damage done by former governments is immense. But this bill makes a start on a new generation of public service, and I commend it to this place.

Dai Le (Fowler, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023. The Australian Public Service is the skeleton upon which the body of our society is built, from our healthcare system to tax obligations, employment systems, social services, migration and many more. In my electorate of Fowler our constituents come to see us most of the time with concerns about the competency, efficiency and accuracy of the Public Service departments in handling their cases. For example, for a constituent who was on unemployment benefits of $850, Centrelink showed that $495 would be deducted from his benefits due to a deduction of immediate payment. Upon investigation, there was no such deduction of immediate payment. Centrelink had made a mistake. They offered a solution to fix it within seven days or so. Due to this error, this man was unable to pay his weekly rent and bills. The only comfort he was offered was to be able to contact the urgent payment request line, on which he had to wait for one hour and 37 minutes and was eventually cut off. There wasn't even a Vietnamese translator option to explain the long wait. Can you imagine waiting for one hour and 37 minutes and not understanding fully what is said on the line and then getting cut off abruptly? This inefficiency is what's wrong with our Public Service system and processes. We're now in 2023, and with technology at hand, systems and processes can be set up to better serve and deliver for the Australian public.

Another local constituent of mine was rejected for NDIS housing on the basis that he did not have enough physical impairment. I met with the constituent and I can attest that he was paralysed from the waist down and had a speech impairment. He was living in a rental house which his support coordinator had reported was not suitable for him, as he struggled with accessibility and couldn't reach basic utilities like the kitchen and bathroom sinks. How did our Public Service system enable an assessment that this constituent did not have enough physical impairment? If our system is set up to such a level, where accurate assessment couldn't be achieved, what hope do we have for an equitable and fair society?

I commend the Albanese government for taking the initiative to reform the Public Service through this bill. I hope this reform will help build public trust and confidence in the Australian Public Service. And I hope some of these reforms are reflected in other aspects of the Public Service, such as the Social Services and NDIS portfolio, where many of our residents have direct contact with Australian Public Service systems. I look forward to seeing Minister Bill Shorten address some of these shortcomings within his review of the NDIS. However, I would like to stress that in attempting to reform the Public Service the government must also be careful when it comes to spending the taxpayer dollars of hardworking Australians. To put this into perspective, it will cost $40.8 million for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Australian Public Service Commissioner to reform and strengthen the APS and $25 million over the next year for an APS capability reinvestment fund.

These are not small numbers. For example, $25 million is the number that Fowler missed out on and so missed out on its health and wellness centre, which would have provided seniors and people going through rehabilitation after major operations a place to recover and a place where their families could stay with them through this period, like Ronald McDonald House.

Before I go further, I want to make my position clear that my feedback on this bill is in no way intended to undermine the hard work of the Public Service officers and people employed to do their best within the current environment and framework to support the Australian community. I am grateful for their work and service. My feedback is directed at the overall Public Service structures and practices.

In 2019, the eminent David Thodey delivered an independent review of the Australian Public Service, resulting in 40 recommendations that could result in far-reaching change. The review outlined that government support was critical for effective APS transformation.

We now see the Albanese government is hoping to transform the Australian Public Service by implementing some of the recommendations in the bill. In the spirit of the Thodey report, there are four core elements that would be addressed through this bill: (1) embodies integrity in everything it does, (2) puts people and business at the centre of policy and services, (3) is a model employer and (4) has the capability to do its job well.

The first step was to ensure the existing APS values would require the Public Service to be impartial, committed to service, accountable, respectful and ethical within their role. The government will implement recommendation 5 of the review, which sought to add the value of stewardship to the APS values and in which public servants would need to support the public interest and understand the long-term impacts of what it does. Essentially, this would require all of those in the APS to foreshadow the future and implications, which, realistically, may be beyond some in the service to do so because of their capability and experience. It's important to consider that most decisions made are made by senior officials and departmental secretaries. APS officers at a junior level would have little control, such as what occurred with robodebt.

If you look at the royal commission's report findings for robodebt published on 7 July 2023, you will find there was an absolute failure from the senior public servants who oversaw the wrongdoings of the scheme. They knew about it but did not act on the information, allegedly misled their staff members and failed to do anything of substance to rectify the debt inaccuracy. The result was the welfare system severely let down Australians who relied on it. Peoples' lives were severely impacted because of the actions of the bureaucrats involved. To add insult to injury, the very same public servant who had spearheaded the robodebt scheme was then quietly promoted to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to lead the AUKUS scheme with a $900,000 salary package. While that public servant has now been stood down, it is situations such as this that only deepen the mistrust in the Public Service. While I'm not against the addition of the stewardship, it will be in the best interests to narrowly define it so that it applies to APS employees who do hold the power to mitigate risk and make decisions for the good of the public interest.

Other recommendations that were outlined in the bill was a proposed insertion of section 64A, whereby a secretaries board must cause at least one long-term insights report to be prepared each financial year and it must be made public. This is to address Thodey's focus on building capability and so that the workforce remains robust. I can appreciate that this will allow greater transparency and potentially keep the APS being future fit. However, I note that Thodey's point on building capability also requires developing deeper professional expertise, greater diversity, real inclusion, digital capabilities and dynamic management structures and ways of working. I ask the government how can we give more significant effect to these points in this section of the bill and how can we structurally alter APS governance so that building capabilities are centralised?

While the bill doesn't take into account some recommendations of the Thodey report, I am not convinced that it makes the most of the budget allocated for the reform that the Albanese government envisioned. The Thodey report recommendations highlighted the need for innovations, the nature of jobs and productivity. These were not particularly addressed in this bill. If we are spending millions of dollars to reform the APS, what form of innovation are we introducing so that the APS can operate effectively, efficiently and with integrity?

