Senator IAN CAMPBELL (8:58 PM) —Firstly, in concluding the second reading stage of this debate, I would like to thank honourable senators for their contributions. I have been given the responsibility of taking this bill through the Senate in the absence of my friend and colleague the Minister for Schools, Vocational Education and Training, Senator Chris Ellison, who is attending a conference in Melbourne today and again on Wednesday.

There had been some discussion before dinner that we would conclude the debate at the conclusion of my second reading summing-up and the vote on this, which was, I understand, at the request of the opposition. I have been told in the last few minutes that the opposition are prepared to go to the committee stage, so I will act on the latest bit of information to move along to the committee stage.

The main point that struck me in listening to the contributions of honourable senators opposite was the point that was made about the perception of some sort of intransigence by the government in not accepting any amendment. It sticks in my mind that Senator Murray, for example, said that there were something like 11 pages of tightly typed amendments and Senator Faulkner added the point that he was a bit amazed that the government could not find one amendment that improved the bill.

The government did look closely at what the Senate did to the bill. If you want to find the answer as to why the government did not accept the Senate amendments which were, for the most part, Labor Party amendments and some Democrat amendments, I think you need to look at Senator Cooney's comments in the penultimate speech in this second reading debate. His comments were about the philosophical divide between the Senate parties on this bill.

When you look at the flavour and the texture of the amendments that were moved, it was not as though it was a smorgasbord from which you could pick and choose. The amendments all had a very similar theme. It was very hard for the government to see how it could seek to further compromise in picking up further Senate amendments. Indeed, if you had listened to the second reading contributions tonight, you would think that the government had sought no compromise, no discussion and no consultation on this bill. That is far from the truth. The government did hold consultations with the relevant trade unions. I think it looked at the report of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts and accepted all of the amendments proposed by that committee. Senator Faulkner seeks to reduce the importance of that by saying that it is a government controlled committee. However, it is fair to say that there was input, as I am sure Senator Faulkner would recognise, from all parties on that committee.

The government put in place something like 30 changes to the legislation as a result of consultations with trade unions. The government has not been intransigent on this issue. Quite the contrary, we have made a lot of changes to the legislation over the time it was introduced to the parliament. There is, though, as Senator Cooney has said, a fundamental philosophical divide. Senator Cooney likes to say that the government wants the public sector to look like the private sector. Perhaps that is the way he perceives it. I am sure that he would not say that unless he did perceive it that way. Again, the reality is far from that.

The government—and this bill reflects that fact—sees that there are significant differences, and will continue to be and should be, between the way the private sector operates and the way the Public Service operates and should operate. Where the divide is quite fundamental is that the coalition government believes it is time for reform in the Australian public sector, that through reform we can achieve better performance. That better performance is not through some sort of vague guidelines; it is for performance for the benefit of the nation, for the benefit of all of our citizens and for the improvement in the way in which Australia is governed.

We believe this bill, if it is passed, will deliver on those objectives and will do so in a number of ways. I do not seek to go over the ground that has been covered in some detail by Senator Ellison's opening remarks in this debate or by Minister Kemp's his remarks in the other place. We seek to do this: we want to give more power to agency heads through devolution, but we want to put in place a legislative constraint on that through a number of acts, including the Workplace Relations Act, the Public Service Act, the Public Service regulations and directions from the commissioner, as well as the constraints provided by policy decisions and other parameters set by the government. We also match this devolution with increased accountability arrangements which we believe are suited to the environment that we now operate within.

The government is committed to this reform. We believe that moving Australia into the next millennium, making Australia more competitive in our region and globally is vital to the chances of Australians, particularly young Australians, gaining employment. It is vital to have reform if we want to improve the living standards of Australia. You cannot just tell the private sector to get its act together, get more competitive, have better workplace relations, have a more efficient waterfront, have better transport systems, have a more efficient financial sector, have more competition between the banks, have more competitive Corporations Law—a whole range of reforms—and then say that the Public Service is quite okay and that the act under which it operates is as good as the day it was written.

We believe that reform to the Australian Public Service is as vital as reforms in the private sector economy. The two rely on each other. I do not think Senator Margetts was seeking to make the point for me, but she made a very good point: the Public Service does provide a lot of essential services not only in terms of the service it delivers to people who rely on the Commonwealth government for welfare or other payments but also a whole range of other services, and the policy advice from the central government agencies is all important.

It is vital that this still significant sector of the Australian economy is run very efficiently, that it is managed well and that managers can manage that sector of the economy. If you have an inefficient, badly organised and badly managed Australian Public Service, it drags down the rest of the community, it does not serve the citizens properly, it does not serve the citizens of the nation as effectively as it could do. Although there is a fundamental divide between the parties sitting opposite in the Senate on how you achieve that improvement in service, I am sure there is little doubt amongst any senators in this place that we want to maximise the benefits from the Australian public sector to the citizens of Australia.

We seek to do it in this way. There is a fundamental divide. We believe the amendments passed by the Senate last time are detrimental to the achievement of the objective. That is why the government is standing firm. It is not because we have not looked very closely at what other parties are seeking to achieve. We have done that. We have rejected the approach that the majority in the Senate decided last time. There is a conflict, there is a stand-off, and that is why we are here some four months after the Senate looked at this matter before.

With those closing remarks, I genuinely thank senators who have taken a very close interest in the process of this legislation. As Senator Cooney and many other senators have said, a lot of it is to do with matters that do not—as Senator Amanda Vanstone says from time to time—stop people in supermarkets to listen to the discussion about the structure of the public sector and how it is managed, but it is very important to Australia. I thank the senators who have taken a special interest in this debate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time.