Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, , 8:38:48 to 8:47:37
Examination of the submission's proposal to give committee chairs more power to manage senator conduct and the use of accusatory language.
Topics: Workplace culture, Integrity, Public service staffing
Speakers: Hon Jane Hume, Andrew Walter, Dr Steven Kennedy, Unknown Speaker
>> We'll go to Senator Hume. >> Thanks, Chair. Just back to the uh secretary's board submission. Uh on page seven of the submission under strengthened chair responsibilities, the submission asks parliament to consider allowing chairs to refuse senators the call and giving them the powers to remove parliamentarians. Now with full respect to the chair we have at this estimates hearing um the chair is ordinarily a a government senator. So I find it uh quite confronting that the head of the public service is proposing that a government chair should have the ability to remove an opposition senator from questioning an official or a secretary too robustly. Is that what this is saying?
Senator, no, that's not what it's saying. I mean, if you read that full par paragraph, uh, it says the committee may also wish to consider if there is value in giving the chairs power to remove parliamentarians participating in committees who have acted inappropriately. >> And of course, it's matter for the the parliament to determine that standard, which you've done through the uh the standards and the code. It then goes on of course to say that this should only be used where all other approaches have failed. Sorry, where other approaches I don't want to overate but other approaches have failed.
>> Yes. So the standards and the code obviously are things that are relevant outside of the chamber and the committee inquiry is a subset of the chamber really. So I'm not entirely sure how
>> I'm sorry. I don't >> well I quite understand that
>> you've said that this is for committee members who engage in behavior that is inconsistent with the behavior standards and the behavior code but the behavior standards and the behavior code are any relevant to behavior outside of the This is a subset of the chamber. A committee is a subset of the chamber. Parliamentary privilege paramount here.
>> Yes. I don't disagree with that. >> I think what we're saying is where you've got so I was using that as an example. But if we have behavior, so the the secretaries have concerned about two things. So one had been is the one we've talked about a fair bit which is social media. Um but the other is uh in relation to the conduct of some senators in relation to well not just senators sorry parliamentarians in relation to those who appear before committees and where that behavior is abusive or it's bullying or um it's otherwise uh inappropriate from a a parliamentary sense or in terms of the the control of the committee. That's the type of circumstance the secretaries were concerned about and whether whether and it's a question mark this whole thing is a question mark for the committee whether there should be greater powers for committee chairs to deal with that kind of egregious behavior.
>> The Ky chairs has the same power as the president of the senate in this room. Yes. So I think they've already got whatever powers the president of the senate would have.
>> So I'm not I'm not going to fight with you over senate powers. You would know them much better than I would. But um we're we're trying to say you know should there be better guidance or instructions for chairs on how to how to do that.
>> So can I ask then obviously you didn't consult the cler of the senate before this document was prepared. We know that because the cler when con um asked about it suggested that perhaps it was a um and I'm putting words into his mouth here but u an overreach on behalf of the secretary's board. Can I ask whether you received any legal advice whatsoever on this whether it was from the Australian government solicitor or anybody else before you decided to to submit this document?
so the department did not seek legal advice in relation to the submission uh but it was broadly consulted across
>> Okay. So, the submission identifies accusations of hiding information and covering up for the government or being a liar among the conduct that it wants addressed. Uh, I'm interested in the board's position that a senator should never be able to put to an official that the evidence that they're giving is untrue.
>> That's that's not our position, Senator. Of course, if a if a senator believes um that an official is uh it's a very serious accusation but is lying or doing something along those lines, then you have an obligation, of course, to address those issues. Um um once again, perhaps we could have worded it more effectively. We're just en encouraging people to consider not using that type of language in an easy ongoing manner. Um but of course if if you felt that any particular um official was lying, you have obligations to to address that issue. We're not saying it can never be used. We just are concerned that it was we're
seeing a pattern of use. If uh a senator believes that an official has led misled a committee, how does the board propose that they test that evidence?
>> Well, if a senator truly believes they have misled the committee, then of course they should raise it. We we we didn't that's part of robust, it can be done, it can be done robust um um um uh and vigorous and you have those obligations. We're not suggesting in any way that you wouldn't pursue an official who you thought was misleading the Senate in any way.
>> Well, there's no standing order that would prevent them from doing that. Certainly.
>> Well, I mean, we're I guess we're in furious agreement about what your proper u powers and obligations are, and you should pursue them to the fullest extent as you see fit. Um um we were providing some ideas for this committee to consider uh how best to um do that in a respectful way and for us to be able to have the type of conversation we're having today. um rather than a than a you know it it's not a pattern I've personally experienced but certainly my some of my colleagues have seen a different tone at times and we're just encouraging a more productive type of tone that we're having today.
>> I suppose there is a sort of a gray area It is um an understanding and perhaps you can clarify this for me that >> [clears throat] >> um departmental officials have spent time potentially with consultants or have training as to how they present their evidence to committees. Is are you aware of any time that there has been training as to how to present evidence in a particular light or has there been anybody hired to assist committees sorry to assist officials presenting their evidence?
>> The Australian Public Service Commission is training for officials who are going to appear in front of um uh committees because they need to be as I was discussing with Senator PCO fully aware of their responsibilities under the guidelines. they have to be ready and prepared to answer questions and uh and um and respond [clears throat] to senators who um uh who are seeking information in more concise way for example. So that training is offered particularly to junior uh public servants. um I'm not aware of and would very concerned if I there were there was any examples of any training going on that was trying to help officials deliberately conceal uh information that would be not only concerning but also
illegal. Senator, can I just add something which is I think the conduct that secretaries were concerned about is when robust questioning which could go to accuracy or uh uh the details of a program or policy turn into personal attacks on the public servant. So absolutely test the validity of what is being said. But then there seems to be in some of the examples we saw this easy jump to you're lying, you're deliberately misleading. It's it's then becomes a you are a liar, you have no morals. That type of character attack or character insinuation, not if I withdraw the word attack, character insinuation that secretaries were concerned about less the robust questioning of whether we were get getting it right or giving you the information that you were looking