The Australian Public Service Commissioner (APSC) is tasked with ensuring our bureaucrats are kept in line and are living up to the standards expected by the Australian public. One of those standards is impartiality.
I raised the issue that government organisations appear to be offering support or endorsement of net-zero policies, rather than simply providing comments on what would be required to implement them.
The APSC doesn’t appear to view this as a problem, based on their responses.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. I’ve only got two short questions. There seems to still be an abundance of public servants, agencies and departments making submissions outlining explicit support for net zero policies. We visited this before, but I’m still unclear about how that meets the Public Service standard of impartiality. Shouldn’t those submissions not endorse government policy and only talk about the mechanics of implementing it?
Dr de Brouwer: I think it’s also the obligation of public servants to implement government policy, and I’d be reading from what you’re saying around that characterisation that the public servants are implementing government policy, and they’re talking about how to go about that implementation.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s my point there. They’re endorsing policies. I can accept that they can discuss the mechanics of implementation, as I said, but not the endorsement of policy.
Dr de Brouwer: I would have to see the material to make any comment on that. Essentially, it is their responsibility to explain that.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll go to the second question. I’m interested in when a submission might specifically say, for example, ‘This department supports the implementation of net zero.’ Net zero is a government policy, so I’m still struggling to understand how supporting or opposing a particular government policy meets the standards of impartiality.
Dr de Brouwer: I think you really need to ask that to them, Senator. With my familiarity with cabinet documents, I’ll say that it may be that they’re talking about a particular implementation pathway, and they can see that implementation path as being feasible and practical, and they’re saying, ‘Yes, we can do that.’ The term that officials may use in that is to say, ‘I support that,’ because they can do that, rather than they necessarily agree—
Senator ROBERTS: I can see some merit in what you’re saying, but, as I said, I’m interested in when a submission might specifically say, ‘This department supports the implementation of net zero.’ They’re basically saying the whole department supports net zero.
Dr Bacon: It’s hard to tell in the abstract without seeing the context of what you’re quoting from, but I do wonder if they meant ‘support’ in the sense of deploying resources, expertise, personnel to implement the government of the day’s policy. When we talk about implementation, as Dr de Brouwer said, sometimes we, in a public service setting, use the word ‘support’ to talk about the deployment of personnel, expertise and resources.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, but do you still agree that public servants should not express their opinion about a policy, just the implementation of it?
Dr Bacon: The job of public servants is to implement the policies of the government of the day, and also we have a role in explaining the policies of the government of the day as well. The Australian Public Service Commission has guidance that we issue that steps out how those judgements ought to be made about when it is appropriate for public servants to comment, how public servants might comment and how the code of conduct and the values that are set out in the Public Service Act apply in different circumstances. It is something that is difficult to comment on in the abstract, because it’s a judgement on a case-by-case basis—that’s what our guidance says—taking into account a range of factors that we recommend people apply. That draws on High Court case law, for example.
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t intend to take it to High Court.
Dr Bacon: Sure. These principles have been considered, and we’ve incorporated that into our guidance.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/GBJ-oWwWJSM/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-11-27 16:55:002024-11-28 13:28:53Public Service Not Impartial on Net-Zero Policies
The cost of running the Federal Government is an important issue for One Nation. We believe that a smaller government is better and strongly advocate for reducing its size to align with the constitution.
I’m an avid reader of the budget volume that lists out the cost of Government. This year, the figures don’t add up. The budget appears to be assuming there will be no increase in the cost of Government for the next four years.
In a period of high inflation, which will be at least 13% over forward estimates, an assumption that the Federal Government administration cost (wages, office expenses, etc.) will not go up in those four years is, at best, improbable and at worst, dishonest.
I asked the Finance Minister, Katy Gallagher to “please explain”. Aside from small savings from reducing the use of contract labour, there are no explanations for the figures presented in the budget. The outcome is that the deficit over the forward estimates is more than likely understated by as much as $50 billion.
