James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Waste Reduction) Share this | Link to 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.

Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is nice to rise on the Public Service Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2024. I must say it is quite ironic that I rise to speak on a bill about conducting inquiries into potential breaches of the APS Code of Conduct and integrity at the same time as I should have been speaking about the CFMEU and integrity within the CFMEU. But those opposite chose to gag debate on that bill, so we're now talking about this important bill.

We're looking to understand the importance of integrity. We do need to make sure that this goes through and that the Public Service is held to a high standard. That is something that is very important. As the member for Sturt opposite said, we weren't able to get a full briefing on this bill, so it is important that we get this briefing to understand the details of what happens, because the act does not currently clarify whether such inquiries can be conducted on individuals who are no longer agency heads. This causes uncertainty within the act. It articulates the power to conduct inquiries into breaches by APS employees or former APS employees and breaches by an agency head, but it is silent on former agency heads. It is so crucial that we bring this through because, even if you are no longer an agency head, you should still be held to account, much like, if you were no longer the head of the CFMEU, like John Setka, you should be held to account. That's what we need to do in this House. We need to ensure integrity across services. We need to ensure integrity within the Public Service and also within the unions.

As we said, the coalition was able to ensure that 20 amendments were made to the bill that was gagged and rushed through the House. They improved that bill and made sure that there was some level of integrity for the CFMEU. While we're talking about integrity in this bill, I will watch interest as a Victorian to see whether this extends to the TWU you and HSU. We've seen in Victoria that senior officials need to step down because of questions about their conduct within those roles.

So we've just had the CFMEU that we've dealt with. We're now talking about integrity within the Public Service. We are talking about integrity in the Public Service, and the government are on a roll: two bills in a row talking about integrity within the Public Service and within the union movement. It's important that we talk about the wider union movement because we do know, Member for Fremantle, that the union movement works closely with the Public Service. They're very linked. You need integrity within our Public Service and integrity within our union movement. You looked a bit bemused, Member for Fremantle, and I understand that, as a Western Australian, you might not be across the issues of the Victorian union movement, but I suggest you look at the actions of the TWU, the HSU and some of those leaders that have had to step down—three unions in one state. It is so important that we look at retrospectivity, as I said.

This is an important bill that will hold the Public Service to account. There are things that we need to understand and, as I said, it's hard to talk in detail about this because the coalition hasn't received a briefing on the legislation. This will potentially identify more issues than those that have been talked about. Obviously, while retrospectivity is important, it also does create some challenges, so we need to understand what other referrals could be looked at and what agency heads are included under this bill, because the bill looks at retrospectivity back to 7 July 2023. That's a date that this government have chosen.

It goes back to the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, which seems to make sense, but it does raise a question: 7 July 2023 is the date that those opposite have chosen, but what happens through this process if misconduct is found on 6 July 2023? What happens if misconduct is found on 5 July 2023 or 2022? Why is 7 July the magic date? Surely if we're going to look back, we should choose to make sure that all things are covered and all the behaviour of public servants is called for, because, as I said, it's important that we do have strong integrity measures at all times.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all members for their constructive debate on the Public Service Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2024. I just want to clarify the member for Casey's imaginative ramble. This law is not retrospective; it's clarifying what we believe to be the existing law. I'm sorry that he wasn't invited to the briefing, which Senator Jane Hume and the member for Bradfield attended yesterday, with the Public Service Commissioner. There has been a briefing for the opposition. I am sorry if the leadership of the opposition don't inform the troops about what they're doing. That's just not really good communication.

The other thing is that the previous member—Mr Pyne's replacement, whatever—said, 'When were we notified about'—

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sturt.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sturt—that's it. Thank you. It's not retrospective; we're clarifying it. There has been a briefing for the opposition. The Australian Public Service Commissioner, Gordon de Brouwer, attended that yesterday. I'm instructed that we were notified in July of the need for this, so we haven't been hatching this for two years.

The APS Code of Conduct is a cornerstone of an efficient, effective and apolitical Australian Public Service which upholds APS values and acts with integrity in the national interest. Culture is set from the top down. Agency heads should not be able to escape accountability for breaching the code of conduct simply by leaving their role. Claims have been made in the context of current inquiries, including in relation to robodebt, that the absence of an express power means the commissioner cannot investigate agency heads. The government is not prepared to compromise the outcome of these important inquiries, and that's why the date of 7 July 2023 was picked, and we are acting swiftly to remove any ambiguity.

This bill will clarify the commissioner's power to investigate and make findings against former agency heads. This will allow the commissioner to conclude current inquiries quickly and undertake further inquiries on a clear, level footing. This bill delivers on what the Australian community deserve and expect—clear powers to ensure that the most senior leaders of our Public Service are accountable for their conduct as agency heads. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.