Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make a small contribution to the debate on the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee report APS Inc: undermining public sector capability and performance. I think it's a very good report. It has a lot of good work done by the committee and a lot of really sensible recommendations. I congratulate the chair in relation to that.

My only criticism of the report is in chapter 8, where the committee gives a mild impression of the politicisation of the APS. That is true, but it is worth mentioning that at the very top of the Public Service—I'll go one step further—is the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has driven throughout this entire government and throughout the entire Public Service a culture of secrecy and a culture of compliance with political direction—or else. We've seen that in things like national cabinet, the wrapping of any adverse reports about what's happened between government and the Public Service in cabinet and, more particularly, the governance committee of cabinet, which is the dirty little secrets committee of the federal cabinet where they go and hide all of the trash and all of the dirty laundry using—in fact, abusing—cabinet processes to do so.

I foreshadow that I am going to move an amendment to the COAG bill to make it very clear that matters that deal with corruption, misfeasance, misuse of public funds and those sorts of activities ought to be excluded from any exemption in relation to cabinet so that they can't be hidden away for 20 years. We also see that throughout estimates, where officials incorrectly characterise things as being cabinet in confidence. They claim cabinet confidentiality about anything they provide to a minister that informs them for going into cabinet, which is actually incorrect. Cabinet submissions—that is, documents specifically brought into existence for submission to cabinet—are entitled to the confidentiality associated with cabinet, but ministerial briefs are not. Yet time and time again we see officials making cabinet-in-confidence claims or suggesting that they will get a public interest immunity claim from a minister in relation to that. That secrecy is driven from the very top.

Then we have a situation where even when the secrecy objectives of the government are overturned by someone like Justice White, when he dealt with the national cabinet, PM&C sit around in a corner and work out what they're going to do: put a bill into a parliament, the COAG bill—a completely ill-thought-through bill, having lost a case. I can tell you that Justice White was scathing of the Commonwealth and of PM&C, in respect of how they handled the AAT matter—not even providing primary evidence, just secondary evidence. Indeed, Mr Gaetjens and Ms McGregor provided false information to the AAT. It turned out that the affidavits that Ms McGregor submitted to the AAT were in fact erroneous, mistaken, wrong. Mr Gaetjens was accused by Justice White of putting down evidence that simply made assumptions and was opinion that led to the conclusions that were actually being adjudicated by Justice White. It was a disgraceful litigation by the Commonwealth. That's the premier department inside the government—the premier department of the Public Service.

We have Mr Gaetjens driving this all the way down through the chain. We have people like Angie McKenzie, who just last week said: 'I am not going to comply with the ruling of Justice White. I think I know what the statutory expression of cabinet or a committee of cabinet means.' Her view is one that is believed by PM&C to trump that of the Federal Court justice. It is just disgusting. It's awful stuff. The Attorney ought to be stepping in and weighing in behind Justice White and giving good advice to government to maintain the rule of law, to maintain the precedents and the weight that belongs to a justice—even when sitting as a deputy president of the AAT. At the very, very top of the APS we have a member of PM&C simply saying: 'I don't care what the judge said. I am going to make a decision that overrides that.' That is just shameful. That is something that is relatively new. We never would have seen that before.

Going back to the point that I was going to make, and which I will conclude with: there is mild politicisation throughout the APS, unfortunately. The closer you get to the Prime Minister's office the more partisan we see public officials, and that is just a really awful place to be. We want to have officials giving proper advice—frank and fearless—and complying with the rule of law, and that doesn't appear to be happening. The problem is it's led from the very top. It is the very top of the APS. It's very shameful that that's occurring.

Apart from that, I encourage senators to read the report. It's actually a very well constructed report with great recommendations. I look forward to seeing how the government responds to them. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.