HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2018-06-20 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Public Sector Employees

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (16:14): I move:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be established to inquire into and report on—

(a) issues relating to the employment, termination, redeployment or placement of public sector employees following the 2018 state election;

(b) the adequacy of existing structures and policies to ensure the independence of the Public Service is maintained;

(c) any influence or direction from ministers or members of parliament in relation to the employment, termination, redeployment or placement of public sector employees following the 2018 state election; and

(d) any related matter.

2. That standing order 389 be so far suspended as to enable the chairperson of the committee to have a deliberative vote only.

3. That this council permits the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it sees fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to such evidence being presented to the council.

4. That standing order 396 be suspended to enable strangers to be admitted when the select committee is examining witnesses unless the committee otherwise resolves, but they shall be excluded when the committee is deliberating.

It is a well-established principle that premiers and ministers cannot and should not interfere with the employment of public servants. In fact, section 34 of the Public Sector Act makes it very clear in relation to public sector employees that a premier or minister does not have any role whatsoever in their employment. The only role that a premier has is in relation to the employment of a chief executive.

The Commissioner for Public Sector Employment has recently confirmed that ministers or premiers 'absolutely do not have any roles in below Chief Executive level employment decisions.' There are very, very good reasons for this. Public servants should be selected for their suitability for a particular job, not because of their political beliefs or any other personal preferences—it has to be down to their ability to do the job they are selected for.

In fact, this was the case when the now member for Black, David Speirs, was employed in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. The now new minister was a public servant in Cabinet Office in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet at the time that he was a preselected Liberal candidate. You could not have a clearer indication of the political beliefs and persuasions of a person than being a candidate running for political office. Was the now member for Black moved out of Cabinet Office? No; that is where he remained working, presumably because his superiors in the public sector judged that he was able to be impartial and to rely on evidence to provide objective advice to government and implement directions promptly and thoroughly.

That phrase that public servants 'rely on evidence to provide objective advice to government and implement directions promptly and thoroughly' is important as it speaks to the very impartiality of the Public Service and public servants that we expect. In fact, that sentence is from the Public Sector Code of Ethics, which are required to be adhered to under section 14 of the Public Sector Act.

Your political persuasion can and should play no role at all in how you are treated, employed, redeployed, placed or terminated within the public sector. In fact, that principle is best summed up by a former employee of Cabinet Office, the now member for Black himself. In his first speech to parliament, the member for Black said:

Until January this year I spent five years working in the Public Service, most of that time spent within the Cabinet Office in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. The irony of my dual positions of endorsed Liberal candidate and Premier's department employee was not lost on me or my colleagues but it was not something that created a conflict. I always undertook my duties with the integrity that is expected of public servants.

As I said, the member for Black was not just a rank and file member of the Liberal party. He was not merely helping out on campaigns on weekends. At the time, the member for Black was a preselected candidate for a marginal seat for the Liberal Party, which he went on to win. You could not possibly find a greater reason to come to the conclusion that there could be a risk of impartiality. But, was he moved from Cabinet Office? No; he remained in his position. That is the nub of the situation we have before us, which this motion to establish a select committee seeks to address. Why were a select group of people removed not just from Cabinet Office but from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet entirely?

Following the election of the Liberal government in March of this year, we have heard a number of extraordinarily concerning things that, when put together, raise grave concerns about the role that the Premier, his chief of staff, the Treasurer and senior public servants may have played in the sacking, firing or moving on or redeploying of public servants. Indeed, of particular concern is that no-one seems to have the same story. The story moves every time someone asks a question on this matter, and we must get to the bottom of it.

Last week, we heard in question time in the other place that the Premier's chief of staff was asked to clarify comments that had been made about influencing or interfering with employment arrangements of non-chief executive public sector employees. In question time last week in this place, the Treasurer was asked whether he saw the Premier telling Cabinet Office executives that all Cabinet Office staff who had previously been employed in the former premier's office or a former minister's office had to be transferred out of Cabinet Office and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. The Treasurer, when that was put to him, denied it. Yet, as reported by InDaily, there was a meeting between Premier Steven Marshall and the executive director of Cabinet Office, Ruth Ambler, including the Treasurer and the Premier's chief of staff, where plans for Cabinet Office were discussed.

More recently, on Monday, an officer from Cabinet Office said that the Treasurer, Rob Lucas, was also present at that meeting, along with the Premier's chief of staff, Mr James Stevens, and the Premier's economic adviser, Richard Yeeles. That is something that the Treasurer has now admitted. We also learned, earlier this week, that five people have been moved out of Cabinet Office since the election. We heard that they were moved out because of concerns about impartiality, even though, as we understand it, there were no particular issues raised about it with those people.

The only concern that we have been able to ascertain to date is that those five people had formerly been employed in the office of a former Labor minister or the Premier's office. It appears that there are apparently concerns about the impartiality of individuals who had worked in a former minister's office. Again, this is in stark contrast to the then preselected Liberal candidate for the now seat of Black, who was judged on his ability to do the job, not his clearly stated political leanings.

We know that the head of Cabinet Office knew very little about the backgrounds or skills of the five people who were moved out of Cabinet Office and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. What we do know is that the new Premier asked the head of Cabinet Office if there were people from the former premier's office still employed. We know that that question was asked of the head of Cabinet Office at a meeting on 20 March attended by the Premier, the Treasurer, the Premier's chief of staff and one of the Premier's advisers. We know this is the case, because an attendee at the meeting—the head of Cabinet Office, Ms Ruth Ambler—has said that this is the case.

We also know that, soon after that meeting on 20 March, which I am sure we will be hearing a lot more about in the coming weeks, a number of individuals who fit the description of the question asked by the Premier were moved not only out of Cabinet Office but completely out of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. We know that the then deputy chief executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet was so concerned about what was relayed to her from the meeting on 20 March that she saw fit to go and see the Premier's chief of staff to raise those concerns. We also know that the then deputy chief executive, Ms Tahnya Donaghy, was sacked just a few days after this conversation.

In summary, what we know is: one, neither ministers nor the Premier are to have any role in the employment matters of public sector employees below chief executive level. Two, at a meeting on 20 March this year, the Premier asked the head of Cabinet Office whether there were people who were in the former premier's office who had come into Cabinet Office. Three, the group of people that the Premier asked about were moved out of their jobs soon after. Four, the then deputy chief executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet raised concerns with the Premier's chief of staff about what occurred at that meeting on 20 March. Five, the then deputy chief executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet was sacked just a few days later.

There are many concerns and many questions that this raises that we need to answer. Was there a hit list of staff that were for the chop? Who first raised the idea that staff had to be moved out of Cabinet Office and who raised that something needed to be done about this? Why was this select group of people targeted in this way? Why was the former deputy chief executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet sacked only days after raising concerns about the appropriateness of this process? Why was an 'unusual' email—that came out in reports earlier this week—sent to the head of Cabinet Office confirming that the then deputy chief executive had played no role in these shady machinations? Who is going to be the new chief executive of DPC and what is the open and transparent process to make that appointment?

Most importantly, we need to establish—and a select committee is the best and most appropriate way to establish this—whether the Premier, the Treasurer or any of their staff have interfered with the hiring and firing practices of the public sector and, in so doing, have critically and fundamentally interfered with the impartiality of the public sector. I look forward to the support of this chamber in the establishment of this select committee and, indeed, look forward to the support of government members in the establishment of this select committee. If no-one has done anything wrong and no-one has anything to hide, then there should be no fear of a select committee being established. It is vital that we get to the bottom of this, and I commend the motion to the chamber.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.J. Stephens.

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