Public Sector

Mr SPEIRS (Bright) (11:45): I move:

That this house condemns the Weatherill Labor government for its ongoing politicisation of the South Australian public sector, including—

(a) a failure to apply merit selection principles to executive appointments;

(b) a consistent strategy of appointing ministerial advisers and Labor Party members to executive positions; and

(c) the dismissal of senior executives without explanation and seriously impacting the overall morale of the Public Service.

I have made a number of speeches about the Public Service since my election in 2014. Members would know that, prior to becoming a member of parliament, I spent five years working in the cabinet office within the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. Those five years were great. I learnt a phenomenal amount about how government works, and perhaps how government does not work in some cases. I worked on policies and in areas as diverse as local government, Aboriginal affairs, housing, international education and strategic planning. I worked on projects for COAG and national task forces for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

I was there in the frenetic days following the election of the Rudd government and the dramatic changes that followed in terms of state-federal relations, particularly with regard to funding arrangements. It was challenging work, good work, creative work and hard work. I worked with interesting, innovative areas of government. I worked with the Adelaide Thinkers in Residence program, with the Integrated Design Commission and the university city program. I worked on South Australia's Strategic Plan.

Many of these projects would have been viciously criticised at the time by many people who are now my Liberal Party colleagues in parliament today, but many of these things were good projects that happened under Mike Rann when he was premier. For all his faults, I think he was very clear about what he stood for. I have plenty of criticisms about his time in office but I believe that the Rann era will be viewed quite favourably by history, but that is an aside.

I reflect on my time in the Public Service because, although I did not always agree with the position that I had to advocate as a public servant, and although my political and ideological views sometimes differed from the government that I worked for, I served them to the best of my ability. Some of my longest and hardest working days were when I worked in the cabinet office, but the work was genuinely stimulating and enjoyable.

I enjoyed my time in the Public Service. Although sometimes the slowness of bureaucracy was frustrating, it was a very good place to forge a career. Whether you are an engineer in the transport department or a paramedic in Health SA, a business analyst in the state development department, a ranger in the environment department or someone developing a policy in the Premier's department, working in the Public Service gives you the ability to deliver change and action that can impact people's lives for the better.

The speeches that I have delivered about the Public Service in this parliament have aimed to underline the incredible value that I place on a productive and creative Public Service. I believe that the Public Service as a whole is filled with people who are passionate about South Australia and who are keen to use their positions to make a difference. I met many of these people during my time in the cabinet office. They were my friends and colleagues and I do genuinely see myself as something of a voice for them now that I have been elected to the state parliament. Too often, our public servants feel that they cannot speak out in an appropriate way. Too often, they feel gagged, bullied, even harassed into not speaking up about the issues that they feel the state's Public Service is facing today.

My great beef with today's Public Service is the politicisation of its leadership. This motion seeks to highlight that politicisation and the damage that it is doing, while also publicly stating that I will do whatever I can to ensure that that drift is corrected and not repeated in any future Liberal government that I am fortunate enough to be part of.

My motion decries the all too often abandonment of merit selection where executives are appointed within government. It condemns the conga line of ALP members, union officials and ministerial staffers who are parachuted into senior Public Service jobs, leaving much more worthy candidates gasping in shock at the sudden arrival of a card-carrying Labor Party member in a position that may not even have existed the previous week. My motion highlights the morale-sapping way that contracted Public Service executives have been sacked from their jobs and frogmarched out of their offices, only to be replaced by ALP sycophants within weeks.

I was stunned during the budget estimates process in 2016 when, under questioning, the Premier said that he believed that morale had actually been bolstered by the sacking of senior executives. His perverse reasoning, which he did not articulate but which I can only surmise was that the removal of, in his view, underperforming senior public servants was a good thing. That probably is the case, but in many circumstances these executives were not deemed to be underperforming. There was no evidence of this at all. Instead, we have a situation where an incoming chief executive, Kym Winter-Dewhirst, himself now a distant memory, wanted to flex his political muscle and make a point.

My connections with the SA Public Service, I believe, are far, far better than those of the Premier; they are more genuine and more truthful. I can tell this parliament that the idea of any action that this government takes bolstering morale in the Public Service is absolutely ludicrous. Morale is at rock bottom and I do not hesitate to say that I have no doubt—no doubt at all—that morale has never been lower in our state's Public Service than it is today. There is a dark cloud sitting over South Australia's Public Service. The cold, dank fog of politicisation has squeezed every drop of positivity out of the place and it has clouded decision-making, resulting in mistakes, budget overruns and poor outcomes across the state.

Why does politicisation cause this? Quite simply, it is because more often than not the people in charge—the people at the top who are political appointees—are not there through merit and, because they are not there through merit, they do not have the capabilities that might otherwise be tested by a job application and interview process. The very nature of the selection process, which measures applicants against predetermined criteria, is that idiots are usually sifted out and sent a polite letter telling them, 'Better luck next time.'

But when the only selection criterion is membership of a political party—and please note that I said 'political party'. I did not say 'the Labor Party'. The South Australian Labor Party squeal and spew their bile on Twitter about my speeches when I talk about the Public Service because they are as guilty as sin when it comes to shonky political appointments, but I am happy to point the finger at Liberal colleagues federally and interstate and say that they are just as guilty of this sort of thing, and their public services have also suffered the same consequences.

Politicisation leads to dodgy leadership and bad decisions because political appointees do not tend to have the same overall capacity. They also need to please a different master. Because they did not reach their lofty position through hard work, they know that they have to bow and curtsey and grovel to their political bosses, and it is at this point that frank and fearless advice dies a lonely death. You cannot effectively challenge a minister when they know you are not very bright, so you choose not to challenge. Instead, you kowtow and choreograph a perfect landscape, pretending you have a situation where South Australia is filled with medals, flowers, blue skies, bunny rabbits and baskets of Haigh's chocolates. Except it is not.

The truth is that old people are dying at Oakden and vulnerable kids are being abused by paedophiles. Our youth unemployment rate is a heartbreaking embarrassment and our business confidence is at rock bottom. Our ambulances are ramped and our educational attainment is much lower than it should be. I could go on and on. Ministers need to hear the truth. Politicised public servants contort and deliver ministers poor options, sheared of evidence and instead coated in the sugar of short-term political gain. The consequences can be dire.

The politicisation of the Public Service can occur suddenly and without warning. Positions are created overnight and apparatchiks are dropped into them, bedazzled at their good fortune. The creation of multiple executive positions through restructures has become a popular Trojan Horse for delivering political friends to the heart of government departments. One day staff arrived at work in the environment department and three executive directors had become six, just like that—magic—or a whole new directorate is established to squeeze card-carrying hacks into it.

The nuclear royal commission saw the creation of CARA (Consultation and Response Agency), a group who quite hopelessly led a process that collapsed in utter disaster. However, while not quite transforming our state's economy, it did manage to provide some pay cheques to a group of highly political executives for a period of time.

My views on this matter are not strange or unique; they are backed up by many others. Hundreds of public servants in South Australia, I believe, will vote for the Liberal Party at the next election because they desire change within the bureaucracy. They crave that merit selection process. They would love to be able to get ahead because of their ideas, skills and knowledge, rather than because of political allegiance. They want to be able to save South Australia, rather than be forced to do work which has little purpose other than to maintain a particular party in power.

Beyond the everyday public servants, we have various business community and academic leaders who have spoken out about the politicisation of the Public Service, not just in South Australia but interstate and overseas. The problems that can occur because of politicisation have been documented by Jennifer Westacott, the head of the Business Council of Australia, and Terry Moran, the stalwart of Australia's federal Public Service, for many decades. Both decried the politicisation of the Public Service and raised significant concerns about what this can lead to.

The fact that Labor MPs sneer and laugh at the idea of an independent public service while eminent government and business leaders speak out with opposite views highlights the rort that has set in in South Australia after nearly 16 years. The current class of ALP MPs and ministers are unable to grasp the importance of a frank and fearless public sector because such a thing is so diminished under their broken regime that no corporate memory of such a thing exists.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have a point of order?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: A point of order on impugning improper motive. I feel that what I have just heard is that, as a Labor MP and minister, I do not understand the value of a—

An honourable member interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is a point of order, which has to be listened to, and then I will make a ruling.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I feel that I have been accused of not understanding the value of a frank and fearless independent Public Service.

Mr Knoll interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You can have a point of order, member for Schubert—and you are not in your place, so I should not be hearing you at all. I think we will have to listen very carefully to what you are saying, member for Bright, which is a euphemism for do try not to impugn improper motive.

Mr SPEIRS: Thank you, Deputy Speaker, and I am sorry the flow of my very good speech was interrupted unnecessarily. I just want to tell a tale of my time in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet when former chief executive Chris Eccles went to work for the incoming Liberal government in New South Wales. There was a level of fury at the top of the premier's department at that time. People used words like betrayal and disloyal and traitorous to describe Mr Eccles, but he was actually doing what any good public servant should be able to do, and that is to move seamlessly between jurisdictions serving the government of the day. The fact that the Labor Party was entirely unable to grasp the possibility that you could do that portrays their misunderstanding of the role of the public servant and of the Public Service more broadly.

I want to draw a distinction between a politically appointed chief executive and a deeply politicised chief executive. I accept that a minister can and should be able to appoint a departmental head, but it becomes much more concerning when those departmental heads take on the role of political activist within a public service guise.

A few weeks ago, one chief executive got in touch with me to inform me of the establishment of a cabal of Labor-aligned chief executives who meet as a sort of subgroup of the Senior Management Council. Their role is quite simple—to examine ways in which to further the likelihood of the re-election of the state Labor Party. This is not hidden from other chief executives. They know that there is an inner sanctum and an outer and, even though many of those in the outer are also loyal ALP stalwarts, the inner is quite different.

This tiny fraternity I was told about is intimately involved in Labor Party strategy. They are gearing the Public Service to advance the political success of the Labor Party. Their unwritten, quietly spoken terms of reference include ways to encourage public servants to vote for the ALP, ensuring the departmental communications teams are churning out government propaganda to within a millimetre of acceptability and developing policies, programs and projects that have maximum impact and must win ALP seats.

The cabal, a clutch of loyal ALP-aligned chief executives led by Department of the Premier and Cabinet chief executive Don Russell, a sort of godfather of Public Service politicisation, has been tasked with ensuring the state budget is as political as it can be, ensuring that it maximises Labor's chances of re-election and, of course, helps to preserve the jobs of that gilded group.

A question I am often asked is: would this be different under a Liberal government? People say to me, 'Surely, it would be the same under you guys. You will just appoint your mates to plum public sector jobs in the same way that this mob does.' That is a very fair point for people in the Public Service and people in the community to raise with Liberal Party MPs because after 16 years of conduct like this, why would someone not expect that an incoming Liberal government, if fortunate enough to be elected in 2018, would do the same?

But I am absolutely confident that things will be better—much better—under a Liberal government. Our leader has stated publicly on many occasions that the Liberal Party will return the Public Service to the ideal that it serves governments of any political persuasion equally. We want the leaders of our Public Service to feel that they can give frank and fearless advice to ministers so that they influence decisions and outcomes that they think are the right ones for the community as a whole, not particular political groupings.

The Liberal Party's plan for the future of our state, '2036', is forthright in its support for our Public Service. The plan contains a platform entitled, 'Running an efficient and stable government', and within this section, we state:

The public service is one of our state's greatest assets, able to drive change in South Australia when given the freedom and respect that it needs to unleash its potential.

The document goes on to say:

We will invest in our public service, providing training and development opportunities and allowing them to carve out career pathways in the sector.

We say that we believe that handing out senior public sector positions as a reward for political loyalty is inappropriate and we say this approach:

…tears the heart out of the public service, undermining the concept of merit selection and crushing morale among thousands of public servants who see their own career paths stymied as political favours are fulfilled.

That is pretty strong language for a policy document, but it does show that the Liberal Party, if privileged enough to take government next March, is willing to draw a clear line in the sand. We will end the culture of toxic politicisation of our Public Service.

Government is not a game for us. It is not about playing a giant game of chess where our mates are moved in and out of positions of power while everyone is left behind as mere pawns. We are serious about the future of our state and we see a frank and fearless, healthy and proud Public Service as one of the greatest assets that this state has to drive genuine reform. I commend the motion to the house.

Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:03): It is a great privilege to rise and speak on this excellent motion, which has been brought to the house by the hardworking member for Bright, a former public servant who understood the vital, important and crucial role that public servants play in our state.

As you know, there has not been a change of government in South Australia for almost 16 years. It is natural, therefore, that members of any alternative government may assume that, at least in its upper levels, the state Public Service has become staffed by some sympathisers with a political party other than their own. After so long under Labor, we Liberals want to return Public Service to the ideal that it serves governments of any political persuasion equally. We want the leaders of our Public Service to feel free to give frank and fearless advice to ministers so that they influence decisions and outcomes they think are the right ones for the community and for the state as a whole.

There needs to be an appropriate balance between responsiveness to the government of the day and the impartial, professional role of the Public Service. Last year, Deputy Speaker, you will recall that I put out my '2036' plan. This sets out nine areas that we think good state government should be based upon. We talk about our values in each of those nine areas and our reform agenda. Chapter 9 is entitled 'Running an efficient and stable government'. In discussing that priority, my plan states that, and I quote:

The public service is one of our State's greatest assets, able to drive change in South Australia when given the freedom and respect it needs to unleash [that] potential...