In recommendation 27, Thodey proposes that the Secretaries Board could establish protocols to support timely research publication and trial a Public Service innovation incubator to drive innovative approaches to policymaking. It's expected that there will be 191,861 staff within the general government sector for this financial year. It would be wise that the bill implement changes that can encourage better departmental practices, structure, innovation and diversity.

One Thodey recommendation which I believe is critical is No. 25:

Strengthen the APS by recruiting, developing and promoting more people with diverse views and backgrounds.

This has not been addressed in this bill. This particular recommendation also gives effect to the overarching point of building capabilities within APS. Thodey recommends:

Secretaries Board to set a 2030 diversity goal: the APS to reflect and understand the people and communities it serves.

Australia has grown to be multicultural, and we can no longer operate with a few voices to make decisions that affect a diverse population. As you would expect, diverse voice in the Public Service matter, which is evident in the constituent cases shared earlier in my speech. A particularly relevant quote from Frances Adamson, DFAT secretary, within the Thodey review notes:

We in DFAT cannot possibly provide the advice that we provide to our government, or be effective internationally unless we are broadly representative of the Australian people, unless we can draw on a wide range of experiences, and thoughts from our own workforce.

Diversity in workforces, particularly in the Public Service, will ensure adequate cultural representation and share lived experiences, expertise and challenges. Thodey states that a whole-of-service diversity and inclusion strategy within APS will ensure that the service takes advantage of people's talents from all corners of life and their varying perspectives. An APS workforce with a promoted focus on diversity and inclusion will assist with delivering critical targets, as the service delivered will be able to reflect the needs of the wider Australian community.

According to Thodey's implementation guidance, targets are to be set for:

… a transformational lift in representation of people from diverse backgrounds at the EL and SES levels …

And, most importantly, amending the Public Service Act 1999 to strengthen the employment principle on diversity. To give effect to Thodey's implementation guidance, I ask the government to consider amending section 10A and 18 of the Public Service Act 1999 to promote and foster a diverse perspective, which is in line with Thodey's recommendation that the APS should address the need for greater representation of diverse groups and perspectives.

Overall, transforming the APS is a significant process, and caution must be taken to ensure that Australian taxpayers' money is not taken for granted in this reform, especially in the current economic climate with the cost-of-living crisis. Although this bill proposes some commendable changes, the government can do much more to transform the APS and incorporate more of Thodey's recommendations.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to thank the minister for her work on this important issue. I'm grateful to speak on the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023, as it will not only provide transformational and enduring changes to the Australian Public Service but also strengthen the core purpose and values of the APS at a time when it's so sorely needed.

I have been very impressed by the quality of the public servants that I've dealt with in my time in parliament. I've also been very impressed with the public servants that have worked in areas like Centrelink, the taxation department and health care across state and federal public services in my time not only as a politician but also working as a doctor in the public health system. Indeed, when working in our public hospital system, I saw my role as being part of the Public Service.

But I was shocked with the previous government's approach to people requiring government support. I was so shocked that I felt that they no longer understood the word 'service'. In my role of running my own medical practice, on numerous occasions I had to deal with the taxation department and other government servants. I was asked to provide records of employment, payments from hospitals, Medicare payments et cetera and receipts for expenditure, and sometimes I found it very difficult to provide those documents in a timely way to the taxation department, Medicare et cetera. I'm pretty organised, and I had my practice pretty well organised after almost 40 years, and I sometimes found it difficult.

In 2018, I met a family with a couple of boys they looked after who had intellectual disability. The father himself had an intellectual disability. He had received a robodebt letter and was finding it difficult to provide to Centrelink documents that went back many years, such as unemployment payments et cetera, for his own small business. He ran a home maintenance and lawnmowing service and was trying his best to provide for his family, even though he himself had struggled with education. I went to the minister responsible, and the response I got was shocking—absolutely shocking!

To me, it seemed that the previous government no longer understood the words 'service' and 'public'. Whilst they were willing to pay millions of dollars to consultative services for reports that were often completely meaningless, they were prepared to punish people in the most difficult circumstances in our society. I'd like to thank Linda Burney, the previous shadow minister for government services, for the help she gave me in that time in making us aware of the robodebt process. I am still shocked by the response of the previous government, and I still cannot understand why they pushed forward over a number of years in this process. Despite any advice about how bad the Centrelink retrieval of debt process was, they still refused to act, and they should hang their heads in shame about it.

Robodebt has shaken not only my trust but the trust of our society in the Australian Public Service. I know that the frontline workers do their best, in sometimes very difficult circumstances, to deal with the public who are very stressed, but there was a complete failure of leadership in the higher echelons of the Public Service and a complete failure of political courage and political understanding of the importance of providing support to the most disadvantaged in our society. As Justice Murphy put it, robodebt and the management of it by both politicians and public servants was a 'shameful chapter' and a 'massive failure of public administration' and government.

In 2021, I spoke in this place about how my electorate of Macarthur had lost people to suicide because of the stress that robodebt had placed upon them. I saw it firsthand. People in my electorate felt and lived firsthand how the former coalition government and those senior public servants who backed in this terrible scheme did not care for them, their families or their attempts to deal with such a pathetic witch-hunt, known as robodebt.

Even the language the prime minister was using—of 'lifters and leaners'—was shameful, and I hope we never see it again. It's import to note that the current Prime Minister and the current Minister for Government Services, and all of my Labor colleagues and I all called robodebt out for what it was: a witch hunt against the most vulnerable in our society. We rightfully called for a royal commission, and it was a really important thing that the Prime Minister led us to do. The current Leader of the Opposition also had an opinion on this, but rather than joining us in protecting individuals, Peter Dutton called the royal commission into this ridiculous scheme 'nothing more than a witch hunt'. That was his view, which shows us everything we need to know about where he stood on this in the past.

