Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, , 2:44:22 to 3:07:08
The Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) addresses leadership transitions, statutory appointment frameworks, and public interest immunity claims.
Topics: Public service staffing, Integrity, Orders for documents
Speakers: Dr Gordon de Brouwer PSM, Hon Katy Gallagher, James Paterson, Karen Grogan, Unknown Speaker, Blair Exell
Welcome back Dr. Drag, Commissioner and other officers of the Australian Public Service Commission and also Mr. Blair Exell, Deputy Secretary and other officers from the Department of Prime Minister of Cabinet um regarding the Australian Government Consulting. Now, Mr. Dra, I believe you're going to make an opening statement.
>> Uh [clears throat] yes, thank you very much, Chair. Australian Public Service Commissioner. So, thank you very much for the opportunity to make an opening statement to the committee. As public service commissioner, I'd like to talk with the committee about the state of the public service. The assistant minister for the public service, the honorable Patrick Gorman MP, presented my latest annual report to the parliament on the state of the service last November on the various measures of public service performance, employee engagement, well-being, integrity, innovation, representativeness, and bullying and harassment. The public service is at its recorded strongest and best. The ambitious reforms outlined in the 30 review along with the government's other public sector initiatives have been substantially implemented and borne fruit. Public sector reform is working. The service is dynamic, trusted and proactive. Public servants are not always perfect, but they do strive for excellence in delivery and in behavior. Public servants take seriously that transparency and accountability to the parliament are essential for well functioning public administration and government. We are very aware of our purpose set out in the public service act to be an a-olitical public service that efficiently and effectively serves the government, parliament and the Australian public. We are mindful that the parliament is one of the three bodies that we serve. In the context of estimates, we take very seriously our duty to give evidence to Senate committees honestly and professionally. With this in mind, I'd like to refer briefly to two matters that arose in the last session of the committee on the 2nd of December, 2025. The first matter relates to the integrity of evidence provided by the commission to the Senate. Senator David PCO raised allegations that the APSC had potentially misled the Senate in relation to an extract in an email from Comare. My colleague Dr. Rachel Bacon, deputy commissioner, wrote to the committee on the 17th of December to g to categorically refute any allegation that the commission had misled the Senate. And I refer senators to the letter. The material that was discussed at the second December hearing does explicitly refer to FOI. It involved the team in comare that has responsibility for FOI and it was addressed to an FOI officer. The commission rejects any suggestion that it may have misled the Senate using in using this example. The commission remains si seriously concerned about the risks to FOI officers and others from abusive and threatening behavior by some FLI applicants. The second matter refers to what information can be provided about investigations into possible breaches of the APS code of conduct. The public is naturally curious about breaches of the code. The Public Service Act, however, classifies information obtained through the commissioner's review and inquiry functions as protected information and has strict prohibitions on public This is to ensure the effective and fair operation of inquiries both in particular cases and over time. While parliamentary privilege would protect the commissioner from the criminal penalties that would otherwise apply for unlawful disclosure of this information. As commissioner, I have taken the view that disclosure of anything other than the most basic information is not in the public interest and that there are wellestablished grounds for public interest immunity that are applicable in such cases. There are three established grounds of public interest immunity that in my view are particularly relevant in this context. For convenience, I refer to section 461 of the guidelines for official witnesses before parliamentary committees. The first is avoiding prejudicing the investigation of a possible breach of law, ground D. Preventing disclosure of confidential sources of information, ground E, and protecting the commissioner's methods of investigating these matters from disclosure, ground H. For this purpose, the commissioner does not talk or speculate about particular instances of its inquiries, including its process for determining whether an inquiry commences, and does not confirm the existence or non-existence of an As this is my last appearance at the committee chair, I sincerely thank you all for your patience, perspectives, and engagement during my tenure as Secretary for Public Sector Reform and Australian I'm sorry. It's been an honor to serve the government, Parliament and Australian people and work alongside so many committed public servants and and inspiring some public servants and I thank you too minister. So thank you
>> and he's ready to answer all your >> over the next hour or so.
>> Well that that will make me not cry. I can say that with honesty.
Chair, on indulgence, could I just um respond to the commissioner's um remarks there uh and place on the record on behalf of the government and myself as the minister um a very impressive record of public service for over 35 years. Uh Dr. Debrow has worked in the service of the Australian public across a range of institutions and portfolios including the RBA, Treasury, PMNC as secretary of the department of environment, as secretary of the department of environment and energy. Uh as a panel member of the independent review of the APS led by David Thod in 2019 and indeed as a re as a member of the panel of the review of the reserve bank as well at the request of the treasurer and appointment of the treasurer. Uh I feel as minister we were very fortunate to have Dr. Draau return to public service as secretary for APS reform when we came to government and wanted to um um you know reform the APS and invest in its capability and its uh enduring as an enduring institution of our democratic democratic architecture. Uh Dr. Dr. Dra was a driving force behind helping us to build a more capable, ethical and community focused public service. Much of this work laid the foundations for what he has achieved since 2023 in his tenure as public service commissioner where he has overseen APS reform uh reforms of the public service act. uh he has led along with his executive team the doubling of the number of first nations SCEs leaders from 54 in June 2023 to 110 today further developing the APS academy rebuilding in in-house APS expertise and strengthening guard rails around the use of external labor and importantly promoting a values-led culture that supports respectful professional workplaces and where people feel safe to speak up and uh and in his opening remarks. He alluded to some of the outcomes that we're seeing from that work. His leadership also extended to complex integrity matters, including guiding the centralized code of conduct inquiry task force for robo debt, ensuring a rigorous process and helping embed lessons learned across the I worked closely with Dr. deb on those on that uh piece of work and I know the personal and professional toll that that work placed on his shoulders and of um the team but he led that work with the utmost integrity having been awarded a public service medal in 2011 for outstanding public service in the development of international economic policy. Dr. Drow leaves the APS with a legacy defined by integrity in intellectual rigor and an unwavering commitment to the public good. His leadership has strengthened the APS in lasting ways through reform, stewardship, capability, and a deep belief in the value of public service. In announcing his retirement, Dr. Dau told staff at the APSC that the commission doesn't rely on any one individual, but the collective skills and experience of all its people. In his true characteristically humble way, I know that we will miss Dr. Drow's expertise and judgment. uh for me individually as a minister, but I know across the APS, but we wish him well for his retirement um and all of the exciting opportunities that lie ahead for him and his family. So, thank you very much.
>> Thank you, Minister.
>> And as we did yesterday, just echo the thanks from the committee for um your lengthy and important service to our community.
>> Thank you very much, Judy.
>> Um Mr. Exell, do you have an opening Okay, we will then go to questions and we'll start with Senator Paterson.
>> Thank you, Chair. Uh Dr. Bar, congratulations on a very long and distinguished career of service to the public service. It's a very significant commitment on your life to public service in this country and I want to extend the opposition's congratulations to you on your retirement. Don't speak too soon though. We could have a spillover estimates any day now and we may require you back. >> Um no, no, we won't do that to you
>> I think the position will come back but not the person perhaps. Um, I just want
to address a couple of issues in your opening statement before getting on to substantive questions. Um, just in relation to the APS code of conduct investigations, I do understand your argument about why you think it's not in the public interest to release that information through estimates. Just to clarify though, are you making a public
senator. So in relation to my response to the questions on notice, I have made a public interest uh immunity claim in
>> As the minister knows, it's not
>> dealt with by the committee at the moment. Yeah.
>> Thanks, chair. As the minister knows, it's not for officials to make public immunity claims. Only a minister can
make a public the legislation or the guidelines also allow for the relevant statutory uh officer to do that. And as an independent statutory officer, I have done that.
>> Well, I have to seek advice on that. My understanding is only minister can make that claim. Minister, if you think I'm wrong, please correct me. But that's my understanding.
>> Uh we can provide you with some um information. We have a a couple of letters that will help um that confirmation from the minister regarding
>> Well, yeah. Was it a claim from the minister or was it a claim from the APS-C?
>> Well, in my correspondence, it's a claim from me as commissioner as the stat as the relevant statutory officer.
>> Okay. But I support that claim and would be happy to if you know based on the discussions I've had that claim has been made in accordance with um appropriate processes but if that needs to be from me I would be able to make that claim as well.
>> Okay. Um uh coming to your retirement Dr. I think it's helpful if I ask this directly so it's in the open because there is speculation when a a senior officer retires early and in this case more than two years early about what the reason for that is. So I want to give you the opportunity to state in your own words on the record why it is that you're finishing your term two years early.
>> Yeah, thank you very much. Well, it's I'm resigning my office. So, and retirement is one word, but I'm certainly retiring from the public service and it's entirely my decision, uh, Senator, and I've made that very clear in my correspondence to the prime minister, but also my public statement. I've, uh, as Minister Gallagher outlined, I I've been working on public public sector reform since the 30 review. I've been involved in that. That's getting on to nine years. I I I personally think that's actually pretty good time in one's life [clears throat] to spend on a matter. I care deeply about the public sector and working I think frankly in different jobs or ways of doing that nine years is good. >> Uh I've been back uh in this role as public as secretary for public sector reform and then as public service commissioner for 3 and 3/4 years getting on to four years. That's actually to my mind a pretty decent uh time to have done that job. And I've got my own life and I've talked certainly with my family. I've got other things I'd like to do in my life. And this gives me the opportunity to do that. >> I think it's uh it's always nice to leave when people are sorry to see you leave [laughter] and not glad you're leaving. So So there's that. So >> it's it's completely my decision, Senator, and I I I appreciate you your comments, but also your inquiry.
>> Just help me with my maths here. I think I heard you say three and a bit years as public service commissioner. My understanding was you were appointed in May 2023 for a 5year term. uh it's to expire in 2028.
>> Yeah, I'm I'm including that period as uh secretary for public sector reform. >> So the those two roles uh well they're related. I think they're related. Fair >> and essentially it's working on the reform program and then implementing the reform program. Senator.
>> Yeah. But obviously it was a 5year statutory appointment when it was made. Did you contemplate that you wouldn't be likely to do the full 5 years or something changed recently which
>> No, I look uh this is a private thing so you you're asking me quite personal things. My intention was to to not you know frankly I didn't think the 5 years was was necessary. Uh and it was really a matter of what would be an appropriate time to leave. I I think with the outcomes that came from the state of the service and when you look at the service actually that's actually a good time. Uh so it was there's nothing my mind hasn't changed senator. >> Sure. >> It's pretty much what was in my in my
head. >> Okay. Understood. Um and did you speak to the the minister before uh the public announcement I assume?
>> Oh yes of course. Of course senator
>> and the prime minister.
>> Yeah. Yes. Or certainly with the secretary PMC
>> right. But not the prime minister. Well,
I wrote to the prime minister and I I I assume that the I talked to the minister about it and I talked to the secretary of PNC about it and I I think that's the right way to have those conversations.
>> Okay. Do you have any role in uh your replacement?
>> No, I don't.
>> And uh so your your intention is to leave the public sector entirely. You're not um going to continue in any other
role. I I've said that I've got an interest. Uh I'll have a lifetime interest in public policy and public sector governance. That's that's kind of innate. So, but I I have no particular intentions.
>> Okay. Um and what is the process to hire a new head of the APS-C?
>> Uh so, we'll be um I'm not sure if it's been put in place yet, but u we'd be going through a a merit selection process.
>> Yeah. Will it be publicly advertised?
um those well it probably will I don't know I I haven't I haven't seen the final brief there's been some discussion across maybe Mr. Exell will have more than I on it but um I think we we are wanting an appointment where we it's an open process so that would involve some advertising I would imagine
>> Mr. Well, deputy secretary of PNC. No, I
don't have more but but it is hopeful. >> Yeah, it's a joint. It's it's run by so
it's not my area. I've taken notice.
>> Yep. Um and so has anyone been invited to apply yet or any candidates
>> Not that I'm aware of. No.
>> No, Mr. Exell. No. Um and so presumably that means no one's been interviewed yet?
>> No.
>> No. And will you, Minister, will you be relying on any of the recommendations in the Briggs report as to how to conduct this? >> Which ones will inform this process?