And I mean that. I urge the public sector in South Australia to view the possibility of a change in government next year as an opportunity to play a significant role in helping the much-needed transformation of our state. South Australia's problem is not the Public Service: it is the government we currently have, which is not providing the required leadership, responsibility or accountability. South Australia faces significant economic and social challenges. What I want to do in government is get back to what really matters most: running the state well with the Public Service. That is what we all expect of government.

The Public Service has a vital role to play if we are to meet the challenges that lie ahead. People join the Public Service because they want to help others and they want to help their state. I know that that was the motivation for the member for Bright and for other members of this parliament who previously served in the Public Service. Good government, good public service, is not about building monuments; it is about meeting the reasonable, everyday needs and expectations of the people of this state. The way in which this is done is determined largely by the quality of the people providing public services and the leadership they receive from the government of the day.

Before entering parliament in 2010, my working career was in the private sector, but that does not mean I believe the private sector has a monopoly on how best to provide services to the people of this state. We certainly need a thriving business sector to fund the public services that the people need, but that does not mean private companies always deliver better service. If I am elected Premier, I will treat the Public Service in the manner that my '2036' plan foreshadows: with respect and to make it an employer of choice, as it once was. I go on to say in my '2036' plan, and I quote:

The public service should be free from political interference, with a premium placed on frank and fearless advice, with jobs won on merit, not as rewards for political loyalty...

And I mean that as well. To ensure it, a Liberal government will strengthen the independence of the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment and the commissioner's role in chief executive and other senior appointments. We will place limitations on the appointment of ministerial staff to Public Service positions. We will introduce a regular assessment and public reporting by the commissioner on the performance of agencies in adhering to the merit principle for job appointments.

Another major concern my party has had about public sector management is the structure of agencies. The current government has 52 ministerial portfolios. One chief executive reports to six separate ministers. There have been frequent agency restructures following ministerial reshuffles or changes in senior executive ranks. We need a focused state government to meet today's challenges and to pursue tomorrow's opportunities. Our state needs a government with a sharp focus on two overriding objectives: economic growth and efficient delivery of key services to individuals, families and businesses.

By running a government that is fully committed to clear priorities, we will put South Australia back on a road to sustainable economic growth and prosperity. I have announced the structure of the government that I want to lead. It streamlines ministerial reporting lines based upon one minister, one chief executive, one department. It aligns with the need to serve the public, not a desire to serve the interests of the minister of the day. One commitment I can make on staffing at this stage is that a Liberal government will have fewer ministerial staff. I am aware of a concern within the Public Service that increasingly senior officers are being directed by ministerial staff who have no accountability to anyone except the minister.

As well as having fewer ministerial staff, we will establish a code of conduct for ministerial staff to ensure appropriate standards of behaviour and accountability. It is not only what should be the impartial role of senior public sector executives that has been eroded by a long period of a Labor government; the role of cabinet in making key whole-of-government decisions has also diminished. Ministers routinely walk in important proposals to cabinet without proper analysis, consultation with agencies on whole-of-government impacts and consideration by other ministers with a responsibility relevant to the matter at hand.

This sidelining of cabinet results in poor decisions. A Liberal government will restore more rigorous cabinet processes. They will be supported by a strengthened cabinet office required to provide proper analysis of proposals including risks, costs and benefits from a whole-of-government perspective. This will improve the quality of cabinet decisions, avoid unnecessary costs imposed by poor decision-making and improve government accountability.

There used to be an ideal of public service in South Australia where ministers took responsibility for the services the public receives and are answerable to parliament for the actions of those providing them. If serious errors or worse occur in a department, the minister resigns, particularly where there has been evidence of warnings or maladministration not acted upon, but now some new stereotypes have been created about public service in South Australia. One is that the most vulnerable in our society, young children and the elderly, are exposed to neglect and abuse because government care for them has broken down. That much is unfortunately true.

The particular stereotype that ministers would like the public to accept is that they knew nothing at relevant times, that the responsibility stops with those government employees directly administering the care—not with the ministers. This stereotype has, however, another dimension: the stereotype of a minister who sees nothing, hears nothing and questions nothing. A long period in government is no excuse for such ministerial incompetence and failure to give leadership. The longer the ministerial experience, the more inquiring the minister should be. Instead, from the Premier down, the current ministry has grown a culture of denial.

