Messages received from the House of Representatives: returning the Parliamentary Service Bill 1999, and acquainting the Senate that the House has agreed to amendments Nos 1, 3 and 4 made by the Senate and disagreed to amendment No. 2, and requesting the reconsideration of the amendment disagreed to by the House; returning the Public Service Bill 1999, and acquainting the Senate that the House has agreed to amendment No. 2 made by the Senate and disagreed to amendment No. 1, and requesting the reconsideration of the amendment disagreed to by the House; and agreeing to the amendments made by the Senate in the Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Bill 1999.

Ordered that messages Nos 324 and 326 be considered in committee of the whole immediately.

PARLIAMENTARY SERVICE BILL 1999

Schedule of the amendment made by the Senate to which the House of Representatives has disagreed—

(2) Clause 22, page 16 (lines 24 to 27), omit subclauses (4) and (5), substitute:

(4) A person may be engaged as mentioned in paragraph (2)(b) only in circumstances prescribed by the determinations.

(4A) The determinations may limit the circumstances in which persons may be engaged as mentioned in paragraph (2)(c).

(5) An engagement for a specified term may be extended in circumstances prescribed by the determinations.

House of Representatives reasons for disagreeing to the Senate amendment—

The Amendment proposes to change Clause 22 of the Bill. The Amendment proposes to change the provision that allows determinations to be made to prescribe limitations on the extension of employment for a specified term. The Amendment would substitute provisions that prohibit the engagement of persons in those categories, or the extension of engagement of people engaged for a specified term until determinations are made dealing with those issues.

The Parliamentary Service Bill 1999 provides for the establishment and management of the Parliamentary Service as a separate entity from the Australian Public Service and is to replace the Public Service Act 1922 and the Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act 1984 .

The Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 30 March 1999 and the Second Reading debate was adjourned, as required by standing orders. The Second Reading debate on the Bill was resumed and completed on 27 September 1999. The Bill proceeded in cognate debate together with the Public Service Bill 1999 and the Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Bill 1999. The Bills passed through the House of Representatives following the passage of amendments and were debated in the Senate on 14 October 1999.

During the debate the Senate passed an amendment to clause 22 of the Parliamentary Service Bill and the Bill has been referred back to the House of Representatives.

Clause 22 of the Parliamentary Service Bill deals with categories of employment and provides that persons employed in the Parliamentary Service can be engaged:

. on an ongoing basis; or

. for a specified term or the duration of a specified task; or

. for duties that are irregular or intermittent.

The effect of the Senate Amendment to clause 22 is to provide that a Secretary would only be able to engage persons for a specified term or the duration of a specified task, or extend an engagement for a specified term, in circumstances prescribed in the determinations.

The Amendment is unacceptable to the House because it could operate to effectively prohibit the employment of persons in the Parliamentary Service on other than an ongoing basis unless determinations are made which deliver the Opposition's agenda on this matter.

The House appreciates that the Government and the Opposition have held lengthy discussions on the use of these forms of employment in the Parliamentary Service.

The House notes that the Government has modified its position considerably on this issue and that Parliamentary Departments should have the flexibility to engage employees for an initial period of up 18 months with the capacity to extend to a total period of up to three years to meet peaks and troughs in workloads, temporary demands for particular skills and to replace ongoing employees who are on leave or who are working elsewhere in the Parliamentary Service. That proposal is consistent with the recommendations of the McLeod report on the Review of the Public Service Act which was endorsed by the Opposition when they were in government.

Indeed, the proposed maximum period of engagement for persons engaged for a specified term is less than that recommended in the McLeod report which considered that the maximum period should be able to be extended to five years.

In addition the subordinate legislation will require that:

. where such employment is to last for longer than twelve months, the employment opportunity must be advertised and a merit selection process must be conducted; and

. an opportunity will be provided for any ongoing staff employed in the Parliamentary Department where the vacancy exists to express interest in performing the duties and be considered on their merits before a new employee is engaged for a specified term or task.

Contrary to the Oppositions' claims, clause 22 of the Bill will not lead to the casualisation of the Parliamentary Service.

The Bill explicitly states that the usual basis for engagement will be as an ongoing employee, while the Parliamentary Service values, which Secretaries and Parliamentary Service employees are obliged to comply with, include a commitment to workplaces:

. which are fair, flexible safe and rewarding and free from discrimination;

. that promote equity in employment in a career based service; and

. where there is communication, consultation co-operation and input from employees on matters that affect their workplace.

The Amendment, if accepted, would be likely to result in even less people being employed under the Parliamentary Service Act as Secretaries will be forced to contract out short term work. This will mean that people, especially young people and women, will no longer have the opportunity to work in the Parliamentary Service for a short period of time to improve their chances of ongoing employment or to meet their family/work responsibilities.