During all of this, the APS had certain individuals unwilling to acknowledge where their duty must lie—with the Australian people. That's why this legislation is important. It benefits not only current and future members of the Australian Public Service but also all Australians, as trust and accountability must be restored into our Australian Public Service. 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. I would suggest that the capability they lost was the ability to understand what the word 'service' means. It's very concerning to hear this, but I do have faith in the people of the APS to turn things around and demonstrate to the Australian people that they can be trusted, that they can be trusted to deal with complex issues in a compassionate way, and that all people in Australia have a right to feel valued by their government.

This bill is not a bill to damage or criticise the Public Service but rather to strengthen it. It's an opportunity to reshape and reform and strengthen the APS to provide the Australian people with the public service that they deserve. This is especially true during challenging times, and we are in challenging times. We know that economies around the world have been faltering, and it is very important to understand that often those on the lowest incomes are the most stressed. They are the ones that deal most with government support agencies like Centrelink. They are the ones that we have to support and we have to strengthen our responses to the stresses that they are undergoing. This is what the previous government did not do. In fact, they turned the question around. They damaged most the people who were most vulnerable. They didn't support the most vulnerable. Rather, they supported their mates in big business, and that is a very sad thing. In tough and challenging times we need to stand with the most vulnerable, and that includes people that deal with Centrelink, the NDIS, the taxation department, the health department et cetera.

They've worked tirelessly over the last few years, particularly the years of the pandemic, bushfires and floods et cetera. We rely on them to do the right thing and, thankfully, virtually all of the frontline workers did do the right thing. Where we were let down was in the level of scrutiny by the higher levels of the Public Service, the lack of appropriate advice to government and the failure of the government to understand the importance of supporting the most vulnerable.

It's through moments of crisis, like COVID and the bushfires, where we truly see the best of our public servants. With some of the work they did in the north-coast floods, in New South Wales, and the local floods in the Hawkesbury-Nepean area, the public servants were the strength of our society. They were absolutely fantastic in the tireless support they provided to people undergoing some real-life tragedies.

Our government's APS reform agenda has four priorities as part of our broader plan to restore the public's trust and faith in government and its institutions. It is to embody integrity in everything it does and will require the secretaries board to oversee the development of a single unifying APS purpose statement and review it every five years. All agency heads will be required to uphold and promote the new APS purpose statement, in addition to the APS values and employment principles. Further, it will clarify and strengthen the provisions of the act, making it clear that ministers cannot direct agency heads on individual APS staffing decisions. This will reaffirm that the APS's apolitical nature and is integral in upholding faith in the Public Service.

Development of the APS purpose statement must be informed by consultation with the APS and the general public, very importantly. We need to listen to the people that we serve. The second priority is for the APS to put people and business at the centre of policy and services. Thirdly, the APS needs to be a model employer and, lastly, the APS should have capability to perform its job well. We need to fund it properly. We need to stop outsourcing to profit-hungry consultancy groups who do not provide independent reports to government.

It should be noted that the APS has and continues to provide quality and dedicated service to the Australian public, but this bill is about strengthening its ability to provide these services. It will require the publication of APS employment results and an action plan that responds to difficulties with employment. It will foster a culture of transparency and accountability for improvement within agencies. It also adds an APS value of stewardship. APS values articulate the culture and operating ethos of the APS. They reflect the expectations of the relationship between public servants and the government and the people that we all serve.

Informed by consultation, the bill outlines the stewardship value as meaning the APS bills capability and institutional knowledge, and that will be very important, in the 21st century, across a whole range of issues. Stewardship involves learning from the past and looking to the future. This is a government that is committed to supporting the very best values of the Australian Public Service and I fully support the bill. We will consult. We will make our APS more diverse, more accountable and more transparent, and this is very important. This bill provides greater support and clarification for the APS itself, and it is important that the sector helps shape, govern and run our nation in an appropriate manner. I commend the bill to the House.

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we go again—sports rorts, car porks, the Community Health and Hospitals Program, robodebt, and now revelations in the Age and Sydney Morning Herald about the careless, to say the least, administration of offshore processing.

Most notably, despite institutional concerns about the risks of corruption and the fact that the AFP warned the Department of Home Affairs in 2018 about an Australian businessman being under investigation for bribery, one month later it awarded his company a $9.3 million contract to provide accommodation for asylum seekers and refugees on Nauru. The businessman was subsequently charged and convicted of bribery. These latest revelations make it even more urgent that the government heed earlier calls from the crossbench and the member for North Sydney for a royal commission into offshore processing—at the very least, an independent inquiry into the operation of a regime that has cost the Australian taxpayer billions of dollars, much of it going to contracts in apparently dubious circumstances.

And then there's robodebt. The report of the royal commission into robodebt is a remarkable document, not least for the opening remarks from the commissioner, Catherine Holmes. In her preface—and it's worth quoting at some length—she notes:

It is remarkable how little interest there seems to have been in ensuring the Scheme's legality, how rushed its implementation was, how little thought was given to how it would affect welfare recipients and the lengths to which public servants were prepared to go to oblige ministers on a quest for savings. Truly dismaying was the revelation of dishonesty and collusion to prevent the scheme's lack of legal foundation coming to light. Equally disheartening was the ineffectiveness of what one might consider institutional checks and balances—the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office, the Office of Legal Services Coordination, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal—in presenting any hindrance to the Scheme's continuance

Perhaps senior public servants had been taking their lead from the member for Cook, who sent a clear message about what he expected from the Public Service and how he viewed accountability when he addressed them in August 2019:

Only those who put their name on a ballot can really understand the significance of that accountability. As much as you might appreciate the Westminster system, until you put your name on a ballot—that changes everything.

