HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-04-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

PUBLIC SECTOR BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 March 2009. Page 1811.)

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (22:54): I have already had a fair bit to say on this bill and, given the time of night, I will shorten some of my remarks. Notwithstanding that, I want to reinforce that Family First has some serious concerns about this bill. I note with interest that we have made a couple of amendments in a democratic parliament—and I believe it is still a democratic parliament, although sometimes one would wonder—yet the Leader of Government Business says that the bill may be pulled. If they want to pull a bill, pull this one, because this bill is one of the worst pieces of legislation that I have seen in a long time.

I said to one of my colleagues during a coffee break that, if the government is determined to push this bill through and it is returned to office, I do not believe it will be in office for more than one more term because, once the damage starts to ripple through the opportunity for good public servants to have a decent workplace and work practices, tens of thousands of public servants and their families will be letting all their cousins and neighbours know just how this government has let down fundamental issues when it comes to the rights of decent workers just trying to go about their business on behalf of the government and the community.

I also want to flag to my colleagues that, due to the illness of my adviser, a couple of amendments that we are in the process of preparing are not ready. Given that it was late 2007 when the minister released the draft with some urgency, and it was November 2008 before we saw the tabling of the final bill, I would ask the government to give us a chance to table those amendments and any others that colleagues may have before we reach the committee stage.

I just want to touch on some issues during the second reading, and I will have quite a lot more to say on several of the clauses during the committee stage. I find it interesting to see the fingerprints of two or three Senior Management Council members, one being a Ms Sue Vardon, who I understand had a lot to do with the driving influence of this bill. She has now left the Public Service with a golden handshake, even though I understand that it was a resignation. The rank and file of the Public Service have not left and are out there trying to do a job in the best interests of Public Service delivery to the community.

I find it amazing that someone like Sue Vardon, who has an interesting record (and I can remember talking to ministers who were dealing with her in a former government and hearing the frustrations around some of her practices back then), has been brought back in by this government when it had an opportunity not to do so. Then there was an interesting situation around the portfolio that she was in charge of, and we see her fingerprints all over this, working against fairness and equity for workers. It is amazing that this government got itself tangled up in this. I understand that maybe Business SA and perhaps a few other people on the economic driving team that the Premier put together also had some input into this bill.

We received a letter from the minister—and, to give credit where it is due, at least when the Hon. Jay Weatherill is putting forward a bill he offers good briefings and personally writes to members and outlines what he is about. He said:

Providing a new, modern, flexible employment framework for managing the South Australian Public Service is vital for the state's future prosperity.

He went on to say:

The Government understands the challenges that our state faces, and as a result new ways of working are needed, including approaching these challenges with a whole-of-government perspective and reflecting the move towards a citizen-centred public sector.

I was pondering what the minister was really saying when he talked about a citizen-centred public sector. I thought we already had a citizen-centred public sector. Certainly, whenever I have publicly or privately had to deal with members of the Public Service they have always seemed to be centred on service to citizens. So, I do not see that this draconian legislation has any benefit with respect to assisting a citizen-centred public sector. In fact, I think it is a slap in the face for those people who have been doing that focus work for a great period of time. The letter further stated:

For the Government to modernise the employment framework and be able to be responsive to employment needs—

I find that interesting: 'responsive to employment needs'—

the Public Sector Management Act 1995 has been reviewed and new legislation developed to replace it.

Apparently, following extensive public consultation, he says that the bill was finalised and introduced into the parliament. They may have had public consultation, but whether or not it was extensive, I am not sure; and whether it took into account some of the bona fide, genuine and reasonable comments—and I reinforce 'reasonable'—from those who will be most adversely affected by this, I am not sure. I am not sure that they took any notice of the responses to that consultation.

They talk about new public sector principles, greater emphasis on one government. I do not quite understand what they mean by 'greater emphasis on one government'. Is that an indictment that the government has not been united, focused or committed? If it is, then it says to me that government leaders should be looking at themselves in the mirror because they have been here for seven years, not having a go at a Public Service which often tries to work under difficult parameters, because governments come and governments go and changes, directions and great upheavals always occur as a result of the policy and procedure of the government of the day. However, public servants always have to go along with that. Sometimes, when changes are significant, they take a while; for example, the justice portfolio, when many departments were combined into the one. However, to actually say that there is to be a greater emphasis on one government to me says that this government is not focused on its role—if that is what it is saying.

Another aspect is an enhanced role for chief executives. I think that is mainly when it comes to being able to hire and fire, because I am not sure what other enhanced role chief executives need because they have pretty broad parameters within their terms of contract and directives from ministers, anyway. I see an enhanced role for chief executives as being one whereby they have the right to hire and fire. In relation to provisions to facilitate greater mobility of public sector employees across the public sector, if you had the good career pathways and opportunities that used to be in the Public Service then you would have that facility already.