Accordingly, the House opposes Senate Amendment Number 2 to clause 22 of the Parliamentary Service Bill 1999.

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL 1999

Schedule of the amendment made by the Senate to which the House of Representatives has disagreed—

(1) Clause 22, page 14 (line 26) to page 15 (line 2), omit subclauses (4) and (5), substitute:

(4) A person may be engaged as mentioned in paragraph (2)(b) only in circumstances prescribed by the regulations.

(4A) The regulations may limit the circumstances in which persons may be engaged as mentioned in paragraph (2)(c).

(5) An engagement for a specified term may be extended in circumstances prescribed by the regulations.

House of Representatives reasons for disagreeing to the Senate amendment—

The Amendment proposes to change Clause 22 of the Bill. In particular the Amendment proposes to change the provision that allows regulations to be made to prescribe limitations on the extension of employment for a specified term. The Amendment would substitute provisions that prohibit the engagement of persons in those categories, or the extension of engagement of people engaged for a specified term until regulations are made dealing with those issues.

The Public Service Bill 1999 (PS Bill) provides for the establishment and management of the Australian Public Service (APS) and is to replace the Public Service Act 1922 and the Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act 1984 . The PS Bill's accompanying legislation is the Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Bill 1999.

The two Bills were introduced into the House of Representatives on 30 March 1999 and the Second Reading debate was adjourned, as required by standing orders. The Second Reading debate on the Bills was resumed and completed on 27 September 1999. The Bills proceeded in cognate debate together with the Parliamentary Service Bill 1999. The Bills passed through the House of Representa tives following the passage of Government amendments and were debated in the Senate on 14 October 1999.

During the debate the Senate passed an amendment to clause 22 of the PS Bill. The Bill has been referred back to the House of Representatives.

Clause 22 of the PS Bill deals with categories of employment and provides that persons employed in the APS can be engaged;

. on an ongoing basis; or

. for a specified term or the duration of a specified task; or

. for duties that are irregular or intermittent.

The effect of the Senate Amendment to clause 22 is to provide that an Agency Head would only be able to engage persons for a specified term or the duration of a specified task, or extend an engagement for a specified term, in circumstances prescribed in the Public Service Regulations.

The Amendment is unacceptable to the House because it could operate to effectively prohibit the employment of persons in the APS on other than an ongoing basis unless Regulations are made which deliver the Opposition's agenda on this matter.

The House appreciates that Government and the Opposition have held lengthy discussions on the use of these forms of employment in the APS.

The House notes that the Government has modified its position considerably on this issue. The House notes that the Government is adamant that APS agencies should have the flexibility to engage APS employees for an initial period of up to 18 months with the capacity to extend to a total period of up to three years to meet peaks and troughs in workloads, temporary demands for particular skills and to replace ongoing employees who are on leave or who are working elsewhere in the APS. That proposal is consistent with the recommendations of the McLeod report on the Review of the Public Service Act that was endorsed by the Opposition when they were in government.

Indeed, under the Bill the proposed maximum period of engagement for persons engaged for a specified term is less than that recommended in the McLeod report which considered that the maximum period should be able to be extended to five years.

In addition the subordinate legislation will require that:

. where such employment is to last for longer than twelve months, the employment opportunity must be advertised and a merit selection process must be conducted; and

. an opportunity will be provided for any ongoing staff employed in the Agency where the vacancy exists to express interest and be considered before a new employee is engaged for a specified term or task.

Contrary to the Opposition's claims, clause 22 of the Bill will not lead to the casualisation of the APS.

The Bill explicitly states that the usual basis for engagement will be as an ongoing employee, while the APS values, which Agency Heads and APS employees are obliged to comply with, include a commitment to workplaces:

. which are fair, flexible safe and rewarding and free from discrimination;

. that promote equity in employment in a career based service; and

. where there is communication, consultation co-operation and input from employees on matters that affect their workplace.

The Amendment, if accepted, would be likely to result in even less people being employed under the Public Service Act as Agency Heads will be forced to contract out short term work. This will mean that people, especially young people and women, will no longer have the opportunity to work in the APS for a short period of time to improve their chances of ongoing employment or to meet their family/work responsibilities.

Accordingly, the House opposes Senate Amendment No 1 to clause 22 of the Public Service Bill 1999.

Motion (by Senator Ellison) proposed:

That:

(1) the committee does not insist on its amendment no. 2 to the Parliamentary Service Bill 1999 to which the House of Representatives has disagreed; and

(2) the committee does not insist on its amendment no. 1 to the Public Service Bill 1999 to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.