That sounds a long way from the Westminster system's longstanding convention that a credible democracy demands frank and fearless advice from its public service.

The Goldstein community made it clear when I was elected that they regarded integrity as central to the quality and credibility of Australian democracy and government. The way they voted was in no small measure a reflection of their concerns that they were losing faith in the integrity of our political leadership and, by extension, our Public Service. This government frequently claims to be seeking to reclaim the centrality of a frank and fearless Public Service to its decision-making. But there remains a gap between what it says and what it does.

Take the Housing Australia Future Fund, for example. In my speech during the second reading debate I raised concerns about its governance—about the government's claims of independence for its council. As I said, strong oversight and clear guidelines for any grants paid are critical for the integrity of the fund and public confidence in it. We don't want this to be at risk of another colour-coded-spreadsheet exercise. This legislation seeks to install stewardship as a value for the Australian Public Service. Former Public Service Commissioner Andrew Podger, among other former senior public servants, questions the wisdom of applying this to the entire Public Service. He argues that stewardship should be a required value for departmental secretaries, the secretaries board and the SES. However, he adds that it is not a value that every APS employee is in a position to uphold but that failure to do so would be a breach of the code of conduct.

One central question for me is: what are the government's plans for strengthening the merit based processes as recommended by the Thodey review for the appointment of departmental secretaries and to constrain the ability of the Prime Minister of the day to terminate appointments? Since the mid-1990s we've seen several steps taken by executive government that have made it less likely that the Public Service will provide the frank and fearless advice that voters clearly want: first, the decision in the Keating years to put departmental secretaries on five-year contracts, further reducing their security; second, the Howard government's subsequent decision to sack six departmental heads when it came to power; and, third, the Abbott government's decision to cap Public Service numbers. That final decision led not to a cut in spending but to a diversion of taxpayers' money to external consultants—around $10 billion at least in the case of the big four.

There is also the question of consultants being employed on long-term contracts to sit alongside public servants and essentially do the same tasks. I saw the consequences of similar management practices during my close to three decades at the ABC. These days no less than 40 per cent of those working at the national broadcaster are employed on short-term contracts. This has had a significant impact on staff morale and, I would argue, on the ABC's performance and public confidence in the organisation. It seems to me that these are similar, if not identical, to the challenges facing the broader Public Service. If this government is to meet its stated ambition of restoring the public's trust and faith in government and its institutions, surely merit in appointments should be the number one priority.

I worry that this bill is a form of virtue signalling. As Mr Podger and others intimate, it provides little substance and more significant reforms will simply slip off the government's agenda. It would help if the government were to provide assurances that that's not the case and, if not, how it plans to advance the more significant recommendations of the Thodey review and with what timetable.

With that in mind, I move the following second reading amendment as circulated in name:

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

"as the government responds to the recommendations of the Robodebt Royal Commission, the results of the Secretaries Board Integrity Taskforce review are made public and the recommendations of the Thodey Review on appointments and termination of Secretaries are acted upon".

This would, in effect, delay this bill until those undertakings are resolved and test the government's bona fides that the Minister for the Public Service meant what she said when she declared that the government would clean up the gutting of the Public Service and the outsourcing of billions of dollars of work to consultants and contractors. Intentions are one thing; actions are another. Taxpayers who voted for integrity at the last election deserve to have confidence that this government will act rather than just talk.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

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

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Jerome Laxale (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I rise to support the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023, a crucial piece of legislation that seeks to strengthen and safeguard the Australian Public Service. This bill has been carefully crafted, taking into account the insights and inputs of many stakeholders, including employees, representative groups, agency experts, the public and the Community and Public Sector Union. It aims to reinvigorate the core purpose and values of the Australian Public Service, enhance its capability and expertise, and promote good governance, accountability and transparency.

Historically, the APS has been a pillar of stability and service to the Australian people, providing critical support and assistance across various sectors. The APS has been, and always should be, relied upon to give full, frank and fearless advice. Throughout its existence, the APS has played pivotal roles in shaping the nation and delivering vital services to our citizens. From the early days of the federation to the present, public servants have been a key partner, with government, to deliver positive change and progress.

One remarkable example of the APS's impact on Australia's development is seen in our nation's response to World War II. The APS played a critical role in mobilising resources, managing essential services and coordinating efforts to support the war effort. Public servants then worked tirelessly to ensure that the country's infrastructure and essential services were maintained, even amongst the challenges of wartime. Their dedication and commitment to duty were instrumental in steering Australia through those dark days and laying the groundwork for postwar recovery and prosperity.

In addition to national crises, public servants have been instrumental in advancing various sectors that underpin our growth and prosperity. For instance, the APS has significantly shaped policies and programs related to health care, education, social welfare and environmental conservation. Public servants have been crucial in implementing initiatives to improve public health, provide access to quality education, support vulnerable populations and protect Australia's unique biodiversity. Their expertise and dedication to the public interest have been essential in fostering a more inclusive and sustainable society.

However, there have been instances where the role of the APS has been undermined and its integrity compromised by shortsighted policies. In 1993 there were 165,000 Commonwealth public servants; at the end of 2020 there were 148,000. While Australia's population grew by over eight million in that time, the public sector was drastically reduced. Throughout the years, the significant decline in the capacity of the APS to offer independent advice to ministers has been witnessed. The decline of this is partly due to the deliberate attacks by successive Liberal-National governments on the APS's ability to provide objective advice. Rather than relying on the expertise and knowledge of public servants, certain parties have chosen to outsource crucial work to an ever-expanding group of consultants and politically aligned think tanks. Consequently, an echo chamber was created where ministers were fed information that aligned with their preconceived notions, while warnings of potential risks and consequences of their actions were overlooked. The inevitable outcome has been a series of disastrous consequences for our nation.