Transcript
My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher, and will reference Budget Paper No. 4: Agency resourcing, page 186, department expenses table. The government has been conducting a program of reducing spending on external providers—contractors; consultants—and hiring employees directly instead, to perform those duties, and One Nation supports that. These conversions, from external providers to employees, save taxpayers money, being the difference between paying a public servant to do that work and paying a consultant, partly balanced out by the increased costs of office expenses, travel and so on. Minister, how much has this program saved in 2023-24, and how much will it save over forward estimates? I note that, as I understand, the budget papers have another 2,502 conversions projected.
Senator GALLAGHER: Thank you for asking me a question about Budget Paper No. 4. That is the budget paper that Finance has responsibility for. We have worked hard to make conversions, as you say, and to reinvest and put increased capability into the Public Service. What we did find out from the audit on employment was that the real size of the APS when we came to government was much larger than had been publicly reported, so we are taking steps to rebalance it and to put public servants into jobs that labour hire had done.
In the last budget, I think the savings were in the order of $800 million in terms of the conversions that were being made. In this budget we’re finding a further billion dollars in reductions to agencies’ departmental expenses because of the investments we’re making in the Public Service. Obviously, we are making additional investments in the Public Service for additional responsibilities that they have, but what we’re doing is painting a very honest picture of the price of delivering improved services.
Those opposite, I know, are going to do what they always do and say they want a smaller Public Service, but they should then explain why 41,000 veterans who didn’t have their claims allocated now have their claims allocated and now are getting access to pensions. It’s a direct result of our investment in the Australian federal Public Service. We weren’t seeing those results, whether it was in Immigration, DFAT, Services Australia or Veterans’ Affairs. We see that on the payments side now because veterans are getting access because they are being dealt with. Because they’ve got public servants dealing with their claims, they are getting access to the money that they deserve.
So it’s a piece of ongoing work, Senator Roberts. If there’s further information I can provide to you, I will. But we are finding savings from the program at the same time that we’re making additional investments.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: The table shows many departments costing less to run in 2027-28 than they do today, despite ongoing inflation, and rents, electricity and expenses far exceeding the savings from operations. The department of infrastructure is down from $554 million in this budget to $452 million in 2027-28; Health and Aged Care, $1.6 billion down to $1.1 billion; and Services Australia, $5.7 billion down to $4.5 billion. Minister, please explain from where these huge claimed projected savings will come.
Senator GALLAGHER: In terms of the savings that we’ve applied through this budget, it’s an extra billion dollars onto the $3 billion that we had built into the budget, so that gives you a total of $4 billion. There are additional savings that come through the conversions of expensive labour hire into permanent Public Service work, and so that is part of it. I think it’s probably a question we can go through at estimates, as well, because I don’t have that page in front of me. But there are savings, and we take that money from departments; they don’t get that funding. So that is a saving that is realised at the time that that budget decision is taken.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: The $155 billion provided in the budget as departmental expenses in 2024-25 is projected to grow to $169 billion in 2027-28 almost entirely from increases in defence and the NDIS. How could your forward projections show flat or reduced costs for, in effect, the entire government except the NDIS and defence, when the budget puts inflation over that period at 13 per cent? Does your budget dramatically understate projected deficits?
Senator GALLAGHER: No. The budget papers, as they’re released—Budget Paper No.1, which goes to providing the UCB, is based on all of the information that runs through all of the budget books, and that would include departmental expenses. There is extra investment going into defence and into the NDIS. As you would expect, they are two of the five fastest growing areas of the budget. The NDIS is the second and I think defence would be the third or fourth, and so they would be seeing increases. But the budget UCB takes into account all of those decisions. It may be reported slightly differently in different tables, based on different accounting standards, but the UCB is an honest reflection of the state of the Commonwealth’s finances.
The public servants in the Canberra bureaucracy are meant to be impartial. Being impartial would mean they only comment on their ability to carry out laws, not whether they agree with policies ideologically. What we see again and again is that the bureaucrats are not impartial. They make submissions that support the woke policies of the Canberra elite, like net-zero.
