House debates

Thursday, 22 June 2023

Bills

Public Service Amendment Bill 2023; Second Reading

1:04 pm

Photo of Josh WilsonJosh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm glad to speak in support of the changes in the Public Service Amendment Bill that strengthen the incredible and vital public good that is the Australian Public Service. If you set out to write a list of the key components that make Australia a place and a community that is functional and fair, that is capable and considerate, and that rises to new and often difficult challenges like climate change, natural disasters and a global pandemic, the Australian Public Service would be right at the very top of that shortlist. It's an extension of our system of democratic government and it's the enabling force that implements the decisions we make as a community.

As my colleague has just said, the Australian Public Service operates across a broad range of areas of Australian life—almost every area of Australian life that you can think of—from person-to-person on the ground level right up to the level at which policies are formulated and advice is given that allows those of us in this place to make decisions, implement policies and programs, and direct funding in the interests of Australia's broad wellbeing. This bill implements recommendations from the 2019 independent review of the APS—the so-called Thodey review that was implemented by Prime Minister Turnbull. It does things like ensuring there are five-year capability reviews, delivering greater transparency and, very importantly, reinforcing the apolitical independence of the Australian Public Service—one of its great qualities and one of the most significant foundational principles of a democratic system like ours.

The fact that it's this Labor government—the Albanese Labor government—implementing those recommendations is a good thing, but it does also fit a pattern that in some ways is a disappointing reflection on what has gone on in the past. These were recommendations made in 2019, and we're 4½ years on from that. I remember being in the last parliament under the previous government where at times in the course of a sitting week nothing much was going on and the government was scratching around for something to bring into this place for us to consider. You would have thought the changes recommended in 2019 might have come forward in the course of the last parliament at some point, but no, it falls to us to do a very important repair job with respect to the Australian Public Service because it has been run down, it has been pushed under, it has been chopped up into bits and it has been subject to unfair criticism. It has had its independence put at risk by all of the things that the former coalition government did. We've come along and we're starting to turn the ship around.

As I said, this follows a pattern. Under the previous government, we had the aged care royal commission, and most of the recommendations of that were not implemented by the former government—we're getting on and doing that. We had the Graham Samuel's review of the EPBC, the Environmental Preservation and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which said clearly to the former coalition government, 'You need to do something to improve environmental protection at a time when the Australian environment has been hammered, is under significant threat and is on a trajectory to decline.' Graham Samuel said, 'Here's a fairly simple recipe for effective reform,' and that was ignored, we had the Constitutional convention process in the form of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which the previous government initiated and then promptly ignored. It was disappointing and a failure of what the Australian community is entitled to expect in the form of competent government. The coalition in many cases initiated a review process and then, off the back of that, had the recipe and the ingredients for positive and much-needed reform, and just never got around to it—they did nothing.

What's sadder still is that if all they had done was nothing, it wouldn't have been as bad as what actually occurred. When it comes to the Australian Public Service, while not undertaking the reforms that we're implementing, and while not supporting, championing, resourcing or enabling the Australian Public Service, the former government actually did their best—or their worst depending on how you want to describe it—to undermine the vital role of the APS plays by cutting: cutting funding, cutting staff numbers, putting in place pay freezes, and undermining the incredible work of the Community and Public Sector Union, which has always stood up for public sector workers and, more importantly, has always stood up for what the Australian Public Service delivers to the Australian community. They have effectively fought a war of resistance for nine or 10 years while their members, and all workers in the APS, were treated to cut after cut after cut and squeeze after squeeze after squeeze.

The ABC and the SBS had resources cut. The social safety net was put under pressure in almost all aspects. It was not subject to death by a thousand cuts, but we were on that path and sort of halfway to death; it was probably 491 cuts or something like that. There was 40 per cent cut out of the department of the environment alone, and what did we see as a result of that? As I said before, we've seen ourselves end up in what is effectively an extinction crisis. The former government's approach to environmental decline and biodiversity was the Threatened Species Strategy. That wasn't properly resourced; it was another colourful pamphlet whose objectives weren't met.

One part of that took the 20 most at-risk mammal species, and the idea was to see improved trajectories in the populations of those species within a five-year period. It was a pretty sensible way of going about it, you would have thought. What actually happened? Well, there was an improvement in the trajectory of only eight species—not even the 20 target species but only eight of those 20 species. And, in the case of four of the improved trajectories, we didn't actually see an increase in the populations of those particular species. With the Gilbert's potoroo, the most endangered animal in Australia, whose home range is in the electorate of the member for O'Connor, you didn't see an improved population; you just saw slower decline. I remember at one point the government saying, 'We haven't managed to improve trajectories for 20 species, but we have for eight.' The truth was that, with respect to four of those eight, the population was still declining, just not quite as quickly as it had done before. That was the kind of thing that happened—which, you could expect, would happen—when you cut 40 per cent of the funding to the department of the environment.

Not only do you get those kinds of terrible environmental and biodiversity outcomes; you also get slower decision-making, less reliable decision-making and, effectively, faulty decision-making. When the ANAO looked at decisions made under the EPBC, I think they found that in the case of 79 per cent of those decisions there were conditions that had not been observed. The government had failed to grasp the fact that there was, effectively, an 80 per cent, or a four out of five, rate of failure with respect to the conditions that were attached to those decisions and which were the basis on which those approvals were given.

On immigration: I don't think any of us would struggle to understand how important it is that Australia's immigration system works well, has integrity, works smoothly, is accessible and works in a timely way. We would all have constituents and—probably, in some cases—family members who have been through that process. In recent times we have seen issues that have arisen when it comes to immigration processing that effectively amount to a crisis. One only has to think of what happened with the withdrawal from Afghanistan. The fact is, the immigration department had been knocked back so badly that you had enormous backlogs, enormous delays and a lack of capacity which meant that family members of Australian citizens from Afghanistan who were waiting to be able to come to Australia were prevented from doing so and now, effectively, find themselves locked in a country that has returned to Taliban rule, with all the things that implies.

When you talk about undermining the Australian Public Service, it's not just the fact that an aged pensioner might have to wait for an hour on the telephone. That's intolerable. That shouldn't occur for an older Australian. But, when you think, there are people whose family members were waiting month after month, year after year, just to have their migration application process give them the chance to join their kids, parents, brothers or sisters here in Australia. They instead found that, because of that failure, lack of capacity and under-resourcing, the door slammed shut, and they are now stuck in circumstances that are literally grave circumstances that put their lives at risk.

Customs and biosecurity is another of those critical areas that underpins our broad social, economic and environmental wellbeing. If you don't resource the Australian Public Service properly and you see failures in those areas, the consequences can be devastating. Once an invasive species comes in, the impact on agriculture particularly and on other areas of our environment and our own wellbeing can be severely affected.

The development assistance budget was one of the parts of the Public Service that was hit hardest. Almost as soon as the former government were elected, they decided that they would smash Australia's development assistance program, that they would dissolve AusAID altogether and that they would hammer the capacity that Australia has wielded so generously and thoughtfully and effectively, particularly in our region, to reduce poverty and to reduce death—particularly when it comes to infant mortality and for women and children as a focus group. That not only prevented us from saving lives or from supporting the development of a stable, prosperous and sustainable economy in our region; it put our security at risk.

There is no better way to advance Australia's security, stability and prosperity than through well-targeted development assistance. When you go along and take out not only the resources but also the capability—the human capital, all those years of dedication, expertise, practical knowledge, networks, friendships and people-to-people bonds between Australians and people in countries in the Pacific and in South-East Asia—you take away our capacity to be a significant, influential middle power acting for good. I mean 'for good' in the broadest sense, in accordance with our values and principles, in supporting the wellbeing of our brothers and sisters all over the world and in reducing conflict, malnourishment, famine, disease and all the terrible things that, fortunately, we don't experience to any significant degree in this country—but also in advancing our own interests. If you are someone who doesn't find those other things compelling—reducing infant mortality; lifting people out of grinding, aching poverty; freeing women from disease and domestic violence—you should at least find it compelling to think that, when we assert our development assistance program, diplomacy and trade and all the parts of our external affairs armature, when we extend and assert those parts of our Public Service capability well, we build our own security and we support our own ability to exist in a sustainably prosperous place with an environment that is looked after and in circumstances where conflict is minimalised.

The Labor Party will always support the Australian Public Service. We are under no illusion about its core significance to our way of life, to our system of democratic governance and as an extension of our principles. The Australian Public Service has suffered over the last decade, like many parts of Australian life. Australian public servants have weathered that storm. There have been a lot of people put under enormous pressure. They've been underpaid, they've had their job security risked, they've seen jobs outsourced and they've seen ridiculous contracts go to PwC and lots of other big companies at the cost of tens of millions of dollars. The quality of service that Australians expect has been smashed, money has found its way into the pockets of private companies and our Public Service has been left to struggle on. We are going to change that. This is the beginning. There is more work to be done.

Comments

No comments