We need look no further than the Morrison government's failed robodebt scheme to see the evidence of the significant and severe consequences of the attacks on the APS. The income compliance program known as robodebt was introduced as a pilot program in early 2015, and, despite mounting concerns about its legality and ethical implications, it continued to evolve and be prosecuted. Tragically, this unjust program burdened approximately 435,000 vulnerable Australians with an astronomical $1.8 billion of illegal debt. Exploiting discrepancies between Centrelink and ATO income information, robodebt left countless individuals and families reeling under the weight of unjust financial demands. The impact on those affected cannot be overstated. They faced financial hardships, emotional distress and a profound loss of trust in the very system and service that was meant to support them.

The final report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme delivered by Commissioner Holmes left no doubt about the disastrous and long-term effects of robodebt on the Australian people and the Australian Public Service. The report pulled no punches, describing robodebt as a 'shameful chapter' and a 'massive failure of public administration'. Throughout the 46-day duration of the royal commission, heart-wrenching public hearings provided a platform for more than 100 witnesses to share their harrowing accounts of being unfairly targeted by their own government. The testimonies depicted a sense of powerlessness, as these individuals had no means to fight back against the callous wrongs inflicted upon them by an unjust system administered by the former Liberal government and their gutted Public Service.

The report findings served as a stark reminder of the need to rectify past mistakes and reinforce the integrity of the APS in service to the Australian people. That is what this bill is seeking to do. The robodebt royal commission laid bare the consequences of neglecting the principles that underpin the APS and emphasised the critical importance of safeguarding the integrity and purpose of our Public Service. The robodebt scandal stands as a sobering testament to the profound impact of neglect and reduction in staffing within the Australian Public Service, and we should learn from the mistakes of the robodebt scandal.

This ill-fated program riddled with errors and ethical shortcomings directly undermined the capacity and expertise of the APS to function effectively. As public servant numbers were reduced, their voices were also silenced. The APS faced significant challenges in upholding its core purpose of serving the public interest and providing independent advice to ministers. The reduction in staffing lead to a loss of institutional knowledge and expertise, leaving critical gaps in the administration of essential programs. Consequently, the former government sought shortcuts and outsourced essential functions to external entities, contributing to the flawed design and implementation of the robodebt program. Public servants who might have raised red flags or advocated for better alternatives found themselves restrained by reduced resources and a lack of authority to challenge questionable decisions of the former government. Moreover, the lack of staffing and resources within the APS hindered the ability to conduct regular and thorough assessments of the program's impact. This negligence prolonged the suffering of those unfairly and illegally targeted by robodebt as there were inadequate mechanisms in place to recognise and rectify the program's flaws promptly.

Throughout the royal commission's proceedings, it became increasingly evident that the APS's neglect and reduction in staffing played a significant role in allowing such an unjust program to persist for as long as it did. With the critical capacity to provide independent advice diminished by the former government, the APS was unable to intervene effectively and the consequences for vulnerable Australians were severe.

What I find absolutely appalling is that robodebt's architect, the member for Cook, despite all the evidence returns to this place without an ounce of regret or contrition. And, despite the fact that Commissioner Holmes found that he allowed cabinet to be misled over the legality of the program, we still have not had an apology from the member for Cook. Adverse findings against him made by the commissioner have been sensationally rejected, yet he stays here in this place while defending his role in this shameful chapter in our Public Service history. The robodebt scandal serves as a stark reminder of the vital importance of nurturing and supporting the Australian Public Service to ensure that the APS can fulfil its core purpose and values, investing in its capability and resourcing.

The proposed Public Service Amendment Bill 2023 represents a critical step in rebuilding and reinforcing the APS's integrity and capacity. The proposed changes have been carefully designed to reinforce the core values of the APS, promote long-term stewardship and foster a culture of transparency and accountability.

Importantly, the proposed amendments clarify and strengthen provisions in the act to safeguard the APS from undue political influence and interference. Ministers will be prohibited from directing agency heads on individual APS staffing decisions, reaffirming the APS's apolitical nature. This measure is crucial in ensuring the Public Service remains impartial and focused on what they are there to do—delivering the best outcomes for our nation.

To build the capacity and expertise of the APS, this bill mandates regular and independent and transparent capability reviews every five years for each department of state, Services Australia and the Australian Taxation Office. These reviews will assess organisational strengths and areas for development, with findings and action plans publicly released. By engaging in self-assessment, the APS will be able to continuously improve and adapt to meet the evolving needs of the Australian people.

Additionally, this bill empowers a secretaries board to commission regular long-term insight reports that explore medium-term and long-term trends, and risks and opportunities facing our nation. The APS can build trust in its expertise and credibility by gaining a deeper understanding of crosscutting issues that matter to all Australians.

In support of good governance, accountability and transparency, this bill requires agencies to publish their APS census results in an action plan to respond to them. This measure will foster an increased culture of transparency and will encourage continuous improvement within agencies, ensuring that the Public Service remains accountable to the people it serves.

Moreover, the bill mandates that decision-making within an agency be made at the lowest appropriate classification for those decisions. By avoiding unnecessary hierarchy and empowering APS employees, this measure ensures that decisions are made efficiently and effectively, contributing to a more agile and responsive public service.