I asked the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC), who are meant to be the enforcers of the code of impartiality, about one particularly bad example where an agency endorsed the government’s net-zero ideas. Their response? “Well that’s just your opinion.”
The Canberra public service and their referee are so out of touch with everyday Australians that they can’t even comprehend the question. It’s easy to see why Canberra was the only state or territory in all of Australia to vote Yes on the Voice.
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. The Australian Public Service works under or in accord with the code of conduct. Is that correct?
Dr de Brouwer: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: How does that work in practice? I know that is a broad question.
Ms Talbot: As we alluded to earlier in our evidence, we have the APS Code of Conduct, and that sets out the standards and, I guess, the expectations on all public servants. In particular, the Public Service Act is quite clear around articulating what the APS values are and how they apply to all public servants. I can go into more detail around the code of conduct requirements if you wish.
Senator ROBERTS: Basically, the code drives behaviour or indicates the behaviour or values that are appropriate.
Ms Talbot: It sets out what the appropriate behaviours are, what the appropriate expected standards of conduct are, and it does outline the APS values and goes into some detail about those values.
Senator ROBERTS: So it is broad not specific because it doesn’t apply to just one department or one agency? It’s very broad.
Ms Talbot: It applies to everyone, but sitting underneath that there is quite a detailed document, and in particular sitting under the Public Service Act there are also commissioner’s directions, which go into more detail as well around how everything actually applies.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you elaborate on the Australian Public Service value of impartiality, specifically how the Public Service should be interpreting it practically in making submissions to inquiries?
Ms Talbot: Is there some specific inquiry?
Senator ROBERTS: My concern is that it seems some agencies aren’t being fully impartial in making submissions, especially in the area of climate policy, for example. This is dangerous because it leads to group think. My interpretation of the value of impartiality is that if an agency or department is making a submission on, for example, a law change, that submission should be limited to the agency’s ability to carry out the policy change. That might mean resource considerations and practical issues of whether they can enforce a policy. Is that what you would be expecting in a submission that meets those values of impartiality, rather than making a submission in favour of or against a policy on the basis of political aspects?
Ms Talbot: What I can say is that the guidance around impartiality is reminding public servants that in conducting their duties they are to be apolitical and they are obviously not to be biased in the way in which they conduct their duties. I think you’re asking me more for an opinion around a particular instance that you have in mind.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m concerned about several instances. It seems we have some agencies and departments making submissions that endorse the policies being put forward from an ideological standpoint, not only commenting on the practicalities of implementing the policy for that agency or department, as I said. For example, the Australian Energy Regulator made a submission to the national energy laws amendment bill. In that submission they endorsed the net zero policy setting of the government and said they support it, which doesn’t seem to be impartial. Shouldn’t they only be commenting on their ability to implement the changes, not endorsing the policy driving the changes?
Dr de Brouwer: The requirement of impartiality, as Ms Talbot outlined, is that the APS is apolitical. But it also provides advice—and I will quote from section 10(5) of the act—’that is frank, honest, timely and based on the best available evidence’. This is within the CER’s view of what is the best available evidence, what is coherent with that and what is required to achieve that.
Senator ROBERTS: So they would be informed by scientific evidence, would they?
Dr de Brouwer: That is what I think the CER will say. You should ask them.
Senator ROBERTS: You are smiling.
Dr de Brouwer: We used to deal with this in estimates 10 years ago.
Senator ROBERTS: Net zero policy is within climate policy. That’s subject to a lot of contention in the public, so supporting that would seem to me not to be upholding impartiality, especially when there have been no logical scientific points, including empirical scientific evidence, to back up net zero anyway in the world. They failed the science test, so surely they are acting partially?
