Matt Burnell (Spence, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023. As servants to the public ourselves, as elected representatives in this place—as the member for Wills rightly pointed out during his contribution to this debate—we should all be taking an active interest in ensuring the Australian Public Service is working to the best of its ability, an ability those who have worked in or around the public sector in the past know that it is perfectly capable of returning to. I recognise there are many of the other side of the chamber that harbour a great respect for our Public Service. I'm sure I can take their word for it. I bet some of their friends are even public servants! Despite this, many of those opposite were there at the time to see a government they were a part of undermine, degrade and diminish the role of the Australian Public Service in the machinery of government, from policy formulation all the way to core service delivery to the public at large. Service delivery such as employment services, call centre and other customer service roles were outsourced to a number of non-profit and for-profit entities, to labour hire companies, just so those opposite could chomp on cigars before delivering a budget and pat themselves on the back for reining in the size of the Public Service, whilst at the same time making the jobs of the APS employees who remained and interacted with non-APS contractors and labour-hire employees just that bit more difficult.

But, in the same way we saw with the books that those opposite handed the Albanese Labor government when it took office last year, to the Liberal and National parties, small government is merely a figment of the imagination—a catchphrase, a mere illusion, a mirage. On the other hand, from the top down, the previous government outsourced the jobs of six ministers to a single prime minister. I can't for the life of me think of any way this led to better service delivery, improved work output or any degree of increased customer satisfaction. It certainly led to a diminished public perception of government. But good on them for trialing this approach from the top down in their government. The amount of money spent to have a non-APS workforce working with and adjacent to the machinery of government equates almost to the former government having a black budget—a guerrilla workforce.

You might say that it was ideology that drove them to this strategy, or maybe one of the big four told them to. I'm sure if one of them thought so, the other three would definitely concur, as they have certainly reaped the rewards of this policy objective of the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments. Why would recommending such a course of action be so attractive for the big four? Well, as the old saying goes, you always back a horse named self-interest. On that note, the Albanese Labor government looks to back in our workforce, a battered but proud and skilled workforce in the APS that backs Australia's national interest.

We can point to so many examples, highlighted by royal commissioners, auditors-general and our parliamentary committee system, of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments being fearful of frank advice. To add another cliche into the arguments, we have an oldie but a goldie, one we all know—Einstein's parable of quantum insanity. Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, unless you've tailored the terms of reference to a report you've commissioned from consultants to provide cover—whoops; sorry, I meant to say advice—to government. Often, these commissions are geared by the terms of reference for the mission of finding a justification for a position of the government, so the government can hold up a glossy report by an independent firm at a press conference to cover their own tails.

To throw yet another cliche into the mix, sometimes the tail wags the dog. The 'decide, announce, defend' approach isn't an especially sound approach when the process becomes too opaque to unpack how the decision was arrived at. There was always some method to the madness of high-school maths teachers that only gave full marks if you showed your working out and everything in between. I'm sure through this method of government we're provided with frank and fearless advice, in the same way that a mercenary shows candour towards their paymaster. Whilst this is not to say that there aren't many bright and talented individuals amongst the ranks of the big four, it simply adds a further point of lamentation to see them not part of the APS, instead finding the private sector a more attractive option.

Over the best part of a decade, Australia has become overly reliant on outsourcing its formulation of policy. By all means bring in the specialists to help refine policy, but over that period Australia did not just substitute the APS for consultants to create and deliver government policy; they benched the APS. 'Substitute' is a mild word; really, it is closer to 'replaced'. It doesn't take us commissioning one of the big four to hand down a report to tell us what effect this has on the APS. It definitely perverts the policy formulation process. Once we see the sausage getting made, the favour ends up changing dramatically.

Australia needs a more active APS, one that is involved in bringing policy from a proposal to its delivery—from farm to table, as the saying goes. A profit motive behind crafting policy does not somehow make it superior; it makes many armchair observers start to wonder whose interests are at the forefront. We should be, as a matter of course, using the methodology of old in how we make decisions and create policy in this country. Our methodology should be more akin to the clothing brand FUBU—policy that is 'for us, by us'. Having a strong and empowered Public Service aiding and advising government to refined outcomes rather than predefined outcomes further mitigates some of the more egregious failures in policy formulation. Doing the hard work in enacting reforms in the APS—reforms that not just aid our public sector workforce to operate efficiently but provide them with the tools they need to operate effectively—will make another robodebt sized disaster that much harder.

We have done our jobs properly by supporting this legislation. After reviewing the testimony that has been put to the royal commission into robodebt, it should not be any wonder why members are jumping up to speak on this bill. I must admit I have been following the debate intently on this legislation during the past couple of days. I could point to a number of extremely salient points made by a number of my colleagues on this side of the chamber. Contributions from the members for Wills, Bean, Lalor, Holt and Newcastle and the beginning of the contribution from the member for Kingsford-Smith, the Assistant Minister for Veterans' Affairs, immediately come to mind. I may touch on a few points made by a number of them in due course.

Instead, I almost feel compelled to first take note of the contribution made by the member for Riverina on this bill. I can't quite remember what I was doing at the time, but I stopped whatever it was and turned the volume up to listen to the member for Riverina being on-brand and on-message, given the National's role in the previous government, which saw nine years of undermining and diminishing the role of the APS in the machinery of government. The member for Riverina then took umbrage with the legion of Labor members speaking on this bill, overtly implying a cheapness to these contributions. Well, the member for Riverina, as the sole National to speak to this bill, certainly helps to capture one's attention. He certainly never fails to 'make a contribution'. After almost a year in this place, I am beginning to realise this is entirely on-brand for the member for Riverina. The other Nationals were certainly conspicuous by their absence on this bill, but, despite this, here was the member for Riverina, charging out to make a contribution in this place on the Australian Public Service, charging out against a legion of Labor members who have spoken, with many others patiently waiting their turn. He was charging out like the last samurai. The member for Riverina's speech went as far as discussing the contemporary history of notable parliamentary filibusters. I can only describe filibustering by talking about filibustering as a bit too meta for my sensibilities, but the member for Riverina can still entertain, stepping into the arena like Maximus in Gladiator, as he often does. Are we not entertained? I can only speak for myself, as I would be reluctant to speak about the opinions of all present and those of us tuning in the other night to the proceedings of the chamber. I do, though, find it somewhat amusing, rather than entertaining, to see the member for Riverina as the sole National to speak on this bill.

Frankly, I would have thought the Nationals would have a thing or two to say about the role of the Australian Public Service, particularly after nine long years in government. Over the past nine years, the Australian Public Service dutifully prepared recommendations to numerous rounds of grants that were completely ignored by those opposite in favour of choices made by a number of colourful Liberal Party and National Party identities with even more colourful spreadsheets. They made moves to force public servants outside of what they referred to as the Canberra bubble, likely only relenting with their big thought bubble at the thought of their local pubs beginning to turn a little too gentrified for their taste. The horror! Oh, the horror!

However, much like the extraordinarily understated words of the member for Riverina in his contribution to this debate, I digress, albeit ever so slightly. As such, I feel I should move toward discussing some of the details of this bill, as it is, despite what the member for Riverina's scepticism would have you believe, vitally important in ensuring that the Australian Public Service has a clearly defined purpose within the machinery of government, not just now but in the longer term.

Many of the measures in at this bill, which makes a raft of amendments to the Public Service Act 1999, were included as a result of recommendations made as part of the Independent Review of the Australian Public Service, a review initiated by Malcolm Turnbull when he was Prime Minister. Remember him? I'm fairly certain that the member for Riverina was his deputy. Some of the others seemed to be really ambitious for him. On the upside, the irony wouldn't have been lost on the Turnbull government if they had commissioned one of the big four to handle this review of the Australian Public Service. They might have missed out on a bit of work due to this, but the Turnbull government was keeping them pretty busy, despite this job falling just outside of their reach. The review itself, having occurred prior to the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, still had many things to say which have been adopted in measures that have already been implemented prior to the introduction of the bill, and, of course, through measures in the Public Service Amendment Bill. This bill was introduced after the review, in a different environment to the one we found ourselves in after the review was handed down and delivered to the former government.

The Albanese Labor government came into office with a substantially broader agenda to reform the Australian Public Service. This bill will be a component of this agenda rather than the beginning and end of this government's input in reforming the APS, an employer of in excess of 155,000 throughout the country, not just in this Canberra bubble—a term those opposite used to denigrate those who operated within it, while being curiously avoidant of pointing out that they are long-term tenants within the same bubble. I think many on the other side of the chamber used to sit glued in front of their television sets, binge-watching Yes Minister and waiting suspensefully for the politicians to win against the public servants. Years later, their approach to the Public Service is one where life imitates art. But at least the Jim Hacker cosplay enthusiasts no longer occupy the Treasury bench in this place.

The Albanese Labor government's APS reform agenda is held aloft by four key pillars. They are relatively straightforward but vital to implant into the DNA of the Australian Public Service in order to ensure that the Australian Public Service embodies integrity in everything it does, puts people in business at the centre of the policy and service delivery and is a model employer that has the tools and capability to do its job well. This is the framework underpinning this bill and reforms that have been undertaken prior to now and is the tone of the reforms the Albanese government aims to foster in the APS moving forward.

This is about restoring the public's faith and trust in the Australian Public Service. It's also about restoring the faith and trust that the Australian Public Service has in itself. It is no secret the Albanese government started its time on a mission to restore confidence in government and its many institutions that keep the wheels of government turning. This is especially true given that the Albanese Labor government's first months within the 47th Parliament were spent passing the legislation necessary to finally establish the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Having a good public service begets good government. We should all want this, no matter who is in government at the time.

I commend the bill to the House and hope that I can count on the support of all members, even the member for Riverina, as we work together to strengthen the integrity of our public institutions and the confidence that the public have in their ability to serve them diligently, faithfully and effectively.

In closing, I would like to give a very big shout-out to those that work in the Public Service in my electorate, especially those at the Gawler, Elizabeth and Salisbury Services Australia facilities that we have, who go about very diligently, every single day, helping people in my community get access to the services that they need to ensure they have a dignified life. Thank you very much from the bottom of my heart.

See this speech in context