>> Well, the decisions been taken that it would be an open process. So that uh it would be, you know, I'm I'm hoping that we get as wild wide a field as we can. Um and that that you know would follow that that pathway. So an open process shortlisting interview uh to appointment
>> and remind me with the BRICS report did it go to public service appointments like this? I thought it was more kind of statutory boards and committees and those sorts of things.
Well, it's um it's it there are exclusions. Uh that was really around um you know um diplomatic appointments, things like that. But for public I I think for the public service commissioner um going alongside the the um what are we calling it now the merit it's a a recruit merit and transparency policy or the refreshed one of that uh
will it apply to secretaries and agency heads?
>> Well, I think it's we um >> yes, it does have we pulled in and I think it's in the documentation. I don't have it right in front of me, but about who it would uh cover when we made the announcement. But yes, and since June 22, I'm told competitive selection processes have been undertaken for the majority of secretary uh positions. majority >> there was a well I think when Senator Kennedy moved Senator >> M secretary Kennedy moved to PMNC and uh Miss Wilkinson moved to Treasury they were not competitive processes
>> because I've had an exchange with Senator Wong about this previously and she was very clear in my memory at least I don't have the hand side on me so I don't want to um misquote her but I was left with a very distinct impression that the government's view was that the Briggs report was just for boards and uh committees and such things and that the government would continue to choose secretaries and agency heads through their own process.
>> Um, let me just see if there's anything I can I know in terms of what the practice has been to to apply. Um, I'm just trying to find the relevant bit >> Yeah, sure. >> Yeah. Yeah. I think that was in our
>> Can I invite a Um Justin kerna
>> uh appoint sorry it's the Australian government appointments framework which replace the merit and transparency >> Yeah. So >> the framework applies to all appointments to comwalth public offices including secretaries, other agency heads, statutory office holders and appointments to government boards other than elected officials, appointments made under the constitution, appointments made by the governor general, commonwealth courts and tribunals, time limited office, diplomatic appointments, exeicio appointments um and it it has a few other exclusions and appointments exempted from the framework with the agreement. women of the prime minister.
>> Right. So what what is exemp is do we have the framework agreed with the prime minister and who's going to be exempt?
so that is in the is that the appointment framework? Yes. And then there's consideration now about a guidance or guidance material to accompany that. >> Yes. But but you know if for example the PM wants to make an appointment he's able to do so.
>> Yeah.
>> I mean and the the the whole >> um you know I guess part of the the approach that we've taken is that you know depending on what if you choose a closed process or you've selected an a person then you have to you know as ministers we have to justify that. Not that it's not allowed, but you have to justify and be prepared to explain the decision that it's been taken.
>> Right. Well, then that seems to me at least to be contrary to your earlier evidence, which is this process would be open. It would be consistent with the recommendations of accepted out of the Briggs report.
>> Yes.
>> Um but now you're saying maybe it won't be if the PM doesn't want it to be.
>> Well, that's not the position we're in on this appointment. We've we've reached agreement. It's an open process.
>> Yeah. You just said earlier that agency heads and secretaries would be appointed consistent with the recommendations you accepted from the BRICS report which is you know open and all the rest.
>> That's that's the starting point.
>> So this one will be but other secretary appointments in the future.
>> Then we're in hypothetical situations. What I'm telling you is this appointment will be conducted under an open process and we nobody has been approached um nobody has applied nobody's been interviewed. a completely open mind about who should fill that position
>> because some recent appointments have been through a closed process like the director general of O andi that was a closed process people were not in uh there was not open applications for that there was a selected uh number of applicants
>> was prior to the framework I think
>> right so
>> and and that's not I mean that is allowed under the framework that's that's kind of that's why we've got the framework which sets out and then ultimately uh people ministers are responsible for the appointments they make and to explain the appointment process um that they chose and why.
>> So in simple terms we the government will abide by these rules except when the prime minister doesn't wish to comply with the rules.
>> Well no I don't think that's fair. I think we've got a framework uh that allows for transparent decision making around appointments across government.
>> Okay. Um thank you. Uh, moving on to another topic. Um,
>> we might take that opportunity to rotate
the call. >> That's fine.
>> Thank you, Senator Paterson. We'll go to Senator PCO.