Dr de Brouwer: I think that is your view, Senator Roberts, and it is up to that authority to explain how it views the evidence and provide the explanation to you of why it’s acting impartially.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/c3vqS0T05kM/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-10-26 13:50:452023-12-01 12:11:03The Bureaucrats are Out of Touch and Out of Control
During investigations into the the abuse of casual coal miners I found that the government has spent over $2.4 billion on casual labour hire from one firm, Chandler Macleod Group, alone. The government couldn’t even tell me what the total casual labour hire bill was across all agencies because they don’t even collect that data. The fact that the Australian Public Service Commission don’t even know how much money they’re spending is inexcusable.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for appearing today. When we were investigating, over the last 2½ years, the abuses of casual black-coal miners in the Hunter Valley, we noted that there were thousands of casuals working for the Australian Public Service, with hundreds of millions of dollars being paid to labour hire firms. Why does the Public Service do this?
Mr Woolcott : Could you just put that question to me again, Senator? I didn’t quite understand. You’re talking about why we employ casual hire?
Senator ROBERTS: Casuals. We know that some people prefer to work casually; so I’ve got nothing against casuals. We know that casuals fulfil a basic secondary role within any workplace, with fluctuating workloads, someone going on leave, projects et cetera. Why does the Public Service use so many labour hire firms to employ these casuals?
Mr Woolcott : It’s for agency heads to determine how they construct their workforce. The Public Service Act sets out that the normal method of engagement is full-time, ongoing employment as a public servant, but there are provisions in the Public Service Act for non-ongoing and other aspects. It’s very much for each individual agency head to work out what is the appropriate mix of their workforce. Obviously, if it’s work that fluctuates then it’s quite appropriate for them to use labour hire and casuals to manage those fluctuations. But again, as I say, it’s a matter for each individual agency head. They’re the accountable authority. They have responsibility for delivering for the government and the Australian community and it’s for them to work out their proper mix.
Senator ROBERTS: As the Australian Public Service Commission, I imagine you’d be interested in efficiency, cost-effectiveness and employees’ conditions?
Mr Woolcott : Obviously we’re intimately involved in many of those aspects but, in terms of running that agency and running the duties and obligations that they are committed to undertake, it’s for them to do that.
Senator ROBERTS: I get that point. How many casuals are currently employed across the Australian Public Service—hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands?
Mr Woolcott : I think it’s 87 per cent that is ongoing. Ms Steele will have the data.
Ms Steele : That’s correct. In terms of casuals in the last year, we have at the moment 8,696 casuals. That’s an increase of 51 since December 2020.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many of those would you know are casuals in their own right employed directly by the Australian Public Service and how many are labour hire subcontractors or labour hire firms?
Ms Steele : I do not know that. I do know that those who are employed for a specific term or task are a further 10,816.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many casuals have been employed in the Australian Public Service for more than six months?
Ms Steele : I would have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you, and could you also provide a de-identified report—anonymous employees—by department, by labour hire company or direct employment, by cost and duration of service?
Ms Steele : We don’t collect that information about labour hire firms or companies; we only collect the number of casuals by agency.
Senator ROBERTS: This one you’ll probably have to take on notice too, Ms Steele: how many casuals, internal or labour hire, have converted from casual to permanent employment in the Australian Public Service in the past 12 months?
Ms Steele : I will take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are casuals that the Australian Public Service has engaged through labour hire companies able to convert to the Public Service roles that they’ve been working in for more than six months?
Ms Steele : No.
Senator ROBERTS: If someone has been engaged for more than six months it would seem that they’re needed, so why wouldn’t they be eligible? Because the employer is not the Public Service?
Mr Spaccavento : I think it’s important to draw a distinction between a casual employee and a labour hire employee. A casual employee is an employee of the Australian Public Service and is eligible to convert to permanent employment if they meet the criteria laid out in the Fair Work Act and the Public Service Act. A labour hire employee is an employee of an entirely different company and not of the Public Service. A labour hire employee would not be eligible to convert to permanent employment.
