Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, , 6:45:35 to 8:04:34
Officials debate the growth of the public service, enterprise bargaining progress, and behavioral standards for parliamentary witnesses.
Topics: Workplace relations, Public service staffing
Speakers: Jacqui Curtis, Senator The Hon Katy Gallagher, Senator David Shoebridge, Dr Subho Banerjee, Senator The Hon Jane Hume, Alison Stott, Dr Daniel Tracey, Senator Barbara Pocock, Senator Karen Grogan, Speaker 7
>> so Minister, if I can come to you, why does the Commore still lack a consistent and comparable reporting uh framework or mechanism some way in which we are seeing a comparable report on the use of consultants, contractors and labor hire?
>> Uh well, I I believe the work we've done is is appropriate for the role that the APSC plays in this. I have a disagreement with the ANAO's interpretation of what we're trying to
>> Do you think the current devolved approach uh to financial reporting gives us enough visibility uh for for you to manage the external workforce across the APS as a whole?
>> Well, we can talk about this at um when finance get here. Um but that's the way the PGPA act has established uh the accountabilities for the public service is that um you know secretaries are the accountable authorities for decisions made around um you know their financial arrangements, how they work within budget. Um you know would I like more central control about some of this? um you're asking a minister from a central agency. Um I think that would be contested but you know what we're trying to do is the role that finance and APSC can bring to this uh is as much guidance uh as we can centrally uh and then uh ensure that the accountable authorities understand that and are doing what they need to do. But it would be contested I would imagine between even at at ministerial level I would
think >> perhaps we will return to that when finance are in the room. >> Um I want to go to an ethics the KPMG ethics contract. Um uh it's contract number CN 4030135. It's worth 1.27 million. It provided training on ethics and leadership for the top public servants, 300 of them through the APSC by KPMG. I've raised concerns about this contract in previous estimates and uh in the middle of the year I wrote to you minister demanding or suggesting requesting that the contract cease. It it was didn't stand up to any kind of pub test I can think of to have uh a multi-billion dollar operation clearly shown in the public square to be in breach of ethics requirements engaging in coverups and unable to manage whistleblowers with anything like a decent response. Um, I understand the contracts OS tender page was updated in August to say the contract ended on the 31st of July this year, not in December as originally planned. Can you confirm that this contract has ceased and that KPMG is no longer delivering the truth?
>> Yes, Senator, we can confirm that that contract has ceased.
>> That's good to know. Can you give us some information about the circumstances and the timing of the termination?
>> So, Senator, the contract ceased on 31st
Now, do you want to tell me why you
>> Uh, well, we were notified, Senator, that um, as is common in these contracts, particularly when we're thinking about uh, capability development or or leadership. Uh, it's common in these contracts to have specified personnel. So people that are particularly qualified and uh that are assessed at the time of the tender process uh to be particularly suitable for think for the delivery of these pro uh programs uh in association with the APS-C. So we were notified that there were going to be some changes in specified personnel in the KPMG contract. Uh at that time we reassessed because as as in fact we've canvased previously at at this committee uh KPMG had previously been using people that were very wellqualified including in the APS in terms of previous APS senior staff. When we were notified that the specified personnel were about to change uh we reassessed our position at that time. This is common when specified personnel change. That's a reasonable time for uh for the government in this case the department to think about whether or not it goes uh whether or not it provides approval for different specified personnel. Uh at that time given the broader context we made the decision that we would cease the contract. We were in a position where the remaining deliveries of that program were able to be handled inhouse. uh as I've covered with you previously, we had been in a co-f facilitation arrangement around the program in any case uh and we were able to assess that we would be able to handle the remaining months in house from there.
>> And have you um contracted a new provider?
>> We have not. Um we have not, Senator, to go to market uh as I said uh previously for the leadership programs we it's a long-standing practice and common to the way these sorts of leadership programs are done in the private sector in the public sector in different places to uh to partner with external experts to get external perspectives uh about leadership about different sectors about different approaches. uh that is a model that we have found to be very successful in the past. Uh we've mentioned before that we've partnered with a range of different external uh organizations, universities, expert bodies, Anzog, other other uh partners like that. We still think that is a a good model and so we would intend to go to market.
>> Have you got any other contracts at the moment with KPMG?
>> There is a a technical contract on the finance side with KPMG
>> and is that continuing?
>> I'll ask Dr. Tracey to provide some more information on that.
>> So before um Dr. Tracey answers that though, Senator, just wanted to comment on the um course that you've been asking about and some of our other courses. Um going forward, well, I've spoken to the academy staff about what we will be doing and our approach going forward is going to be trying to use subject matter experts from within the public service to help with the delivery of programs and to partner with agencies who have the expertise to be able to help us in this space. So whilst we still will use um partnerships with external providers, we're looking to reduce that.
>> Anything internal? >> I'm going to need to rotate. >> Sure. I can just hear about any other side.
>> certainly Senator I can be succinct. So the one other contract that the commission has with KPMG is uh to value of $86,000. It's for technical IT assistance with one of the um financial systems in the back end of the commission's IT.
>> And has there been any extension to that contract in recent times? Not that I'm
aware of, but I can take that on notice.
Senator, >> thank you. Let me know if you have.
>> Um I'm going to take the opportunity to encourage senators to consider um the questions they need to ask, which is totally fine, and any questions they may have a burning desire to place on notice given where we're at in the schedule. And I'll go to Senator Hugh.
>> Thank you, Chair. I I have got some questions that I'll put on notice, but I do want to just clear up two things. First of all, I want to understand the process that the APS-C has established to act on the agreed ANAO recommendations to improve the
framework. So, Senator, the the recommendation that was agreed was particularly about reporting uh implementation, trying to streamline uh how agencies can report on strategic commissioning matters. We're working with the department of finance as I mentioned in one of the previous answers to just think about what the uh the easiest way to do that is given uh that it doesn't necessarily come through the existing finance accounting classifications.
>> Yeah. Okay. Is there a time frame on
>> Uh that work will be ongoing with the department of finance senator.
>> Okay. Minister, you just said that you fundamentally disagree with the ANAO on this. How can we have any faith that the ANO's recommendations are going to be acted on if the relevant minister doesn't agree with the findings?
>> Um well the the position the recommendations and status have have already been agreed. Um it just gives me and I've also said twice that we would consider the audit report uh in our thinking about you know next steps essentially. So we it will inform our thinking. >> Okay. But I don't want to set up a process where people agencies are essentially punished or fail to reach you know targets or you know because of we've got a framework that doesn't might not after the first couple of years adequately reflect where we're at with core work. I mean I just want the core work done in the APS. That's all I want. I don't want it outsourced. core work should be done by public servants for the public service in the public interest and that's what I want to make sure whatever we have
want to be very clear finance only noted that recommendation and didn't agree to it why didn't your department agree
>> to what particular recommendation
>> the first recommendation uh senator was a recommendation for the Australian government it's conventional when there's a recommendation to the government rather than to a department that that recommendation is noted rather than agreed. Fair enough. That the second recommendation was to the APS-C and we agreed that uh again it's conventional for a response that is directed to a agency or a department for that to be agreed or not agreed.
>> Okay. So that won't preclude the APS-C from working with the department of finance even if the department of finance only to the recommendation rather than
>> on recommendation one. So recommendation one is a matter for finance and they're about to follow us. Uh Senator in recommendation two which was sent to the APSC we've agreed it there is work to be done on the implementation and streamlining. We will absolutely do that. We're underway in doing it.