The reason I am highlighting this and want to get it on the public record is that, when I read the minister's letter, it is coded, frankly, and underneath that I see something different. I believe something like 'provisions to facilitate greater mobility of public sector employees across the public sector' means that, if the government suddenly wants to rationalise, close down or reduce departmental services in rural and regional areas, as we are seeing now, well, too bad. You either come to Adelaide or you go to another department about which you know little or in which you may not have the expertise or experience, relocate your family, or we will see you later alligator, your job has gone. For example, 'We are going to build a new prison at Mobilong.' You may have been working at Yatala for 25 years and all your family and all your assets are located nearby, but I read this as saying, 'Well, you will have no choice but to relocate, because otherwise you will not have a job.'

Finally, streamline robust rights of review. That may be all right if again the checks and balances are there. Only recently, I and some other colleagues attended a rally out the front of Parliament House. It reinforced to me the fact that this bill has gone too far when it comes to the lack of consideration for workers' rights. That rally involved a great number of officers from the Department for Correctional Services saying to the government that, if you are going to relocate the main prisons from your city precinct to Mobilong, well you had better start to think about the ramifications and the impact on those staff.

Clearly, the government has not thought that through properly in terms of Mobilong. This legislation really highlighted to me that the government will end up in some trouble over this, particularly in better times when there are opportunities for these experienced public servants to go into other areas, such as the security industry. For example, how will those who work in correctional services manage the difficult task of a complex high security prison when people choose not to be kicked from pillar to post but rather take up opportunities to withdraw and go into other sectors?

I do not think the government has thought this through enough. I am all for reform for the right reasons, and modernisation of principles, business procedures and directions are fine, and that is the sort of stuff that the government should be doing—innovative business planning. To me this is so similar to the fundamentals behind WorkCover. I want to finish with this, but it is so similar to those fundamentals, that is, do not look at a business plan for the problems and issues with which you must deal because you have an unfunded public liability because you have cut back on the focus on work safe policy, practice and inspection.

Do not have a look at your senior executive management—they are all okay. In fact, you can give them a pay rise if they are prepared to back you on advertisements and things like that which justifies artificially why you are doing something draconian.

Do not have a look at the minister who has been in charge through years of unfunded liability blow-outs. Look at the simplistic solution, that is, have a go at the workers. Kick the worker. Well, it will not work. It will not work with WorkCover, and I say here tonight that, before the next state election, I believe we will see a $2 billion unfunded WorkCover liability. That is how it is going at the moment, and that will be in spite of the rapid redemption base it is putting through at the moment, and I will have more to say about that in the coming weeks.

The bottom line is that simplistic approaches do not work. Modernisation and better practices for everyone? Yes. Again, I reinforce the fact that there is an absolute difference between the public sector and the private sector. You cannot expect to have exactly the same employment conditions for Public Service delivery as you have for private service delivery. In fact, even in these most difficult times we are encountering now, I think that a lot of private sector employers will have more heart for their employees than chief executive officers will potentially have for decent public servants at a time when, first, they will be under enormous pressure to deliver efficiency dividends (and this will give them the opportunity to be more draconian in the way they go about some of their reduction in workforce numbers); and, secondly, the thing which also worries me and which I want to reinforce is the cosy nepotism situation that can occur with a wink, wink, nod, nod from the minister to a CEO who will surround themselves with the people with whom they feel comfortable rather than the people with the expertise, experience and heart for that department for the delivery of those Public Service outcomes.

We will see good and decent people giving up on the Public Service because of this ridiculous amount of draconian and unnecessary impost on workers. We have a good public sector. In fact, I have travelled around and I have spoken to a number of people in other states who have said that, over the years, the people they meet in the Public Service in South Australia are committed and professional and they commend them. I say to the government that these people can walk, and the government will experience brain drain. They will go to other states where there are other opportunities. The growth in the Northern Territory is an example, and I am starting to see those ads already on weekends.

This is bad legislation, because it will cause unnecessary unrest and it will not deliver the outcomes. At the end of the day, I cannot believe that, after seven years, the government has not realised that, without a Public Service that works with and for and alongside the government of the day for the best intent of the state, it will be the one to lose.

Between the government losing and this legislation, a lot of people will be hurt unnecessarily. I say to the government that the best thing it can do, if it wants to start pulling legislation, is to pull this bill and think it through again. There will be a number of significant amendments and, from what I am hearing, the government will be unhappy because the majority of my colleagues in this council will bring some basic fairness back into the bill which at present is completely unfair to public servants.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (23:10): I rise to speak on the bill. First, I make the point that I have made to the minister's advisers. I am afraid that I do not speak, as does the Hon. Robert Brokenshire, in such glowing terms of the public sector but, then again, I have been not been in the position of once being a minister and working alongside the public sector. I acknowledge that there are many within the public sector who are dedicated and committed to their work but, unfortunately, we often miss out on the good news stories.