Mr Spaccavento : No, because in one instance the employee is a direct employee of the Australian Public Service, directly engaged by an agency. So it’s a contract of service versus a contract for service.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand that. We’ve seen the abuse of coal miners, for example, and we’ve seen hints of abuse of casual workers in other sectors as well—lost entitlements, basic safety provisions, significant pay cuts—and it seems to me that it’s just a naked attempt to go around the provisions of the Fair Work Act.
Mr Spaccavento : Casual employees in the Australian Public Service are engaged under the terms and conditions of agency enterprise agreements, so they receive essentially the same terms and conditions as permanent employees. I say ‘essentially’ because there’s some leave entitlements they don’t get and there is a casual loading. Labour hire employees are obviously different because they are employees of a different organisation. There’s a range of reasons why agencies would engage labour hire firms, and that would be a decision for that agency head to make.
Senator ROBERTS: In the course of our investigations in the Hunter Valley, Central Queensland and elsewhere we found, for example, that the Chandler Macleod Group was paid an estimated $2.4 billion over four years for providing labour hire contractors or labour hire employees to the Australian government. That seems pretty substantial to me.
Mr Spaccavento : I can’t comment on decisions that agencies have made.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware if these casuals under labour hire firms are paid the same and have the same terms and conditions as similar roles that they work beside?
Mr Spaccavento : Because it’s outside of our remit, we don’t have visibility of what labour hire employees are paid or the conditions they are on. It would be a matter of the employment arrangements they have made with the labour hire company and those employees. I couldn’t say yes or no to that question because we don’t have responsibility or visibility of it.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, this is a request for an opinion: do you think that’s reasonable?
Senator Duniam: In terms of the decisions that heads of agencies make around it?
Senator ROBERTS: The employment of people for more than six months by a labour hire firm could be a way of getting around the requirement now to offer casual conversion.
Senator Duniam: As the commissioner outlined earlier, heads of agencies make decisions with regard to how they engage their workforce based on the needs at the time. There are a range of circumstances that they obviously take into consideration. I would have every faith in those heads of agencies that they are doing the right thing to ensure that the people they work for, the taxpayers of Australia, are getting the service that’s required and that their employees are being treated properly as well.
Senator ROBERTS: With respect, that’s a nice motherhood statement, but I’ve seen people who work for firms with reputable international and Australian reputations completely abusing workers in this country. That has come as a big shock. To compound that, neither the Labor Party nor the Liberal Party nor the National Party nor state and federal governments nor the various bureaucrats have been interested in this. They’ve ignored requests to investigate.
Senator Duniam: If there are specific cases of abuse of employees then there are appropriate channels to deal with those things. I would encourage you, or those you ask these questions on behalf of, to take action, because that’s the appropriate thing to do. I don’t think there’s anyone around this table, on that side or this side, that would seek to endorse any abuse of employees or withdrawal or withholding of entitlements.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s remarkable—and I’m not accusing people of doing that in the Public Service—and I’m trying to find out whether or not the government and the Public Service understand there is a potential for that. We’ve seen that widely in other industries from so-called reputable firms. I’ve heard some stories about the Public Service hiring $2.4 billion worth of labour hire people over four years. That’s a staggering figure.
Senator Duniam: I appreciate you’re not making an accusation. Certainly, your point is that there could be potential, or you’re trying to seek an understanding of whether there is. If there is a single case of this abuse then I would expect that it would be raised and referred to the appropriate authorities and dealt with accordingly.
Senator ROBERTS: What doesn’t give me confidence—I accept what you’re saying—is that some people in the Hunter Valley, for example, raised this repeatedly over the course of about five years and got nowhere, neither from the state nor the federal government, with blatant breaches of the law. I’m just trying to understand, if the Public Service know that this could be going on, what they’re doing to protect not only workers who work for them permanently, casually, directly, but also those who work indirectly through labour hire firms, because not all labour hire firms are ethical.