Responsibility stops at the department door. It must not be allowed into the minister's office under any circumstances. By slamming the door on ministerial responsibility, the government has attempted to lock the whole Public Service into a stereotype it simply does not deserve. Ministers are diligent and competent at all times, but cannot always be trusted with their public servants. By failing the test of leadership by example, this government has failed the 100,000 people who work for it, the vast majority of whom are diligent and decent people.

It was almost 10 years ago that the parliament began inquiring into the Oakden service for elderly dementia patients. The government received subsequent warnings as well. This is not just a question of short-term failings of some subordinates. Even after the harrowing circumstances at Oakden were exposed, the government ducked and weaved. The inquiry report remained unread by the minister and the Premier. The Premier went on holidays. The Premier and the responsible minister did not speak to one another about it for a very long period of time. The relatives of those most directly affected were left to wonder whether anybody in authority cared. The sin of the failure to act before the abuse and neglect became endemic, despite being warned, was compounded—

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: Point of order: the Leader of the Opposition is now talking about the actions of ministers, not the politicisation of the Public Service, which is the point of the motion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am going to listen, and I am sure that the leader, in his last 30 seconds, is going to sum up his entire contribution.

Mr MARSHALL: At every opportunity this government has failed to take ministerial responsibility. We see this time and time again with the shocking abuse of a student at a western suburbs school, with our high unemployment rate and now, most recently, with the harrowing circumstances around the Oakden crisis. We on this side of the parliament would like to restore not only ministerial responsibility in this state but also, of course, the independence of an excellent Public Service here in South Australia where we again become an employer of choice.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland) (12:14): Perhaps the best argument against the member for Bright's motion is, in fact, the member for Bright. He is someone who had quite a decent career inside the Public Service, who worked his way up through the Public Service and spent quite a considerable amount of time there. He was free to pursue candidacy and then office on the Marion council to the point where he eventually became a candidate for the Liberal Party while he was serving in the cabinet office, running against a member of that same cabinet.

If there was some sort of politicisation of the Public Service, I would expect that at some point a political public service would have sidelined the member for Bright. It would have put him aside. It would have quietly said to him, 'I'm sorry, son, you can't work here anymore because you are running against a cabinet minister.' It did not happen. He was able to continue in his job, dealing with sensitive cabinet documents for the entire time of his candidacy as a member of the Liberal Party.

Not once was he sidelined from dealing with cabinet documents and cabinet submissions, the process of compiling the cabinet agenda, offering comment—all the things the cabinet office does. He was able to continue in his role inside the cabinet office while he ran against a cabinet minister and was ultimately successful in that. So, I think the best argument against the politicisation of the Public Service in South Australia is, in fact, the member for Bright himself.

I know from my time as a minister that the thing I valued most from my public servants—and, I might add, from my own advisers—was frank and fearless advice. The most useful thing for a minister is to be able to have those counterviews, to be able to talk them through in a rational, logical and coherent way, and almost without exception that was the case. In fact, the most frustrating member of the Public Service I worked with closely was someone who rarely engaged in that debate and rarely gave me the benefit of what they were thinking at the time. I found that the most frustrating thing.

My other expectation of my public servants is that, of course, having given me that advice and having discussed it with me, once I had made a decision I expected them to implement that decision. Implementing public policy determined by the government of the day is the role of public servants. That is what you expect of them. You expect them to advise you, to be a sounding board for your ideas and to help you develop policy and then, once you have made a decision on policy, you expect them to implement it as you have outlined it. I must say that for the most part that is what I received in the public sector, and it was very valuable for me as a minister.

All the supposed crimes the member for Bright has outlined were equally true in the former Brown and Olsen governments. All these things occurred when chief executives were appointed or removed. If you listen to the member for Bright, the removal of a public servant, particularly a chief executive, is somehow wrong. He may have a point, but we are not alone. I will quote from the Auditor-General's Report in 1999 that levelled some scathing criticism at the Olsen government's treatment of the public sector and set the precedent:

There have been several well publicised episodes in which Chief Executives have been dismissed for what appear to be arguments based upon 'unsatisfactory relationships' rather than 'unsatisfactory performance'.

For whatever reasons, Ministers and others in Executive Government appear reluctant to articulate precise deficiencies in Chief Executive performance. For example in each of the cases of Michael Schilling, Dennis Ralph and Carole Hancock, the Government suggested that a 'breakdown of the relationship' and/or 'the inability to achieve the departmental outcomes required by the Minister (Board)' was the determinative issue. Such generalised complaints are not sufficient given the importance of the individual right involved (livelihood and professional reputation) and the cost to the public of payouts (as with Mr Schilling) continued contractual obligations (as with Mr Ralph) and litigation (as with Ms Hancock). It may well be that the responsible Ministers in the two departmental cases have never turned their minds to the precise reasons for their dissatisfaction, but that in itself would be an example of process breakdown or system deficiency.