This bill is a commitment from this government to rebuild trust and confidence in our Public Service, ensuring that it stands as a beacon of integrity, dedication and service to the Australian people. By reinforcing the core values, enhancing capability and promoting accountability, this bill intends to re-establish a Public Service that is well-equipped to face future challenges while remaining true to its fundamental purpose. The robodebt incident was a stark reminder of the consequences of neglecting the principles that underpin the Public Service. It underscored the importance of maintaining the APS as an institution that serves the people with fairness, empathy and transparency.

The proposed changes of this amendment bill represent a significant step towards rectifying past mistakes and building a stronger and more resilient Public Service. The APS, much like various facets of our life, has endured its share of challenges over the past decade. Through a storm, Australian public servants have demonstrated resilience and determination. However, the toll of the last decade has been substantial, with many facing immense pressure and uncertainty about their job security. Instead of investing in skills and in permanent jobs in the Public Service, we have all witnessed the Liberals and Nationals outsource those roles, issuing lucrative contracts to big consultancies to suit their political purposes. As the rivers of gold flowed into private pockets our Public Service struggled to maintain its vital functions, but this legislation marks a turning point in that journey.

We are committed to effecting change, and this bill signifies the beginning of that transformation. There is much work ahead, but the Albanese Labor government is resolute in our mission to restore the strength and integrity of the Australian Public Service. By doing so, we'll bolster the public sector's efficiency and ensure that it remains a pillar of stability, service and trust for the people of Australia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) | Link to this | Hansard source

The Albanese Labor government is restoring the integrity of the Australian Public Service. The Public Service Amendment Bill 2023, which we're debating today, is designed to ensure that the Australian Public Service is fit for purpose and that the APS can do its job of providing frank and fearless advice to government.

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. The majority of the amendments are recommendations from the 2019 independent review of the Australian Public Service, the Thodey review—recommendations that were ignored by those opposite in government for far too long. The Albanese government has listened to the voices of experts and the people these reforms affect. We've listened to David Thodey, and we thank him for his outstanding work in public sector reform in this country. We've listened to employees in the Australian Public Service and to representative groups, agencies and relevant groups, like the Community and Public Sector Union. We understand that a Public Service that is strong, that is capable, that is apolitical—where expertise and capability are fostered and appreciated and built on the values of integrity—is good for the country and good for Australians.

The APS is crucial for supporting Australians with the most pressing issues that they face. Every member of parliament knows this from their electorate offices. When constituents come to see us about visa matters, about Centrelink matters, about NDIS matters or about veterans' affairs matters, what they are looking for is for the Australian Public Service to serve them. In my own portfolio, our Public Service plays a crucial role in helping to keep Australians safe when they travel overseas. Public servants at the Australian Passport Office have processed a record-breaking 3.1 million passports in the past financial year. This was over one million more passports than our previous record, in 2018-19. The consular work that DFAT staff does when something goes wrong for Australians overseas is often heroic. For example, our public servants worked around the clock to successfully evacuate 364 Australians and their families from Sudan during the crisis earlier this year—a 24/7 consular crisis response in incredibly difficult circumstances, far from home, across multiple nations—keeping Australians safe when they were overseas. I'm so proud of those public servants and thank them for their commitment.

The APS works hard to support Australians, often at the times they need it the most. In order to do these things well, we need a Public Service that is truly independent, non-partisan and able to provide advice to the government of the day without fear or favour, a Public Service that is strong and independent and can give government ministers advice that they might not always like. But with the handing down of the robodebt royal commission's final report, we've now seen a compelling case study of what happens when our Public Service is diminished and degraded. Robodebt was a national scandal. It was an illegal program. It accused hundreds of thousands of Australians of being crooks, and it continued for four years, despite countless red flags, despite the legality and the operation of the program being raised repeatedly by Centrelink clients, by activists flagging these issues in social media campaigns, by journalists inquiring into the issue, by experts and lawyers within the government itself and by whistleblowers within their department.

Justice Murphy, presiding over the robodebt class action case, described the scheme as a 'shameful chapter' and a 'massive failure in public administration'. That's why the Albanese Labor government initiated a robodebt royal commission, in order to uncover the depths of what had occurred in the scheme. Now that we've seen the royal commission's final report and have heard the evidence given to the royal commission, it's clear that this was the most shameful moment in Australia's Public Service history. Robodebt is a devastating example of what happens when the Public Service isn't empowered to give frank and fearless advice.

In the 46 days of public hearings we heard disturbing stories of people who relied on the safety net of government being hounded by that government, with no means of fighting back. The Australians who appeared before the royal commission to share their stories spoke frankly and fearlessly, and they bore witness to the failures of their government. We heard stories like that of pensioner Rosemary Gay, who was forced to make repayments on a wrongful $65,000 robodebt. While she was actively contesting it, the debt collectors took money from her pension to start repaying this debt, when it never existed. She said that the trauma would remain with her forever. We heard from Jennifer Miller, who went through the unimaginable devastating experience of losing her son to suicide after he was chased by the robodebt debt collectors.

We heard from Ricky Aik, who said that the time when he was hounded to repay debts he didn't owe was 'the worst period' of his life. Mr Aik said, 'It was hard to sleep, hard to concentrate on work,' because his own government, the government that he relied on, was hounding him wrongfully—illegally. We heard from Felicity Button, who was given a debt notice of $11,000, which left her unable to afford medication for her daughter. We heard the story of Sandra Bevan, who said she couldn't sleep at night and she dreaded the phone ringing whilst she was being pursued over a debt—a debt that never existed. Ms Bevan was meticulous. She said that, living pay cheque to pay cheque, she would 'often go without food' so her kids 'could have more food', and that she would over-report her income 'just in case'. When she was told about the debt, she knew that it couldn't be correct. Despite her attempts to correct the mistake, the debt collectors called and called, haranguing and attacking her. She said, 'The kids had already lost their dad, and I was trying my best to keep the house, a roof above our head.'

