|
representatives vote 2023-08-01#3
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-09-15 07:58:09
|
Title
Bills — Public Service Amendment Bill 2023; Consideration in Detail- Public Service Amendment Bill 2023 - Consideration in Detail - Appontment process
Description
<p class="speaker">Sophie Scamps</p><p>by leave—I move amendment (3) as circulated in my name:</p>-
- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-08-01.100.1) introduced by Mackellar MP [Sophie Scamps](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/mackellar/sophie_scamps), which means they failed.
- ### What did the amendment do?
- Dr Scamps [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-08-01.100.1):
- > *In short, these amendments dictate that, when a department secretary is to be appointed, the Public Service Commissioner would be required to conduct a robust selection process, including publishing selection criteria for the appointment, widely consulting for candidates, rigorously considering candidates against the selection criteria and preparing a shortlist of at least three candidates for the Prime Minister to consider. If the Prime Minister decides to select somebody for the position who is not on the shortlist, they must table a report within seven sitting days of the appointment naming the person and providing reasons why that person has the appropriate qualifications, skills and experience for the role.*
- >
- > *For the appointment of the Public Service Commissioner, the so-called 'guardian of an impartial Australian Public Service', as described by Thodey, there are a couple of additional requirements: that the independent panel be chaired by a former judge, and that the Prime Minister consult with the Leader of the Opposition on the appointment. This is in recognition that the Australian Public Service Commissioner is a unique role and reinforces to the Australian public the independence and impartiality of both the commissioner and the Australian Public Service.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(3) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 25), after item 8, insert:*
- >
- >> *8A Section 45*
- >>
- >>> *Before "The Commissioner", insert "(1)".*
- >>
- >> *8B At the end of section 45*
- >>
- >>> *Add:*
- >>>
- >>> *Requirements for appointments*
- >>>
- >>> *(2) Before recommending to the Governor-General on or after the commencement of this subsection that a person be appointed as the Commissioner, the Prime Minister must:*
- >>>
- >>>> *(a) ensure that the person was selected as the result of a process that includes:*
- >>>>
- >>>>> *(i) public advertising of selection criteria for the position; and*
- >>>>>
- >>>>> *(ii) assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members and chaired by a former judge; and*
- >>>>>
- >>>> *(iii) shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment who are certified, in writing, by the panel to meet all of the selection criteria; and*
- >>>>
- >>>> *(b) ensure that the person appointed is one of the shortlisted candidates.*
- >>>
- >>> *(3) Within 7 days after an appointment is made, the Prime Minister must cause a copy of the written certification (referred to in subparagraph (2)(a)(iii)) for the person appointed to be:*
- >>>
- >>>> *(a) tabled in each House of the Parliament; or*
- >>>>
- >>>> *(b) if a House is not sitting—presented to the Presiding Officer of that House for circulation to the members of that House.*
- >>>
- >>> *(4) In this section:*
- >>>
- >>>> *former judge means:*
- >>>>
- >>>> *(a) a former Justice of the High Court; or*
- >>>>
- >>>> *(b) a former judge of the Federal Court of Australia; or*
- >>>>
- >>>> *(c) a former judge of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory.*
- >>
- >> *8C Subsections 58(6) to (8)*
- >>
- >>> *Repeal the subsections, substitute:*
- >>>
- >>> *Requirements for appointments*
- >>>
- >>> *(6) Before recommending to the Governor-General on or after the commencement of this subsection that a person be appointed as the Secretary of a Department, the Prime Minister must have regard to a report:*
- >>>
- >>>> *(a) prepared by the Commissioner; and*
- >>>>
- >>>> *(b) describing a selection process conducted by the Commissioner for the appointment.*
- >>>
- >>> *(7) The selection process conducted by the Commissioner must include:*
- >>>
- >>>> *(a) publishing the selection criteria for the appointment; and*
- >>>>
- >>>> *(b) widely consulting for candidates (using professional executive-search expertise as appropriate); and*
- >>>>
- >>>> *(c) rigorously considering candidates against the selection criteria; and*
- >>>>
- >>>> *(d) preparing a ranked shortlist of at least 3 candidates to provide to the Prime Minister.*
- >>>
- >>> *(8) If under subsection (1) a person is appointed who is not on the shortlist referred to in paragraph (7)(d), the Prime Minister must:*
- >>>
- >>>> *(a) prepare a report naming the person, and giving reasons why the person has the appropriate qualifications, skills and experience to be appointed; and*
- >>>>
- >>>> *(b) cause a copy of that report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 7 sitting days of that House after the day the person is appointed under subsection (1).*
