Dr KEMP (Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) (5:39 PM) —in reply—I believe I am the last member to speak in this debate. I would like to take this opportunity to comment on some of the points that have been raised in the course of the debate and to thank members for their contributions.

Perhaps the saddest aspect of this debate is that the Labor Party has been unable to address the substantive issues raised by this piece of legislation because of its very close ties to the trade union movement. We are increasingly seeing that the opposition is hamstrung in its ability to produce policy or to take an independent position by its close ties with the trade union movement. It seems that it is now prepared to betray all those public servants whose years of work and experience have gone into the bill which is currently before the House; that it simply does not recognise the fact that we are not going to have a public service in this country which provides a satisfying work environment for public servants themselves, a public service which is going to be able to provide the Australian people with the quality of government that they are seeking, unless we have a public service which has a much greater level of flexibility to manage its affairs, to organise its activities, than we do at present.

The member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) ought to understand this well. Instead, the opposition has now made clear, through the remarks of the member for Canberra in this debate, that it intends to revive once again in the Senate all the out-of-date, prescriptive, centralised procedures which it had in many cases abandoned in government, but which are being forced on it by its narrow political concerns to obtain the support of the Community and Public Sector Union. This is a tragedy for Australian public servants. It is very demoralising to see that the opposition has no sense of responsibility in this area but intends to pursue a course of action which is contrary to the need for the improvement of the central structures of government in this country.

There are no institutions more important to government outside those of representative democracy itself than the Commonwealth Public Service. The Australian Public Service is one of the pillars of Australian democracy and the members of the Public Service deserve respect. This piece of legislation gives them respect. It allows them the level of flexibility and autonomy that they need to provide the Australian people with the quality of advice and the quality of service which the Australian people have a right to expect.

We see the Labor Party in this area, as in other areas, such as the area of workplace reform, going backwards at 100 miles an hour, past even changes they had agreed to in office, back to the 1970s, the 1960s, the 1950s. It is a very sad thing. The government will resist this in every way possible. If the opposition succeeds in reinstating its amendments to this legislation in the Senate, the government will once again have this bill rejected by the House.

There have been a number of specific comments made in the debate and I want to refer to these. One comment made by the member for Blaxland (Mr Hatton) that I think is a very important one to answer is the fact that because the government is proceeding with Public Service reform now via legislation and directions of the Public Service Commissioner, this means that this legislation is not necessary. Oh, that this were the case, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am sure there would be many public servants who would wish that this were indeed the case. But the reality is that we do need this piece of legislation.

The government has been able, using the regulations under the 1922 act—an act 75 years old, amended more than 100 times and now grossly out of date—and by the exercise of certain Public Service Commissioner powers, to improve the flexibility and enhance accountability within the service. But it is quite clear that if we attempt to operate under the Public Service Act as it now stands, the whole framework will be one which is, and remains, complex, difficult and confusing to those who have to operate it.

There are a large number of substantive changes which cannot be achieved without the passage of this legislation. These include such changes as giving employment powers directly to agency heads to place them in a position where they can lead, as well as manage, their departments; and removing complex grievance and appeals arrangements and including those via the MPRA.

The legislation is necessary to remove the concept of office and replace it with much more modern and up-to-date concepts of employment comparable to those in the private sector. The Public Service Bill 1997 [No. 2] is necessary to completely remove the complex part 4 mobility arrangements. It is necessary to the removal of the inflexible employment categories, including prescriptive arrangements for recruitment and termination of temporary staff. It is necessary to remove the compulsory maximum age retirement at 65. It is necessary to enable the creation of executive agencies. It is necessary to simplify the arrangements for machinery of government transfers and for ensuring a secure, parliament endorsed legislative framework for APS values, the new code of conduct and protection of whistleblowers.

The remarks of the last opposition speaker that this bill in some way opens the way to politicisation of the Public Service is, of course, absolute nonsense. Indeed, it does the reverse, and it ill-behoves the Labor Party to be talking about politicisation of the Public Service. This government is fed up, as are the Australian people, with the attempts of every Labor Party government when it comes to power to place its own supporters in key positions within the service. For the first time, this bill provides quite explicitly in legislation for the concept of a non-political public service and it contains specific provisions to prevent ministers taking an active role in and giving direction in the appointment of particular people within departments.