What we witnessed, ultimately, was a catastrophic failure of public administration, under a succession of ministers from the coalition government, who were responsible for this scheme over four years. I want to thank all of the Australians who gave evidence to the royal commission for sharing what were often extremely difficult and traumatic stories. The royal commission final report has demonstrated unequivocally that the Morrison government ministers oversaw an illegal scheme which cost lives and caused unthinkable trauma to so many Australians. As Commissioner Holmes said:

Robodebt was a crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal, and it made many people feel like criminals. In essence, people were traumatised on the off-chance they might owe money. It was a costly failure of public administration, in both human and economic terms.

But how did this all come about? The robodebt royal commission's final report makes it clear that the human cost, the economic cost, of robodebt is squarely due to the culture of public administration cultivated by those opposite under first the Turnbull and then the Morrison government. In the robodebt royal commission final report Commissioner Holmes said:

It is remarkable how little interest there seems to have been in ensuring the Scheme's legality, how rushed its implementation was, how little thought was given to how it would affect welfare recipients and the lengths to which public servants were prepared to go to oblige ministers on a quest for savings.

It's quite clear robodebt was the inevitable result of those opposite's ideological approach to both Australia's welfare system and the Australian Public Service.

The former Prime Minister, the member for Cook, deliberately reshaped the Public Service to create a culture where public servants were unable to perform that core role of providing independent, fearless advice. He made his expectations for the Australian Public Service clear in a speech at the Institute of Public Administration in 2019. This speech was given before the comprehensive review of the Australian Public Service was completed, pre-empting, shamefully, the findings of the Thodey review, which the amendments to the Public Service Act that we are debating today draw upon. His message in this speech was clear. The message to public servants was to 'know your place'. He said in this speech, 'Ministers must not allow a policy vacuum to be created, expecting the Public Service to fill it and to do their job.' The robodebt ministers set the tone within the government and within the Public Service. They set the agenda and they owned the consequences. The member for Cook said in his speech:

It is about telling governments how things can be done—

that's the role of the Public Service—

not just the risks of doing them, or saying why they shouldn't be done. The public service is meant to be an enabler of government policy, not an obstacle.

The Public Service was certainly an enabler of the robodebt scheme. Unfortunately, no-one under the previous government was held accountable for this. In the member for Cook's speech to the Institute of Public Administration, he insisted that accountability to the parliament and to the public, for the government's policies, rested not with the Public Service but with ministers. He said:

Only those who have put their name on a ballot can truly understand the significance of that accountability. I know you might feel sometimes that you are absolutely right in what you are suggesting, but I can tell you when it is you that is facing the public and must look your constituents in the eye, it gives you a unique perspective.

Unfortunately, despite preaching this accountability, the member for Cook has consistently refused to be accountable for the catastrophic failures of the robodebt scheme. He set the culture, he set the policy direction, he won't take responsibility for the outcomes.

Indeed, he has passed the buck. He's blamed the public servants who were advising him and blamed his colleagues repeatedly, and he has had the chutzpah to claim it was distinguished royal commissioner Holmes that didn't understand the way government worked. This scandal, this failure of accountability and this failure of frank and fearless advice within government is why we need amendments to the Public Service Act in this bill. This is why we in the Albanese government have listened to the advice of experts like David Thodey. This is one of the reasons why we have introduced these amendments to strengthen the Australian Public Service's core purpose and values.

These amendments include adding a new Australian Public Service value of stewardship which all APS employees must uphold; requiring all agency heads to uphold and promote, in addition to the APS values and employment principles, the new APS purpose statement; and reaffirming the Australian Public Service's apolitical nature by clarifying and strengthening the act so that ministers cannot direct agency heads on staffing decisions. The amendments will build the capability and expertise of the APS, including by making regular, independent and transparent capability reviews a five-yearly requirement for each department of state, Services Australia and the Australian Taxation Office. Capability reviews will assess organisational strengths and areas for development, with reports and action plans responding to findings required to be released publicly. It will also introduce amendments to support good governance, accountability and transparency, including by requiring publication of agencies' APS census results and an action plan that responds to results. This will foster a culture of transparency and accountability for continuous improvement within agencies. It will also require agency heads to implement measures to enable decisions to be made by employees at the lowest appropriate classification for those decisions. This will ensure that decision-making is not raised to a higher level than necessary, reducing unnecessary hierarchy and empowering APS employees.

These reforms are necessary to ensure that we have a robust, apolitical public service that can serve all Australians. They are necessary to ensure a disaster like robodebt never happens again. I would say to members of this House that this is a responsibility that we all must take incredibly seriously. It's no small thing to say that the worst failure of public administration in our history happened while we were in this parliament. We need to take responsibility for ensuring that this can never happen again. We need to learn the lessons from this scandal.

I think all members of parliament, but particularly ministers and those on the other side aspiring to be ministers, should read the findings of the robodebt royal commission final report closely. They should listen to the evidence of those Australians who were courageous enough to share their trauma with the royal commission. Those Australians put their trust in government at their time of need and were so badly failed. They were not only let down by the government that should be there to represent them and by the public servants that should be there to represent them but harassed and prosecuted as a result. This can never be allowed to happen again. We need change in the culture of both the Australian Public Service but also this place. The bill before the House is an important step in delivering this culture change.

Dan Repacholi (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to make a contribution on the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023, which aims to strengthen the core purpose and values of the Australian Public Service; build its capability and expertise; and support good governance, accountability and transparency. This is an important step forward in rebuilding the APS and restoring trust and faith in our government and its institutions.