<p class="italic">(3) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 25), after item 8, insert:</p><p class="italic">8A Section 45</p><p class="italic">Before "The Commissioner", insert "(1)".</p><p class="italic">8B At the end of section 45</p><p class="italic">Add:</p><p class="italic"> <i>Requirements for appointments</i></p><p class="italic">(2) Before recommending to the Governor-General on or after the commencement of this subsection that a person be appointed as the Commissioner, the Prime Minister must:</p><p class="italic">(a) ensure that the person was selected as the result of a process that includes:</p><p class="italic">(i) public advertising of selection criteria for the position; and</p><p class="italic">(ii) assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members and chaired by a former judge; and</p><p class="italic">(iii) shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment who are certified, in writing, by the panel to meet all of the selection criteria; and</p><p class="italic">(b) ensure that the person appointed is one of the shortlisted candidates.</p><p class="italic">(3) Within 7 days after an appointment is made, the Prime Minister must cause a copy of the written certification (referred to in subparagraph (2)(a)(iii)) for the person appointed to be:</p><p class="italic">(a) tabled in each House of the Parliament; or</p><p class="italic">(b) if a House is not sitting—presented to the Presiding Officer of that House for circulation to the members of that House.</p><p class="italic">(4) In this section:</p><p class="italic"><i>former judge</i> means:</p><p class="italic">(a) a former Justice of the High Court; or</p><p class="italic">(b) a former judge of the Federal Court of Australia; or</p><p class="italic">(c) a former judge of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory.</p><p class="italic">8C Subsections 58(6) to (8)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the subsections, substitute:</p><p class="italic"> <i>Requirements for appointments</i></p><p class="italic">(6) Before recommending to the Governor-General on or after the commencement of this subsection that a person be appointed as the Secretary of a Department, the Prime Minister must have regard to a report:</p><p class="italic">(a) prepared by the Commissioner; and</p><p class="italic">(b) describing a selection process conducted by the Commissioner for the appointment.</p><p class="italic">(7) The selection process conducted by the Commissioner must include:</p><p class="italic">(a) publishing the selection criteria for the appointment; and</p><p class="italic">(b) widely consulting for candidates (using professional executive-search expertise as appropriate); and</p><p class="italic">(c) rigorously considering candidates against the selection criteria; and</p><p class="italic">(d) preparing a ranked shortlist of at least 3 candidates to provide to the Prime Minister.</p><p class="italic">(8) If under subsection (1) a person is appointed who is not on the shortlist referred to in paragraph (7)(d), the Prime Minister must:</p><p class="italic">(a) prepare a report naming the person, and giving reasons why the person has the appropriate qualifications, skills and experience to be appointed; and</p><p class="italic">(b) cause a copy of that report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 7 sitting days of that House after the day the person is appointed under subsection (1).</p><p>I commend the government for starting the process of giving effect to the recommendations of the 2019 Independent Review of the Australian Public Service, the Thodey review. The Thodey review was a significant piece of work resulting in a report with wide-ranging proposals for how the Public Service could be enhanced and improved. Given the shocking revelations of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, these changes could not come at a better time. With the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023 we have an opportunity to rebuild and strengthen the independence and integrity of the service, but we need to get it right. So today I rise to propose an amendment to improve this bill.</p><p>In amendment (3) the changes I propose aim to strengthen the appointment process for departmental secretaries and the Australian Public Service Commissioner. These are modest amendments designed to foster greater integrity within the operation of the Public Service by creating a more independent and transparent appointment process for these important roles. I have previously tabled in this place a private member's bill which would introduce an independent selection process for major Commonwealth public appointments, my 'ending jobs for mates' bill.</p><p>The amendments I'm proposing today to the appointment process of the departmental secretaries and Public Service Commissioner draw upon that gold standard model for Commonwealth appointments. However, these amendments also acknowledge the close working relationship that is required between a departmental secretary and a minister, a relationship of trust and confidence, so they allow for a higher level of ministerial discretion than for the other major Commonwealth public appointments. The amendments in relation to the appointment of the departmental secretaries are also similar and consistent with what was recommended in the Thodey review.</p><p>In short, these amendments dictate that, when a department secretary is to be appointed, the Public Service Commissioner would be required to conduct a robust selection process, including publishing selection criteria for the appointment, widely consulting for candidates, rigorously considering candidates against the selection criteria and preparing a shortlist of at least three candidates for the Prime Minister to consider. If the Prime Minister decides to select somebody for the position who is not on the shortlist, they must table a report within seven sitting days of the appointment naming the person and providing reasons why that person has the appropriate qualifications, skills and experience for the role.</p><p>For the appointment of the Public Service Commissioner, the so-called 'guardian of an impartial Australian Public Service', as described by Thodey, there are a couple of additional requirements: that the independent panel be chaired by a former judge, and that the Prime Minister consult with the Leader of the Opposition on the appointment. This is in recognition that the Australian Public Service Commissioner is a unique role and reinforces to the Australian public the independence and impartiality of both the commissioner and the Australian Public Service.