>> All right minister can I ask if you still believe that the public service is appropriately sized. I know that you've said that a few times and repeated it a few times. It's currently around 217 2,200 I don't have >> or so for the financial year 26 27
>> uh yes I don't have that number right in front of me but it's around that if all
>> and that is appropriately sized
>> I think it is for the nature of the work um and you can see that I think in budget paper 4 uh which shows the you know relatively modest growth of the public sector uh as a percentage of the population overall um and it's it's smaller now relatively than it was in 2006. It's doing a lot more things. I mean, I accept that you're going to cut some of those like all climate policy. Um, fair enough. But we we think, you know, supporting the economic transition is important, but the NDIS, you know, is something that hasn't been done previously. Our expenditure in defense, our, you know, the the population that the services Australia is um servicing and supporting, all of that has changed. And it's unrealistic to expect that you can do that. and you know cap growth down at an unreasonable level where services suffer uh and workloads are unreasonable and we get where we got last time which is core work being outsourced and policy failures like robo
>> it's growing the public service is growing at 28 people per day right since you came to >> it's 28 people per day so I think your idea of modest growth and your average everyday citizens idea of modest growth of public
>> well I don't know where you get that number from Um, Senator Hume, I've, you know, I've kind of have to accept that when these are thrown out in political kind of contests that, you know, we may have a different view to you. But realistically, what happened under your government was you suppressed APS numbers and outsourced the work and it often was more expensive and uh there was a failure of transparency about what was going on. We have sought to repair that and we're seeing it in satisfaction with government service numbers with people getting their payments on time uh with um you know work and programs actually being delivered as opposed to being announced and then not delivered. I mean, you know, across the board, we can see the benefits of this accepting that you disagree. You see it as a cheap way uh and a cheap political way of making a point and, you know, allegedly saving money when you weren't saving money. You were just outsourcing it.
>> So, let me just be very clear on the numbers. When the coalition left office, there was 171,938 members of the APS. There's now 217,256. That's 28 people a day. So that's where the mathematics comes from. I want to understand though, Minister, upon the release of the APS-wide bargaining offer of 9% over 3 years, you were quoted as saying that it was, and I'm quoting you here, fair and reasonable in a constrained fiscal environment. Uh Minister, the public service total wages bill in the budget is is very fiscally constrained. It's actually got negative growth each year from 20 728 through to 2930.
>> This is probably a matter for um finance. We are straying into how agencies report against their financial budgets.
>> Well, I am interested in finding out how >> We'll get there some how you can square up a declining wages bill with a public service that's an appropriate size after a 9% offer over the same period.
Uh well, it'll be done as it's been done under governments of all persuasions. Um we have not changed the reporting of that or the way we index departments and expect them to find uh to make allowances for wage increases. It's the standard way that it's been done. Certainly as long as I can recall, we have not made a single change to that. And in addition, I mean, I I know you have a view about the size of the public service overall. You were spending the money on wages. You just weren't reporting it as public to outsourced labor.
>> I'm just trying to make the numbers add up, Minister. The independent PBO in its medium-term budget outlook released in July this year >> highlighted that in the current budget baseline ASL would be around 189,000 at the end of the forward estimates and 176 at the end of the medium term. So that is what you have budgeted. That's a 41,200 cut to the public service in your budget.
>> We Well, we can come back to that, but that is squarely a matter for finance and I can deal with that when we get
>> Okay. We I hope we will cuz it's a billion dollar black hole for one of a better and we can find [clears throat] out. But can I ask um specifically um has the government set a target date eliminate that fragment? Well, I should actually no I should better ask the pay now that the payoffer is out commissioner um what are the next steps in that bargaining process and when do you expect finalization?
Thank you, Senator. I have the chief negotiator here for the enterprise agreement who can take you through those answers to those questions
>> Uh thank you, Senator. So, we have made um substantial process progress. It is um quite a big uh process. We have over 1,900 claims from nine unions and over 280 individual bargaining reps. We have um listened to all those claims in good faith in the bargaining room. We have tabled 95% of preliminary positions um and we're just working through with bargaining parties now negotiating what the final offer and package will be um and working through feedback from bargaining parties. There have been a number of topics that we've brought back to the bargaining room several times um as we've been receiving feedback and refining. Parental leave was one of those. We've taken back to the bargaining room twice now after receiving feedback from bargaining parties. So we are we've tabled on our website our meeting dates which go out um I think to December um at this point but we are working with bargaining parties as quickly as we can. noting that enterprise agreements do have a common expiry date at the end of February next year. We have 108 agencies that are participating um that I'm chief negotiator for across the APS and two nonAPS agencies as well that are part of
that process. when you um uh do the bargaining, is there an understanding that the numbers of APS employees will be reduced as part of the pay deal?
>> Uh I would say Senator um we we work obviously within appropriations of departments. that agency lead negotiators that I brief every Friday um have an understanding that they will need to fund enterprise agreements within their current um appropriations
>> which comes with a reduction in numbers.