The surprise approach adopted in a number of well publicised episodes such as the sacking of Ms Hancock on Christmas Eve, or the removal of Mr Schilling and Mr Ralph, prima facie, offend procedural fairness and the legitimate expectations of the individuals that they be dealt with in a manner which is fair both in terms of acceptable process, and in terms of what they are reasonably entitled to expect given the functions they perform.

In September 2001, the Olsen government terminated the contract of the head of Industry and Trade, John Cambridge, two years into a five-year term on the ground of mutual agreement and with a payout of $250,000 with no specific reasons provided for this payout, as required under the Public Sector Management Act. In July of that year, it has been disclosed that taxpayers were subsidising Mr Cambridge's golf fees as part of his salary package. It was then found in October 2001 that he had presented misleading and inaccurate evidence to the Motorola inquiry.

Part of the role of government is making sure that you have decent people who can implement the work and the policy you have hired them to do. That necessarily means that there is going to be some turnover from time to time. To say that somehow it is new is wrong. To say that somehow this should not be the case is wrong. And to say that somehow just because people who have previously worked as advisers to ministers, or indeed who are members of a political party, are incapable of playing a role in the Public Service when they have particular skills and other things just demeans people simply because they have been a member of a political party. It is not a standard that he applies to himself.

He was a member of a political party, presumably throughout a large chunk of his time in the public sector. It did not diminish his ability as a public servant. In fact, he was trusted by the government of the day and the chief executive at the time to continue his role despite his membership of a political party, because political party membership and your ability as a public servant, even at executive level, are completely different things; they are mutually exclusive. Just because you have been a former adviser or you are in fact a member of a political party should not rule you out from eligibility for a role in government.

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (12:22): I rise to make a few comments on the politicisation of the South Australian Public Service. I have seen this firsthand over a number of years. You do not have to go too much farther than requesting a briefing from a minister who then calls in a departmental senior staff member. It is quite obvious when you are in this briefing that the departmental person's eyes keep darting to the ministerial staff to make sure that what they are saying is in line with what the minister would want them to say.

So, it is always a sanitised version. It would be as far from frank and fearless as you could possibly get. The real conversations occur outside those departments. From words to the effect of, 'I've got to be careful of the words I say,' you can tell by the reaction of the public servants in those meetings that what they say is being monitored very, very closely.

Down home, you would not have to look too far past our health service. If frank and fearless advice is what the government is after, then I would say they would be getting anything but that. The chair of the health advisory council overrules many of the members there. It will not surprise people that the chair of the HAC is a card-carrying member of the Labor Party and rumoured to be the candidate at the 2018 election.

We will talk about some of the advice that has not been forthcoming to the Minister for Health. What a debacle in relation to orthopaedic surgeons—18 to 24 months for contract negotiations, past the due date of the contract expiring—and to our palliative care cuts, where we had a town hall meeting of 500 people expressing their outrage at those cuts. As to our Emergency Services Department (ED), 'No problems here, look somewhere else,' but finally, through community pressure, we had a Country Health SA review and, lo and behold, many of the concerns the nurses had been expressing were found to be true and extra funding was put in, which of course I am grateful for. In my opinion, the advice the minister must be getting from our local Health public servants is suboptimal.

When doing some research to prepare some notes for this, I came across an article by Michael Owen, dated 27 February 2015. I do not think I could say it any better, so I am going to read parts of this article.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am going to have to protect the member for Mount Gambier.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, on my right! Stop the clock. He needs to be heard in silence. It is a courtesy that all members should be extended.

Mr BELL: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Let's see if some of these facts can be disputed and spun a different way. Of course, there will be many speakers from the other side who will have a chance to do that.

The Hon. A. Piccolo interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Light, you just informed the house that you were going to listen in silence.

The Hon. A. Piccolo: I'm a bad boy.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Apparently so. I do not want to have to start calling you to order.

Mr BELL: The article is dated 27 February 2015:

OUTRAGE is growing within South Australia's public service amid a perceived politicisation of the senior levels of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

This follows the sudden sacking late last month of up to 11 senior executives within the department.

The chief executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Kym Winter-Dewhirst, a former Labor staffer, emailed staff to say he had made structural reforms that would lead to better services, with a new nine-person management team.

Most of those sacked without warning had 30-40 years of experience and one executive was just one year into a five-year contract.