</p> <p class="speaker">Patrick Gorman</p><p>I want to thank the member for Mackellar for her engagement throughout this process of the bill progressing through the House and her commitment to building that robust Australian Public Service, which is regarded by all Australians and internationally as one where those values of integrity are key. Going to why the government is not going to support these amendments, I will firstly note that the bill that we have in front of us today. The Public Service Amendment Bill 2023, is part of an ambitious and enduring APS reform agenda. This bill in large part reflects a range of ideas and policy initiatives outlined by the Minister for the Public Service in October 2022 and has been consulted on widely. But it is just one part of our APS reform agenda.</p><p>The proposed amendment to repeal the value of 'ethical' and add new values of integrity doesn't, in the government's view, substantially change the meaning of the existing value. The existing value of 'ethical' requires that 'the APS demonstrates leadership, is trustworthy, and acts with integrity in all that it does'. So, the commitment to integrity is already there in the existing act, and, as I said before, we do expect that our Public Service is seen as one where integrity is key to everything it does. Furthermore, we see that the new value of 'excellence' is well represented by the values of being committed to service and respectful—that is: 'The APS is professional, objective, innovative and efficient and works collaboratively to achieve the best results for the Australian community and the government.' So, again, we see that these matters are already addressed.</p><p>Going to the questions around the proposed appointment of the Australian Public Service Commissioner, we believe that this is far too highly prescriptive for appointing a very important role that we in this place look to for leadership of the Public Service and that public servants themselves look for in leadership. But we do think that to be that prescriptive about the forming of an independent selection panel, so prescriptive of who could be the chair in saying that it must be a former judge and requiring that in some cases a former judge is the only person who could be appointed as chair, when you are looking for people who have broad understanding, knowledge and experience of the Australian Public Service—its history, the good parts of its culture and what it is seeking to do for the future—may result in unintended consequences.</p><p>Then we get to the questions around the proposed appointment of an agency secretary. We believe this is too fundamental a change in the process. It would require a far broader consultation, not just with other members of parliament but with many of those who require those secretaries to be their leaders in these Public Service organisations. What this amendment would do, for the information of members of the House, is repeal existing subsections 58(6) to 58(8) and replace them with the new provisions. The amendment would require the APS commissioner to have sole responsibility to prepare a report and would remove a range of consultation mechanisms that are already there. And I think one of the things we see when it comes to getting good advice to government from the public sector is that consultation and different points of view are a good thing. We don't believe that the case for that fundamental change has been made. It is a substantive decision and one that we think would need quite wideranging consultation.</p><p>I do note that the Thodey review recommends that this should be a joint function of the APS commissioner and the secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, so it would be going against that recommendation. And we believe that it's appropriate that the secretary of the lead coordinating agency—that is, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—is involved in that very important appointment process for a secretary of a department. Thank you.</p> <p class="speaker">Kylea Tink</p><p>I rise in support of the proposed amendments moved by the member for Mackellar. What we've seen consistently from the member for Mackellar is a commitment to improving transparency, integrity and accountability in the ways in which appointments are made by governments, be it this government, any past government or a government into the future. There is no doubt that we keep being asked by the government to trust that their processes will be different, that there is a piece of legislation coming which will ultimately deal with appointments, but that piece of legislation is yet to be tabled.</p><p>I thank the member for Mackellar for continuing this fight and I urge the government, if they are not accepting these amendments today, to please actually prioritise the tabling of the legislation that they keep telling us is coming. Show us the ways in which you are bringing integrity, transparency and accountability back into the appointments process, because we are still not seeing that from this government. There is significant lack of information around how people who are taking charge of inquiries are being appointed and significant lack of information around how senior public servants are getting moved between departments. It's clear that while the intention may be there, the practice still very much in place is 'jobs for mates'.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The question before the chair is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mackellar be agreed to.</p> -
-
|