Mr Woolcott : I’m not aware of the particular issues that you are raising. Obviously, if you have concerns, please take them up with the relevant minister or with his department in relation to the way they manage their affairs.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m trying to find out whether or not you’re aware of the particular—
Mr Woolcott : I’m not aware of any of the particular concerns that you’re raising, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Or the potential for that. Are you aware that casual workers who are employed either directly or through labour hire firms have less job security and find it harder, for example, to get home loans, because one of the requirements for a home loan is a secure, permanent job?
Mr Woolcott : Again, it’s not an issue that’s been brought to my attention.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re not aware; okay. These workers who are working for the Public Service for more than six months miss out on the terms and conditions of government employment. Is that reasonable?
Mr Woolcott : You’re asking me for an opinion there.
Senator Duniam: With respect to the decisions made by heads of agency around how they engage their workforce, either in the way you’ve characterised or otherwise, as the commissioner has outlined, it’s a matter for them based on the needs of the community they serve and the work that they do. Personally, I would love to ensure that everyone gets everything they’re entitled to, and I have every expectation that, for those who are engaged, under whatever contractual arrangement occurs, those contracts are in alignment with the law and are done in accordance with what is legally required of the employing agency. My hope is that everyone gets what they deserve and nothing less.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s my hope, too. But in the Hunter Valley, for a period of seven years now—five years until we started working on it—there were many people who were abused and exploited, and they were told to go and talk with the state department, WorkCover. They were told to take it up with the federal government, and nothing happened. We were then actively misrepresented when we tried to do something about it. Eventually, we prevailed in some areas and we’re still working on others. So it could happen in the Public Service, and I’m checking to make sure that the Public Service is aware of some of these things; that’s all.
Senator Duniam: You have brought this concern to the commissioner’s attention. Certainly, the minister that I’m representing will be aware of your concerns. Again, if there’s a specific instance or a series of them, we should deal with them in the appropriate forum.
Senator ROBERTS: One final question, Chair: what margin is paid to labour hire firms when you engage a casual through them? I’m now putting on my other hat; instead of protecting constituents, I’m protecting taxpayers, who are also constituents. What’s the margin?
Mr Woolcott : We don’t keep data on that, so I can’t answer that question. It would be a matter for each particular agency head, in terms of the arrangements they have. We don’t collect data on that issue.
Senator AYRES: Ms Steele, I didn’t hear your answer to Senator Roberts’ initial question. I think you gave an answer—tell me if I’m wrong—which was about the number of direct casuals and the number of non-ongoing; and, consistent with the APSC’s previous answers to the committee, you don’t have an answer for the number of labour hire employees engaged by the APSC?
Ms Steele : That is correct.
Senator AYRES: The justification for what I think is an impossible proposition is still the same, Mr Woolcott, is it?
Mr Woolcott : We collect data on Australian public servants, and arrangements under the APS act fall outside our terms of reference. Having said that, Senator, it’s always appropriate to look at ways to improve data collection and our understanding of the public sector workforce. We will continue to do so, and use the COO committee to that end.
Senator AYRES: Does that mean that you’re heading towards being able to collect that data, to be able to identify what proportion of the workforce is privatised, or are you just making a general comment?
Mr Woolcott : I’m just making a general comment at this point, Senator.
Senator AYRES: So it’s still studied ignorance on labour hire. With the survey work that the commission does on a regular basis, there’s been no consideration given to extending that survey work to the experience that labour hire employees have with the Public Service?
Mr Woolcott : Not at this point.
Senato r ROBERTS: There’s no guarantee—you can’t provide a guarantee—that there’s no wage theft going on in the industry, in the public sector?
Mr Woolcott : No, I can’t provide that guarantee.
Senator Duniam: Again, it’s important to say that, if there are examples of that, I’ll walk with you to the appropriate authority; we’ll make sure that they’re made aware, that investigations occur and justice is done.
Mr Woolcott : The workforce ombudsman, Sandra Parker, obviously looks at this aspect very closely in terms of both the private sector and the public sector.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/AkCEICCD1DM/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-04-07 15:39:162022-04-07 15:41:05Government spending $2.4 billion on casuals with one Labour hire firm alone