>> The answer is no. Indexation arrangements apply to entities and they are funded for programs and delivery you know that they've asked been asked to do by government. this the the wage offer is not conditional on reducing job numbers.
>> Okay. But job numbers will be reduced and dare I say your colleague Senator uh Minister O'Neil said so this morning on television that cuts to the public service were part of the savings package that you are considering.
>> Well, I haven't seen her transcript. Um so I'm I can't comment on that. Um what I'm saying is that we think the public and I have said this a number of times the public service is roughly the right size up and down in particular agencies there will be movements over time uh but it's roughly the right size resourced appropriately and the wage offer that we have provided um is in line with that
>> but it doesn't add up.
>> Well you are asserting that
>> your budget papers assert.
>> No they don't Senator Hume. All right.
I'm looking forward to finding a reconciliation on a 9% pay rise of 217,000 strong APS
>> and we don't agree with the PBO analysis and we can have that discussion in finance.
>> Right. And we are going to move the call. Um and I would just please we are trying to get to finance. So if we can keep the finance questions for finance and maybe um get through the questions that people have for these witnesses so that we can let them go. They've been here for a very long time. We are about two hours over the mark in terms of where we should be. Senator PCO,
>> thank you. Um, my colleague Senator Shoebridge is about to walk in the door and I will give over to him. But can I just ask in bargaining is a trial of a 4-day working week being considered as >> I see some shaking of the head.
>> So, we have um we [snorts] have tabled a preliminary position to those claims. um senator that we have not accepted those claims is our preliminary position. We do have um staff have access to flexible working arrangements which includes condensed working weeks and part-time arrangements. That's on an individual basis. That's what we put to the bargaining room, but obviously we're still bargaining in good faith on all topics at this point.
>> Thank you. I've got a bunch of other questions I'll put in on notice, but I'll hand over to Senator Shoebridge.
>> Thanks, B. Appreciate that. Um good to see you all. Uh I was going to ask you about the submission that I think um you're a part of to the parliamentary joint committee on parliamentary standards. >> Probably doesn't come as a great surprise to you, Commissioner. I'll be asking you questions about that. >> Yeah. What was your role in the creation
of that submission? Uh well, Senator, I am part of the secretar's board and there was a discussion as was um uh talked about last night by secretary Kennedy and staff from PMNC at one of the first secretary boards I attended. I think it was the July um meeting and secretaries considered whether they would make a submission. There was agreement that they would and then PMNC as they explained last night took the lead on coordinating that submission. Um the draft of that was sent out to all secretaries and myself and the um CEO of the NIAA. We were asked for comments back on that. We did provide some comments back from the APSC. Um and then as was explained last night that was circulated again before being finalized and submitted to the committee.
>> What was the nature of your your
level, Senator, um we just wanted to clarify what the position of the commissioner was with regard to the board. So, basically making sure that was clear what that was in any submission that went forward. We also highlighted our obligations under work health and safety laws. And I think there was one [clears throat] other element to this. I think Dr. Tracey coordinated the response on our behalf. So the third element was
>> it just went to um Senator just went to some of the um the examples listed on one of the pages of the submissions and it was effectively a comment I recall to the effect of um just making sure those examples were clear so that the committee had the benefit of knowing exactly what the submission was drawing attention to
>> and accurate
>> Well, [clears throat] I mean you must have had something in your mind when you put your name to it. You must have understood what these various elements of the submission meant. I'm assuming you adopted them and understood them
when you put your name to it. >> Senator, I mean, I think the intent of the submission was we uh wanted to provide something that would highlight concerns that had been brought forward by us or that we had witnessed ourselves. not that went to the sort of robust discussion, accountability, free flowing questioning that you would have in a Senate committee or any parliamentary committee, but where concerns have been array uh raised with us about where these issues went to the well-being of our officers who are witnesses. And so we put forward some examples of where we had seen this in practice and some concerns particularly as was canvased yesterday at PMC hearing on this um about issues around the way in which um things were communicated that had gone on in proceedings in social media and the fairness and accuracy of those and the harm that could be caused if those were misrepresented or if tools are available on social media. for example, comments etc. were prolific and could cause harm to the officers that would under the at the estimates committee hearings or in other parliamentary procedures.
