James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Waste Reduction) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Public Service Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2024. The opposition will be reserving its position on this bill, noting that the minister has offered to provide further information and briefings to the shadow minister, and that debate on this bill has commenced prior to that occurring due to the government's belief this legislation is urgent.

The opposition supports the intent of the bill, which is to provide clarity to the Australian Public Service Commission and to the commissioner of their powers in relation to inquiries into alleged breaches of the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct. The APS Code of Conduct is an important tool in maintaining the community's expectation of high standards from those who work in the Public Service. The code is articulated in the Public Service Act 1999 and has been the foundation for the Australian Public Service Commissioner and the commission in assisting all levels of the service to maintain that high standard since it was introduced. Under the act, the commissioner may be asked to inquire into and determine whether a current or former APS employee has breached the code of conduct.

For agency heads such as secretaries of departments or CEOs of Commonwealth agencies, the act also expressly allows the commissioner to inquire into whether an agency head has breached the code of conduct. The act further provides powers for the commissioner to review any matter relating to the Australian Public Service referred by the Minister for the Public Service.

However, doubt has been raised about the APS Commissioner's ability to consider matters referred relating to former agency heads. As it has been presented to the opposition by the government, notwithstanding the fact that the APS Commissioner believes he has an implied power to do this, it is a point that requires clarification. These amendments will now make clear the commissioner can conduct inquiries and make determinations with respect to alleged breaches of the code of conduct by current and former agency heads. This raises some questions with regard to current processes that were commenced before this clarification of the law. As a result, the government is also seeking to provide clarity and grandfather these processes that are already underway.

Following the conclusion of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, inquiries and reviews into the conduct of current and former public servants, including former agency heads, were commenced. As the inquiries progressed it became apparent the Public Service Act was not clear about conducting inquiries and making determinations with respect to alleged breaches of the code of conduct by former agency heads. This bill is intended to ensure full accountability and put beyond doubt the authority to inquire into and make determinations with respect to alleged code of conduct breaches by former agency heads under the Public Service Act.

The fact that the doubt has been raised and is only now been dealt with is of concern. The minister told the opposition of the urgency of this legislation and its importance to matters currently underway. To this point, the opposition has sought further information in relation to how this matter was brought to the attention of government and the necessity for the urgency of the passage of this legislation to fix it.

We question whether there was any consideration given to the legal risk that the act posed to the processes that were undertaken by the APS Commissioner and the commission. What advice did they seek or not seek that gave them comfort that they were on solid legal ground to pursue these matters? And when were they first alerted to the need for the clarity that the bill seeks to provide? We trust that this risk has only recently presented itself. However, if this clarity was in question some time ago, it is not acceptable that the Public Service seeks to truncate proper parliamentary scrutiny by leaving the introduction of this legislation to the last possible moment.

The measures contained in the bill may be necessary and may be proportionate to tasks that the APSC is currently undertaking, but they will have significant and potentially wide-ranging implications beyond the current circumstances. That is something that we'll not have the benefit of looking at through a longer debate or the process of a committee inquiry. We trust that the APS Commissioner and the commission consider this for the future. As I have noted, the opposition will continue to work constructively with the government on these matters but will reserve a position until discussions have concluded. But we'll allow for the passage of the legislation to the Senate.

As I always do on legislation and matters regarding the Public Service, I'd also like to take the opportunity to make it clear how much we value the work of a frank and fearless public service and the service that they provide to governments of all persuasions. We're very lucky to have high-quality people working in the bureaucracy, serving not only the parliament but also, in particular, the executive by ensuring that the decisions that we make are as well informed as possible. The most important thing we always need to ensure, defend and scrutinise is the independence of the public sector from government and from the executive, ensuring that our public sector maintain a confidence that they can be fierce and frank. That's a very important principle in our Westminster system. If members of the executive, particularly when they come in and are accountable to us in this chamber about matters of the running of our country, are not properly informed and not told everything they need to know and instead are just told what bureaucrats might think they need to know, then that does not lead to good government. This is a very important principle that we, in the coalition, always seek to reconfirm and reinforce because, if we don't have a frank and fearless public service, then we won't get the best-quality advice.

The Public Service Commission play a very important role in this as well because they are a whole-of-government agency. They are the biggest HR department in the country, managing more than 200,000 people who serve in the public sector. It's a very important role that they perform. In this bill, we're talking about issues around codes of conduct and the way in which they enforce standards, and that is one of the many important things that the Public Service Commission undertake. It's vitally important to us in the opposition that there is confidence that the APSC have all of the tools that they require at their disposal, so that's why, as I've commented, we very instinctively support the principles that the government have indicated underpin this bill.

I'm not sure whether the member for Indi intends to come in and reconfirm any of the points that I've been making on this bill. She strikes me as someone who may or may not have wanted to make a contribution as well. But, having made those very clear points, all I would say is that I reconfirm the principled support from those of us in the opposition towards what the government are indicating that they hope to achieve through this legislation. Equally we await the proper and comprehensive briefing that's been offered to us. We will not stand in the way of the passage of this bill through this chamber, but we, of course, reserve our rights in the Senate if the principles that have been outlined to us around what this legislation will achieve are not met and the questions that we've got are not satisfactorily answered. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context