In relation to the problems that need to be dealt with, I believe we have two categories of workers. We have public servants who do not do their job. They simply do not meet the competency standards and do not have the passion and the fire in the belly to do their job well. They see it as a bit of a cushy job from which it is difficult to get sacked. By all means, I think it should be easier for departments to be able to get rid of the dead wood, for want of a better term, and replace them with public servants who do have the commitment, knowledge, expertise, training and qualifications to undertake their job in the best interests of the people of this state.

On the other hand, we have public servants who are committed and do want to see their department function well but notice that there is a level of dysfunction, not necessarily caused by incompetence but, rather, a level of nepotism—wink, wink, nudge, nudge, let a few policies and procedures slip by—and fairly soon the rot sets in. They try to approach their supervisors up the line—even the minister—in order to try to identify the practices that are not good for the government department.

Sometimes their supervisors and chief executives are included in their complaint and they are harangued, harassed and bullied to the point of making a WorkCover claim for stress; people are sent to the transit lounge and shifted around the Public Service from one department to another where they can make the least amount of noise until they are forced to take a package, resign or work in an environment that is absolutely intolerable and untenable for them. Along with other members in this place, a number of public servants who have spoken to me fall under the category of whistleblower. Their lives have been an absolute and utter misery as a result of doing nothing more than wanting to improve the performance of their department.

I will be supporting the amendments of the Hon. David Ridgway. I am familiar with those amendments and I indicate that I will be supporting them. I am not as familiar with other members' amendments but I assure members that I will be. I am also moving amendments, along the lines of protecting those public servants who would dare to blow the whistle on the incompetence upstream—call it corruption, if you like—or the plain bad culture that exists within some departments. For any person here to deny that there are some departments that have what I would refer to as a toxic culture I believe would be very politically risky given some of the issues that come before us in our offices that we try to deal with to get the best possible outcome.

It is even at the stage where some public servants will not come or are advised by their superiors to not give evidence to a select committee inquiry because it is seen as a breach of the Public Service act as it stands. I see nothing in the current bill that will make that particular responsibility of a public servant any easier. In fact, it has been indicated to me that there are parts that may make that even more difficult. I believe that if we have a government that wants to continually talk about accountability and transparency it is essential that we have a Public Service sector that is able to identify problems that exist, and that people feel safe that their concerns will be taken seriously and dealt with in an appropriate way and that they will not be subject to certain behaviours that force them out of their particular department and the job that many of them love.

I also make the point that I believe this legislation is coming from the wrong angle altogether. I believe, as I said, that chief executives should be able to dispose of dead wood within their departments through due process, but I also believe that in some of these cases that may be becoming probably a little bit more prevalent—more of them have been brought to my attention, and more often—and there needs to be the protection of a safety net for employees who are being harassed and harangued for merely trying to do their job better. One of the amendments that I believe will be put forward is that the commissioner will be included in the due process at the end.

I also feel that the tone of this piece of legislation is almost making the role of the public sector commissioner defunct, and we have a time now when people are expecting better performance and a greater level of accountability because that is what they have been told they are going to get—and we then take the steps within this legislation to move that power away from the very commissioner who is there to make sure that that accountability and transparency is there.

So I will be, as I said, moving a number of amendments, and I know that I will get criticism from the minister for the amendments because some of them will try to transplant parts of the Whistleblowers Protection Act into this public sector bill so that there is a link. On a number of occasions public servants have come to me as whistleblowers and they have had no idea what the process was to lodge a public interest disclosure statement and to start that process, so they have just gone to their supervisors and lodged a grievance, whereas they should have been seeking protection under the Whistleblowers Protection Act. Then they find that when they do go through that process finally, there are policy changes within the department that relate specifically to the public interest disclosure statement that make the conduct appear to be lawful and a direction to not go and give evidence to an inquiry and to not go to the media when their public interest disclosure statement has not been dealt with. They are told by their supervisors that this is in breach of their Public Sector Management Act, which simply, lawfully, if the Whistleblowers Protection Act had any teeth, would not be the case at all.

I urge members to look at my amendments carefully and to consider the intent behind them, namely, to provide a higher level of protection to public servants who want to expose dysfunctions within government departments and have it enshrined in legislation, other than the Whistleblowers Protection Act, because until we bring that act before us for review, which is well overdue, it means nothing. As I have indicated on previous occasions, a number of legal minds in this place have said that the Whistleblowers Protection Act is not worth the paper it is written on. If that act is not enforceable and cannot provide protection to people who want to see government departments clean up their act, pieces of that legislation must be taken out and inserted in other legislation where it can be applied and enforced and protection given.

I will leave that with members to consider and look forward to the debate that will follow on this legislation. It will be interesting to see whether it is truly the government's intention to do the right thing by the public sector and make their life more manageable or whether this is, as I fear, a rather punitive measure to deal with what it sees as a bit of nuisance behaviour.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. C. Zollo.


At 23:23 the council adjourned until Wednesday 29 April 2009 at 14:15.


PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT