Ms HALL (8:11 PM) —One thing that we on this side of the House are always a little sceptical of is the government when it comes to industrial relations, but it appears that on this occasion the government is going to include a number of amendments which are welcomed by the opposition. This government has been consistent in its attack on workers' conditions and job security. In every piece of legislation, every word it utters in relation to workplace reform signals an attack on workers. So you can understand our scepticism in relation to the public service and parliamentary service legislation and also to the history of this legislation, and the previous attempts by the government in relation to public sector reform add to that scepticism.

Workplace reform in the maritime industry signalled an attack on workers in that industry. It led to sackings and secret deals between the employers and government at the expense of workers. It led to a situation where workers were under siege and to great division within that work force. These are some of the reasons that we worry about this government's reform agenda. Generally speaking, reform does not mean reform for all parties; it means reform for one specific sector, and that is usually the employer. In this case, that employer is the Commonwealth of Australia and I believe that the onus on the government to ensure that those reforms take the workers with them is greater than in any other area.

If the government's success in workplace reform is evaluated on its ability to create division, then it seems to have an overabundance of ability to attack workers. That evaluation would show that it has been quite successful to date because there has been an erosion of working conditions and security for workers here in Australia.

The Howard government advocates the need for micro-economic reform, the removal of red tape, workplace flexibility and the encouragement of a direct relationship between employers and workers. There are a lot of those things that we on this side of the House can see will benefit Australia, both the government and workers. But as so often under this government, micro-economic reforms and a change in direction signal an attack on workers.

When the Howard government's workplace reforms have been introduced, they have shown that workplace flexibility means a loss of working conditions for workers. Workplace flexibility means that under the Howard government you can no longer assume you will go to work and be certain that you will have a job when you come home. Howard government flexibility changes on a daily basis. You do not have the security of knowing that your job and conditions are going to be maintained.

It is all about creating a situation where the workers are basically in their jobs at the whim of the employer. The reduction of red tape could mean that it makes it easier for businesses to operate and that it makes a better and more efficient Public Service. However, it can also mean that it is easier to sack workers. That is what worries me. We do not want a situation in this country where workers in our Public Service can go to work one day and be given a letter that says, `Sorry, your job doesn't exist any longer.'

The move to a direct relationship between employers and workers is one way of getting rid of unions. It makes sure that the unions do not play a part in negotiations. What does this mean? It means it will lead to a reduction in wages for workers, poorer conditions and longer working hours. It seems to be a bit of a one-way street, one that is about protecting the employer—in this case, the Commonwealth—against the worker.

The Howard government sought to impose its 1950s reactionary type reforms on the Public Service on two previous occasions, but it failed to ram its legislation through the parliament. On the two previous occasions, the legislation was so anti-worker, so anti the employees—the fine public servants we have here in Australia—that it was rejected by the Senate and could have acted as a trigger for a double dissolution in the previous parliament.

In Australia, we have a highly skilled, professional, hardworking, independent, non-partisan Public Service. That is what we want to keep. They are valued employees of the Commonwealth and we should recognise it. After the Victorian elections, Jeff Kennett gave credit to his strong public service in that state. I put it to the government that we have an even stronger, better, more qualified Public Service here in the Commonwealth. We should appreciate it and make our workers feel valued.

We get the best graduates. There is a highly competitive system in place whereby the most highly educated, the highest performing graduates, are offered positions in the Public Service. To even obtain a position as a base grade clerk in the Public Service you have to perform at a very high level. Those positions are highly competitive. If we are to continue attracting highly qualified, high calibre people to the Public Service we need a public service where there is security of employment and where our workers in the Public Service retain good wages and conditions.

Why would a government attack its strength? The engine room of the government is its public service. If the country is to thrive and the government is to succeed, we need a strong public service from the base grade clerks to the SES. I am extremely worried that this government is not showing that concern and does not place that value on our Public Service. This government has a hatred of anything public, which leads to its obsession with selling off government assets and contracting out public sector services. This erodes and runs down our Public Service and leads to poorer conditions for those left behind in the Public Service.

The partial sale of Telstra is, once again, an erosion of our public sector. The CES has been replaced with Employment National. There has been the contracting out of the case management functions and other services previously provided by our Commonwealth Employment Service. What does this mean? There are fewer people employed in the public sector, there are fewer career options and, at the same time, the people of Australia are not getting the same service.

We are finding a similar situation in Centrelink, where the staff have been cut. The Public Service staff employed in Centrelink are being asked to do more work over longer hours under extreme stress and pressure. What is the government doing? It is looking at attacking their conditions. That is the way that the public sector has seen these two previous bills. Although I am pleased with the changes that have taken place in the negotiations over the last five or six months, they have been slow in coming.

The contracting out of government services is leading to a decline in services to the public of Australia and lessening the ability of the government to monitor those services that have been contracted out. This leads to an erosion of quality and the inability to assess whether that quality still exists. When public servants deliver a service, they deliver it directly and are directly accountable. There is a loss of accountability with contracted out services. Few cost-benefit analyses have been done in this country. We cannot look at contracted out services and really determine whether we are getting value for money. We are told that we cannot be informed about what is happening simply because it is all commercial-in-confidence.

This government believes that private is better. Because of that, it has undermined the Public Service. The government has an ideological commitment to its philosophy of privatisation. It believes that private sector employees are better than public sector employees. I have already mentioned the quality of people who go into the Public Service, be they graduates, people at the base grade level or those with high professional qualifications. The government believes that they should become more like their private counterparts and that this will be achieved by changing conditions. It believes that flexibility, which means less security, will attract the kinds of people who are attracted to the private sector.

I have news for the government. If it wants to maintain the quality Public Service that we have, that is not the way to go about it. I worked in the Public Service myself at one stage. I had the option to transfer to the private sector. Believe me, the benefits were much greater—higher wage, car and all the trimmings that go with it. But I was committed to what the Public Service is about: providing a quality service to the public and being accountable to the public. I believe that that is what most public servants are about. I have yet to come across any public servants that are not committed to providing the service to the people of Australia.

As I mentioned, this is the government's third attempt to have legislation enacted to change the employment conditions in the Commonwealth Public Service. The first two bills were amended in the Senate—and they were potential triggers for a double dissolution. But they were rejected because the amendments were unacceptable to the government. They were not prepared to discuss it; they were not prepared to compromise. They were not prepared to adopt a bipartisan approach to getting the legislation through the parliament. They have the opinion that the boss set the agenda and, as they were the boss, they were saying what was going to happen—if the rest of the parliament did not come in line with them, `Well, bad luck!' This time it is different. Because it has been different and there has been consultation, the result is an improved bill—52 amendments with nearly 78 clauses being amended. That shows the value of consultation.

The history of Public Service reform and this legislation within Australia is quite lengthy. It started in 1994 when the ALP government established the review of the Public Service Act. They involved the CPSU at that time. There were a series of reports—the McLeod review was tabled in December 1994—and the Public Service went through a series of reviews and processes. In 1996, the coalition was elected and in November of that year the Minister for Industrial Relations issued his discussion paper, Towards a best practice Australian Public Service. In May 1997, he issued a further document, Accountability in a devolved management framework. In June 1997, he introduced the Public Service Bill. In November 1997 the bill was introduced into the Senate and there were 52 amendments. Amendments inserted at that time included preserving the existing appeal rights of Australian public servants, providing for a genuine independent Merit Protection Commissioner, strengthening the merit principles and a number of other amendments to ensure the conditions of the workers in the Public Service. But on 5 December the government rejected it, and on 5 March 1998 the bill was reintroduced into the House of Representatives with no change. That demonstrated this government's inability at that time to consult, an inability to accept change and a desire to create conflict between the employees in the Public Service and itself.

As I have already mentioned, the government has now agreed to the 52 amendments—and that is great. But some key issues still need addressing. The extreme flexibility in the engagement of specific term employees is a problem. In my time in the Public Service, a temporary employee was someone who was there for up to 12 months. This government is looking at making a person a temporary employee for up to six years. It is a real stretch of the imagination to imagine that somebody is still a temporary employee up to six years. If the workload is such that it requires a person to be kept on in a temporary position for six years, surely you can deem that that is now a permanent position. That is something that has to be looked at, and looked at very seriously, along with making sure that employees that move to a Commonwealth authority do not settle for fewer entitlements, a smaller wage and poorer conditions. They have to transfer across on the same conditions that they are under at the moment.

It is very important to ensure that we have got the proper review and appeals system in place and that that system not be eroded. Once that happens, you start to lose the independence of the Public Service. It is so important that we have an independent Public Service. It is important for the government to be told things that they do not want to hear. It is important for the government to be given information on all issues and to be able to know that that information is going to be given to them in an impartial manner. It is not in the interests of either the government or Australia for the government to be told what they want to hear all the time. We need to be able to develop our ideas and to be able to consider other ideas and other positions.

Under this government, there has been a ballooning in AWAs. There are in excess of 5,000 AWAs in the Commonwealth Public Service. It is all right if you are in a highly paid position in the Public Service. It is all right if you are in the SES and are in a position to negotiate on even terms. But if you are a base grade clerk you are not in the same bargaining position. The government must not use this legislation to disadvantage those workers in the work force who are in a less powerful position. And it must not be used to increase the number of casual employees by a further casualisation of the work force.

This government does not have a reputation for respecting its employees. It is a government that views workers as its adversaries, to be taken on and beaten into submission. The boss's word is supreme and the boss sets the agenda. That is this government's approach to dealing with issues between workers and employers, and in this case the government is the employer. It is the government that is the boss and it is the public servants who are the employees. I think that is a concern. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and the government as a whole should recognise what Jeff Kennett recognised in Victoria: it is the quality and the dedication of loyal, hardworking public servants that spells success for the government. It is time that this government recognises the value of its Public Service and the valuable role it plays in Australia's future and in the government's micro-economic reform agenda. The government should recognise this and, accordingly, treat its Public Service with respect.