This bill has been introduced because the sad reality is that in our country there's an all-time low of public trust in our Public Service. This hurts our democracy. This concerns me because our great country is built on democracy, and in order for us to continue to be the amazing democratic nation that we are, it is vital that the Australian people have trust in the APS. It's important that Australians can have trust in their government and its institutions. But, more to the point, Australians deserve a government that they can trust. In a world of uncertainties, trust and faith in government and the Public Service should be strong and stable, and this bill will help make sure people are able to feel a sense of trust again. This bill encompasses several of the key changes that align with the recommendations from the Thodey review, which was a comprehensive, independent review of the APS. These changes have also been informed by extensive consultation within and beyond the APS, including Australian Public Service employees, the CPSU, the USU, agency heads, experts and the general public.

Currently, there are five Australian Public Service values: to be committed to service, which anyone should be able to expect from a public servant; to be ethical, which is a rightful demand as a country with high moral standards; to be respectful; to be accountable; and to be impartial, which is necessary in order to maintain a strong public service. These values are important, and they are owed to the Australian people, but they don't quite go far enough. That's why this bill will introduce additional values which will help the Public Service to better serve those who it exists to serve. One of the proposed amendments is the addition of a new APS value of stewardship. Stewardship will require APS employees to uphold the public interest and build APS capability and institutional knowledge, ensuring that the long-term impacts of their actions are considered. This value, along with existing Australian Public Service values, will provide many things to help the Australian Public Service and help Australians reflect on their expectations of what the Australian community is.

In order for Australians to be able to trust the Public Service, they need to be able to see what it does for them. It is hard to trust something that sometimes cannot be seen and is something that you don't always understand. To further strengthen the APS core purpose and values, the bill introduces a requirement for the development of the APS purpose statement. This statement, overseen by the Secretaries Board and reviewed every five years, will create a unified vision for the APS and guide its actions in serving the nation. Agency heads will be required to uphold and promote this purpose statement in addition to the Australian Public Service values and employment principles. This will help in one way to allow the public to get knowledge of public servants and understand what they do and why they do it. It will clearly lay out the values, visions, and purpose of the APS, which is an innovation for Australians to trust them and have faith in them again.

Another important change in the bill clarifies and strengthens provisions to ensure that ministers cannot direct agency heads on employment matters. This reaffirms the apolitical nature of the APS and protects its integrity. By shifting the language from passive to active voice, the bill emphasises that the duty is on the ministers not to intervene in the APS employment matters. Simply stating that an agency head is not subject to direction by any minister has been proven not to be strong enough to prevent this from happening. We are making it absolutely clear that a minister must not direct an agency head. It is the responsibility of the minister to not direct. We knew this and this bill strongly reinforces this and leaves no room for loopholes or alternate interpretations of section 19 of this act. This creates crystal-clear limits on what is appropriate for ministers to be involved in regarding APS employment matters and supports the integrity of the Public Service. This bill aims to empower APS employees and improve decision-making processes. It requires agency heads to implement measures that enable decision-making to be undertaken at the lowest appropriate classification, reducing unnecessary hierarchy and fostering a work environment that empowers staff. We should aspire to be a workplace which empowers staff, and so too should the rest of the Public Service. But the truth is that this has not been the culture in the past. We know this because the Thodey review noted a growing tendency for decisions involving risk to be escalated to the top of the hierarchy. This should not be the case if it does not need to be. There are amazing and capable individuals in our Public Service system who should be trusted to deal with these matters. It is how they grow and become empowered in their workplaces. This is why it is important to make sure decision-making is not raised to a higher level than necessary.

This bill will help to do this by improving decision-making processes and reducing duplication of work. This creates a stronger, more fair Public Service with a culture which helps employees to grow and thrive. This is the kind of culture any kind of business would aspire to. I know from my time in management roles that it is the kind of culture that we all value—and I certainly valued it. It creates success and progress. It makes sense that our Public Service should aspire to a culture of success. The Thodey review revealed that there are concerns that the capability of the APS has been worn away over time. As a country we should always look to move forward. We should always aspire to improve. This should also be the case with our Public Service. If the capability of our Public Service is going backwards, how can we as a nation move forward? Something needs to be done. This bill will help our Public Service to thrive.

In line with the Thodey review's recommendations, the bill makes regular five-yearly capability reviews a requirement for each department, Services Australia, the Australian Taxation Office and the Australian Public Service Commission. These reviews will assess organisational strengths and areas for development, with reports and action plans responding to the findings required to be publicly released. These capability reviews have an aim of facilitating discussions around the agencies' desired future state, highlighting organisational capability gaps and identifying opportunities to address them. By investing in the long-term capability of the Australian Public Service, we ensure that it remains future-fit and continuously improves to meet the standards of the government and the Australian community.

Transparency and accountability are crucial in a modern Public Service. In the modern world questions arise quickly when the Public Service isn't transparent. This doubt can reduce trust. The public must have an insight into the Public Service to be able to see what they do and to also hold them accountable. Transparency and accountability create faith and trust, which is why this bill requires the publication of agencies' APS employee census results. This will foster a culture of transparency and continuous improvement within agencies. Furthermore, the bill requires the establishment of at least one long-term insights briefing each year. These briefings, developed through a process of public consultation, will explore medium-term and long-term trends, risks and opportunities facing Australia, provide impartial analysis and inform government's decision-making process. This is genuine consultation with the public on issues affecting Australia and its society. This is just common sense. If you want to truly understand the issues impacting Australians, you should speak to those being impacted, and that is what this amendment will do.

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

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will be granted leave if they were interrupted.