Dr KEMP (Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service)(11.50 a.m.) —The government welcomes the indications from the opposition that it supports reforms to remove the restrictions that bind the Public Service up in red tape and prevent it from operating efficiently. Unfortunately, in the amendments currently before the House I can find no indication that the opposition has really understood the need for that reform or really appreciates just what will be necessary if that reform is to become a reality. Too many of the amendments that have been put forward really do no more than attempt to reintroduce the rigidities and inefficiencies that are the cause of the current problems. The opposition seeks to regulate and prescribe, to control from the centre and to ensure that whatever flexibilities we are attempting to provide to agency heads are removed or thwarted.

These amendments will reimpose a rigid, mandated, service-wide set of outcomes that simply do not provide the capacity for agencies to tailor their operations to the needs of the clients they serve. In the course of the debate, there has been talk of the need for recognition of the foundations for a career service. The government totally supports that, but I note that under the existing legislation some 90 per cent of APS promotions take place within agencies. That is scarcely representative or reflective of a mobile Public Service, which the legislation before the House is intended to achieve.

The opposition argues incorrectly that their amendments are designed to constrain the government from an agenda driven solely by a hatred of public employment. That comment was made in the debate, and let me reiterate the point I made in my summing up speech that this is absolute nonsense. This government values deeply the contribution of the APS to the functioning of Australian democracy. No government in this country can function without a highly professional, apolitical Public Service, a Public Service with levels of expertise which are at least equal to—and one would hope exceed—those available elsewhere in the community and a Public Service with the assurance that it has the bipartisan support of all sides of this parliament. I can assure the parliament and the opposition that our agenda is to make sure that a career Public Service continues, together with the ethos that supports it—a professional and impartial Public Service that our best young Australians will want to join because it offers them an exciting and a motivating career working in the national interest.

Unfortunately, the opposition's proposed amendments would only frustrate the reforms by proposing changes such as not simply retaining but actually expanding the current anachronistic appeal system, which even the Merit Protection and Review Agency sees as needing to change. These amendments would reintroduce appeal rights for senior officers which the opposition themselves had removed in 1987. They will extend appeal rights to cover not only promotions but also appointments when we are trying to break out of this grievance driven culture which the current regulations have given rise to. The amendments prescribe detailed and inflexible requirements for agency workplace diversity programs. These requirements impose a high level of process on agencies without in any way guaranteeing the delivery of better outcomes. I see in these amendments the dead hand of an outdated industrial relations agenda. I would like to make a comment to the opposition about the nature of this agenda: what really does guarantee security to public employees? There has been a view, a philosophy, if you like, which has permeated decisions in industrial agreements over the years. (Time expired)

Amendments negatived.