The sacked executives were escorted out of their offices.

Opposition Treasury…[the Hon.] Rob Lucas [from the other house] said following the mass sackings that former Labor Party operatives had been parachuted into lucrative positions within the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Appointments include Paul Flanagan, a former Labor government staffer, as the director of government communications; together with the executive director, implementation and delivery, Rik Morris, another former Labor government staffer.

The latest appointment to raise [concerns]…is that of Adele Young, as the director of reform.

There will be no guess in this house as to where Ms Young came from:

Ms Young was the chief of staff for former Northern Territory Labor leader Clare Martin, an ALP strategist attributed with spearheading Labor's three NT election victories. She [was also] exposed by Media Watch as using a fake name to call in to an ABC Radio program.

Premier Jay Weatherill has backed the moves, telling The Australian…that…appointments had been made in accordance with the Public Sector Act.

Rod Hook made a very good quote at one stage, which plays into that, that is:

How sad would it be for our state if a prerequisite for a successful public sector career is for you to be encouraged to drop around to your local party sub-branch and sign up.

Back to Michael Owen's article:

…Ms Young was a former union powerbroker…for Labor.

He then quotes the Hon. Mr Lucas:

What we are seeing in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet at the moment is the politicisation of the senior levels of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the senior levels of the public service right across the board, as Labor government staffers and fellow travellers are parachuted in—in many cases, without competition—to the various executive positions...

He said that many long-serving public servants were furious at the way Mr Weatherill and his chief executive had treated 11 executives in the last week of last month, when they were sacked on the spot and escorted from the building.

Some of those who were sacked had 30 to 40 years' experience and I think some of the sacked executives backed the claims of the Liberal Party, saying that the government had axed them in order to provide 'jobs for the boys'. That was written barely one year after the last state election. I do not think things are any better; in fact, I think they have become worse.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (12:30): I rise to speak on the member for Bright's motion before the house, attempting to indulge in a piece of petty Liberal partisan politicking about appointments to the Public Service and the basis under which those appointments are made. To be fair on the member for Bright, this motion was placed on the Notice Paper in relatively happier times. The member for Bright has seemingly appointed himself, in his little over three years in this chamber, as the member for moral standards, as the member for moral or ethical behaviour, or at least procedural behaviour in the chamber, and in this case, outside the chamber as well, which I find is brave, yet galling.

One of his first contributions to this house recounted how he was a member of the cabinet office team. As a member of cabinet office staff, of course, those public servants are required to provide advice, principally to the Premier, and on some occasions to other cabinet ministers, or indeed to cabinet, either on orders of business that are to go before cabinet, or, indeed, in this instance, as the member for Bright recalled, to provide advice to the Premier in preparation for his meeting with the Prime Minister and other premiers at COAG.

Could there be many greater responsibilities for a public servant than that particular responsibility—seemingly, by his own words—discharged by the member for Bright? Of course, that responsibility comes with it further personal responsibilities. In fact, they are responsibilities that are spelt out, chapter and verse, in the various codes by which public servants are required to abide—principally, confidentiality. While we have the 'member for behaviour' over here lecturing the other 46 of us how best to go about discharging our responsibilities, what is he doing? He is fessing up to not meeting the standards of the Public Service.

I am not even digressing into thinking about and considering how the member for Bright should have been so fortunate to find himself in the position of being a member of cabinet office and whether there was a thorough merit-based selection process or, as was the discussion at the time—and I should say discussion only, with no further discussion or action taken—whether there was some consternation that there was not a robust, merit-based selection process that allowed the member for Bright to become a member of the cabinet office staff. But, of course, that is never discussed or disclosed or entered into, is it?

So, we are getting an impression of one set of standards for the other 46 members of the House of Assembly, not to mention the other roughly 100,000 headcount of the Public Service, and then, of course, on the other side of the coin, the member for Bright himself. He follows that up with placing a story about this in The Advertiser, quite carefully, and what was meant to be an inflammatory speech where he mocked people who work for members of parliament and ministers for their eating habits, for their weight and for their behaviour around the halls of this parliament. These are really hard working demonstrations of what a member of parliament should be devoting their time and mental energy towards.

He was attempting to demonise those people who may not have as impressive a body mass index as the member for Bright himself. Well, congratulations. What a stunning contribution that was to the House of Assembly. Not only does the member for Bright seek to waste this chamber's time with those sorts of contributions but he also conveniently forgets the behaviour that we see from the other side of politics both during their time of government and during their time of opposition when it comes to the appointment of executive positions in the Public Service.

I was surprised to find out that the former chief of staff to the former Liberal treasurer, the Hon. Rob Lucas of the other place, was appointed as the chief executive of the Motor Accident Commission. I wonder what merit-based selection process that individual went through. I have to say that in this instance it did not matter too much because that individual was actually seen, I think widely, as a very good chief executive and he continued on in that role for some years, despite there being a change of government and despite the former Labor treasurer Kevin Foley assuming administrative and functional responsibility for the Motor Accident Commission.

Of course, that is but one example of how people who are alleged to be partisan, alleged to be members of political parties or alleged to be hacks, who are loyal only to one side of politics, do find their way into senior positions in the Public Service. I was very lucky to have the opportunity to work in a treasurer's office during the early stages of this Labor government. I say 'lucky' because I was able to share time with some of the most senior and highly regarded public servants in the Treasury and Finance space that this country has ever produced, particularly the former under treasurer Jim Wright.

Jim is somebody who has enjoyed a more than 40-year career in public administration, particularly around those areas of Treasury and Finance. Where was one of his first jobs? He was a liaison officer in the federal treasurer's office of former prime minister Paul Keating. Did that prevent him from going on and having a stellar career at the upper echelons of the federal Department of Treasury? No, it did not, because he was well regarded and exceptionally credentialed.

When he became the Under Treasurer here in South Australia, appointed by the Hon. Rob Lucas, he restructured the department and he brought in under him two deputy under treasurers. Those deputy under treasurers were subjected to an 18 to 24-month campaign by the Hon. Rob Lucas where their characters were repeatedly, outrageously and unfairly assassinated by Rob Lucas of the upper house, principally because they had been appointed during the course of a Labor administration.

Where were those two under treasurers appointed from? One came from the Victorian Department of Treasury and Finance. It was almost a lateral move for that particular public servant. The other one came from the federal Department of Finance—again, a lateral move. Why did they choose to come to South Australia? Because they were South Australians. How did Rob Lucas treat them? He did his best to vilify those two public servants. In fact, he succeeded, I believe, in chasing one of them out of South Australia. He was fortunate enough, based on his credentials and experience, to end up as a chief executive of two federal departments under both Labor and the Coalition federally.

When we have first-term backbenchers who come into this place and cast aspersions about how the Public Service may or may not be stacked with people who come from one political party or another, I think it would pay for all of us as MPs to think about what the record is of the person who is moving this motion, what the record is of his political party when they have been in government and what the record is of those people who are the senior advisers to the current Leader of the Opposition.

Rob Lucas has had a disgraceful record when it comes to vilifying and mistreating public servants. He is the shadow treasurer and he is in a position of senior responsibility to advise the current Leader of the Opposition. They treat this coming election campaign like it is the film clip from Thriller—all these old bodies coming out of the woodwork. Wayne Matthew was going to put up his hand for preselection. Mark Brindal is writing opinion pieces in InDaily. Spare us! You have got to be joking, given the history of some of these people. These are the torchbearers for the South Australian Liberal Party.

If you do not have the wherewithal to come up with public policy or a viable alternative to put to South Australia in the lead-up to this election, then my advice to the South Australian Liberal Party is maybe keep your mouth shut, rather than engaging in the sort of disgraceful smear and slander and innuendo that come from that side of politics over here or over to the Public Service. This is a dreadful motion and says a lot more about the person who moved it than it does about anybody else in here or the Public Service.

Mr SPEIRS (Bright) (12:40): Thank you to all the members from both sides of the house who have made contributions on this motion. I think the motion does have merit in that it raises something quite serious that ought to be spoken about openly across all political parties. As both the member for Newland and the member for Lee raised, there were examples of this sort of behaviour—the appointment of perhaps overtly political figures and the removal of those who were not, in the view of some, of the right political persuasion—under previous Liberal administrations in this state. As I said in my first contribution on this matter, it is a standard that I would like to see corrected in South Australia's Public Service.

I think both sides of politics could do better, and an opportunity may be presented to the Liberal Party after the next election—it may not be—to reset the way senior executives in South Australia's Public Service are appointed that would give confidence to public servants who operate on a day-to-day basis within our government department that their career paths would be respected more appropriately.

I am not in any way ashamed of the motion that I have brought to the parliament today. It is a motion on a topic that is of significant consequence to South Australia and should be looked at seriously. We should look to do better on this front. We can set up South Australia well by creating a frank and fearless Public Service that can speak directly to ministers and deliver great outcomes for this state. With that, I conclude my remarks and commend the motion to the house.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 15

Noes 20

Majority 5

Motion thus negatived.