>> In the course of the meeting with the secretaries, did any secretary identify an instance where they'd raised an issue with a committee chair, raised an issue with a committee and it hadn't been addressed?
>> Not that I recall, Senator. Can I can I
ask then how it is that a group of secretaries and yourself who are used to sitting here understanding the exchange between committees respectful treatment of the chair. how you put pen to paper making these allegations, making these propositions without ever once doing the due process of raising the issue with a committee chair or or or or raising these concerns. Are you aware of a single instance where that was done?
>> Well, I am I am where I I am and frankly I think you know I don't um need to weigh in on the submission. I wasn't aware of the submission before it became public. Um, but I have seen public servants treated appallingly in these hearings by senators. I have seen public servants scared to attend hearings because of the way they've been treated. I have seen public servants essentially called liars by people. And when the record is sought to change or to be corrected, when a public servant has gone back and checked that to make sure that everything was in order and the evidence they were given and written to a committee and what happens? Nothing. Nothing. So their their reputation gets clipped and put on a video and sent around the place and it's all very funny to drive clicks, but their professional reputation has been tarnished and there is no answer from the Senate committee. So I
>> Well, Minister, I've never
>> Senator Shu, we will allow the minister and then you will have um have your
>> So I think there is an issue about how Senate committees operate. Uh yes, it's robust. Yes, I'm used to it. But public servants turn up here to do the job [clears throat] that we ask them to do, to answer questions, to be treated respectfully. And I don't think that is always the case, Senator Schub. And I think it has got to a point >> where secretaries have raised these concerns because it's not necessarily about secretaries. It's about the people that they employ and it's about a safe workplace and I don't think this place offers a self safe workplace uh at all times and I you know I think that's a legitimate issue to raise.
>> Well, Minister, I'm I'm not aware of a single instance where a matter's been raised where I'm a member of a committee uh concerns have been raised. I'm not aware of a single instance in my experience and admittedly I've only been here since 2022 and admittedly I don't sit on every committee but I'm not aware of a single instance of a committee that I'm involved in where a matter has been brought to the attention of the committee and it has not been treated with um seriousness um and has not been addressed and indeed I'm not aware of an instance apart from uh uh bureaucrats seeking quite reasonably to correct an answer where they think they may have misspoken. I'm not aware of an instance in my experience that in any way accords with your proposition where a bureaucrat has suggested that they've been inappropriately called a liar and there's been no no clarification. I'm simply I'm just saying from my experience in four years in the multiple committees I've said not seen something that comes even close to that.
>> Well, I have repeatedly
>> Senator Shouage I have to say that I have too.
>> Yeah.
>> Where a committee refused to correct
>> where a particular senator has refused to continue to attack a a person, you
>> well, this is quite a different point from what I was raising. I'm I have seen senators behave badly and I'm not going to deny that, Minister. I've seen it. I think our job is in the moment to correct that. But it's a different point that I'm putting to you. Your point is that you're aware of formal processes having gone through, issues being raised, and committees not addressing them. >> And I am unaware of those. And in my experience, not only would it be extraordinarily out of character for the committees that I've been a part of who take their job seriously, the chairs who I respect, I've never seen that happen.
>> Well, I have. And
>> well,
>> you know, and the damage is done in the hearing or in the clip of the video. Um, [clears throat] you know, if a public servant seems to correct or explain or contest a fact that was put to them and deals with that through a letter weeks later, the damage has been done. The damage has been done. And I have spent hours here with public servants being treated appallingly. And I try to offer protection and say, "Hang on a minute. Cool it down. Let's not let's not behave this way." But the reality is in the last term in particular >> behavior of of senators in these forums has on occasion I think created an unsafe workplace for public servants.
>> I come back to my question to the
>> Senator,
>> did did a single secretary identify an instance such as the minister has just said and are you aware of any instance such as the minister has just said before this submission was drafted and and submitted to a parliamentary
committee? Senator, the uh way in which the submission was formulated was that the secretaries and myself and the CEO of the NIAA were asked to provide content and examples back to PMNC who then coordinated the submission. You asked me about the discussion in the room on that day and I said that I did not believe that there was somebody that raised that particular issue in the room. There were senators h sorry there were secretaries who raised issues such as the use of social media and the experience of witnesses in committee hearings but there was not to my uh the way in which I recall it anybody who raised that particular issue. Having said that, in some of the content that was provided back to Piermancy, my understanding is that there were examples provided including where examples had been raised where senators had actually gone online and then moderated things in the social media clips. So just to pick up your point where things are raised, I do think there is consideration given to correcting these issues. But specifically on your issue of somebody going back to a committee and raising an issue, I do not have any examples of that that I can provide to you, Senator.
