House debates

Monday, 4 September 2023

Private Members' Business

Pensions and Benefits

10:51 am

Photo of Sophie ScampsSophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

CAMPS () (): I rise today to support the member for Jagajaga's motion regarding the robodebt scheme. Like the member for Jagajaga stated in her statement, I too commend the courage, leadership and bravery of victims, families, advocates and whistleblowers who continue to raise concerns about the robodebt scheme. I welcome the government's commitment to ensuring such a tragedy never happens again.

The Federal Court has described the scheme as a 'massive failure of public administration', incredibly strong language by judicial standards. Royal Commissioner Catherine Holmes SC concluded that robodebt was a 'crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal'. The Prime Minister said that it was a gross betrayal and a human tragedy. The CEO of the Australian Council of Social Service, Cassandra Goldie, described the scheme as an 'aggressive abuse of government power'.

In her nearly 1,000-page report resulting from the royal commission into robodebt, 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 is this last aspect of the commissioner's comments that I wish to focus on today—that is, the seeming lack of independent advice from the Public Service. It is very clear from the findings of the royal commission that issues of culture within the Public Service and between the Public Service and ministers played a large role in the robodebt disaster. There was either too much fear about speaking the truth or too great a desire to please ministers with good news. Either way, it is clear that a culture of providing frank and fearless advice did not exist, leading to bad decisions and ultimately disastrous consequences.

It will not be an easy culture to fix, but there is one simple way to improve it. It is something that I have been advocating for since I first came into this place. That is to bring transparency and accountability to the process of appointing people to significant Commonwealth and Public Service roles. Most recently, I proposed in this place amendments to the government's Public Service Amendment Bill. Those amendments were modest and sought to improve the process for the appointment of departmental secretaries. The amendments require the Public Service Commissioner to: publish selection criteria for the appointment; widely consult for candidates; rigorously consider candidates against the selection criteria; and prepare a shortlist of at least three candidates for the Prime Minister's consideration. If the Prime Minister decided to select someone for the position who was not on the shortlist, he or she would have to table a report naming that person and giving reasons as to why that person had the appropriate qualifications, skills and experience for the role within seven sitting days of the appointment. This is a straightforward process. Other than the requirement to table a report in parliament, it is a process that you could expect to see in recruitment being undertaken anywhere in Australia, both public and private. Ordinary Australians would not balk at it. Indeed, I believe they would demand it, especially for significant, highly-paid roles in the Australian Public Service.

For the Public Service Commissioner role—a role of such significance that it has been described as the guardian of an impartial Australian Public Service—my amendments proposed an additional requirement: that the Prime Minister consult with the Leader of the Opposition on the appointment. This is in recognition of the APS Commissioner's unique role, and it reinforces for the Australian public the independence and impartiality of the role. Unfortunately, the government did not adopt my proposed amendments. These amendments would have ensured greater transparency and independence of the selection process for major Public Service appointments.

The undermining of our democracy by the jobs-for-mates culture is something that ordinary Australians are angry about. So I urge the government to get serious about reforming the jobs-for-mates culture that pervades our democracy and the important institutions and bodies that underpin it.

Comments

No comments