These are the strongest safeguards against politicisation of the Public Service that there has ever been in legislation in this country. To suggest that in some way this bill opens the door to politicisation shows just what a lack of grasp and, indeed, interest the Labor Party has in this historic piece of legislation.

It is very sad to see the member for Canberra going down this track. I suppose, to some extent, it aligns with the fact that the Labor Party was so extraordinarily unsuccessful in the recent election in the ACT. We did not see great expressions of outrage here against the coalition or the Liberal Party because people understand that what this bill does is to improve the work environment, the prospects for people within the Public Service—

Mr McMullan —Are you going to come and run in my seat?

Dr KEMP —Talk to some people other than your union members and you'll be right. The member for Canberra said that the government simply rejected the Senate amendments out of hand for purely political reasons. Of course, this is not the case. The government rejected these amendments because they would take the Public Service back to that era of prescription and central regulation and dictation which has done so much damage to the service. It is the failed strategy of the CPSU which has argued over the years that this detailed prescription is necessary to give members of the Public Service security. What we have seen in every institution where union power has become excessive is that that institution has been damaged and the members of that institution have had their satisfaction and their workplace destroyed, leadership and management has been undermined and, in the end, the institution itself has struggled.

This bill enables the enormous pool of talent, experience, goodwill and commitment to Australia within the Public Service to flower and express itself. The Labor Party, unfortunately, has again aligned itself with this pathetic and failed union strategy—you would think they would learn some time—in these amendments.

The member for Canberra commented that the bill is not written within the parameters of acceptable legislation. My only comment on that is that, while the bill may not be acceptable to the opposition and to the public sector unions, it is a necessary, essential and reforming bill. It spells out the values of the Public Service, it establishes an accountability framework and it promotes efficiency while providing protections for staff. On this basis, the bill is entirely acceptable and ought to be acceptable to any reasonable person.

The further point was made that the concept of adopting general industrial arrangements is simplistic and makes no distinction between the nature of employment in the public sector and in the private sector. My response to that is that the bill explicitly recognises the distinction between private and public enterprise. It explicitly enshrines merit as the guiding principle in staffing matters within the Public Service. It establishes a code of conduct which guides public servants in their dealings with each other and with the public. It provides public servants with specific rights to seek internal review of employment decisions and it ensures the role of parliament in scrutinising the public sector and ensuring the accountability of that sector through ministers to the parliament and ultimately to the people of Australia.

From these examples, it is obvious that this bill is misunderstood by the opposition and that their comments to it are misconceived. The member for Canberra appears to think that this bill is a serious threat to the nature of the Public Service. On the contrary, it is the government's very strongly held belief that these reforms are necessary to ensure the future strength and effectiveness of the Public Service. They articulate the nature of public service. They will improve the manner in which public services are delivered while maintaining the recognised ethos, objectivity and professionalism of the Australian Public Service. They will free public servants from the stultifying effect of service-wide prescriptions and processes and allow them to organise their departments and workplaces in a way which will best meet the needs of the clients of the service, whether that be the democratically elected government of the day or whether it be the members of the general public.

This bill is all about good government. It is all about governing Australia well. It is one of the major reforms which is being put forward by the government to improve the life of the Australian people and to place this nation in a position where it is able to cope with the intense international pressures that it is now facing. Nations these days are competing not merely on the basis of the efficiency of their private sectors but on the basis of the quality of their public sectors and the quality of governance that those public sectors can provide. This bill has been hailed internationally as a visionary bill which is absolutely at the forefront of international thinking on the organisation of the public sector.

It provides the framework for the establishment of a high performance Public Service in Australia, one which will meet the needs of all Australians. The government is not going to be deterred by the obstructive attitude of the Labor Party and the minor parties in the Senate. We are going to pursue the issue of this bill and, if the Senate does in fact re-establish the amendments that the government has refused to accept, we will bring this bill back to the House and reject those amendments once again.

Question put:

That the bill be now read a second time.