>> And in that in K, can I just jump in there because it is an important discussion like in the issue that you in the situation where after you've appeared, someone clips your evidence in a way that tells a different story or tells a a a story that the person who's doing the clipping wants to say. What rights do the public servants have then? I mean, the damage is done. The the the most significant issues I have around personal safety are as the result at times of clips from Senate estimates that are clicked in a particular way to tell a particular story that have that set off whatever we want clickbait on on uh online. Well,
Minister, that's
>> and what right do public servants have then? D uh Senator Shoebridge, their damage has been done.
>> That that is one view of it. You call it clickbait. >> Um I I let me finish. I'll let you >> Um there is an obligation I think all of us have when we're communicating these matters online um to to make sure the communication genuinely represents what happens. That is an agreed position. But the suggest but well that's my position. Fair enough. It may not be your position. I think it's your position and
I'm not trying to put words. It's not followed by everybody.
>> I'm not but but that that I think is a basic standard we should respect. But I have seen multiple instances where the evidence that's been given has been discursive, indirect, um uh not responsive to the answers. And the frustration that I've felt, I've seen the frustration felt by other um other senators is palpable and real. You can feel it in the room. The frustration that direct questions are getting indirect answers and obfiscation and and it is quite reasonable to share that with the public because your wages, my wages, the commissioner's wages are paid for by the public. I'm >> and when answers are not gi when answers are given of that nature they will attract criticism and I would suggest that one of the clearest ways to avoid that criticism is for public servants to give direct unambiguous to the extent you can answers to direct and
the secretary's board submission was very clear that our expectation is that witnesses [clears throat] will give full and frank answers to the best of their knowledge in committee hearings. And we were no in no way suggesting that officers shouldn't be accountable and shouldn't provide that information. We were the intention of this was to bring to the attention of the committee looking at the behavioral standards and code circumstances and concerns around the well-being and safety of our officers appearing and asking Senator for the committee and for parliamentarians to consider that with respect to your own code of behavior and standards. But what you do with that, what the committee does with that and what decisions they make is entirely up to them. But I still stand by this submission because we have an obligation as the leaders of the public service and in particular and my in my role as the public service commissioner to be very diligent in making sure that our staff are not exposed to things that can harm their well-being. We are not in any way and I think the submission is very very clear trying to prevent witnesses giving full and frank answers in a committee hearing.
>> Well well part of your >> Senator Shou I I'm going to have to pull you up there because we're 5 minutes over. We have a private meeting which was to start at 4:00 to deal with another matter and then we have a break. We are you know solid two and a half hours behind our schedule. Um and so the committee will also consider where we go from here uh in our agenda. Um but further questions I I can't it's down to I have more questions. >> Well, in which case you're more than welcome to join us for the private meeting. We will break now um and we will return at 4:30 to enable the committee to um uh conduct a private meeting. I will ask everybody clear the room for that purpose. Um and we'll come back to you public service commission about how long >> now um how long and when you may be >> Welcome back everybody. Um we will have one very short and succinct block of questions uh from Senator Schub and then we will let you go and we will move to
verbal by the chair, but I'll endeavor to um to to keep to
>> I'm merely going on the promises you made to me.
>> Um thank you. Um Commissioner, I have been asking you questions about this this submission. Um, one of the matters that I I might say causes me some unease and it reads a bit sovereign citizen um from the submission is you say on page six, recognizing the evidence provided to a committee is on the public record, these officials have not consented to a subsequent use of their image or its use by parliamentarians and their political parties for party political purposes. >> Um, what why did you include that in your communication?
Um, Senator, I feel that these issues were canvased last night with Secretary Kennedy and um, really the submission is quite clear as to what our intention was when putting this forward to your committee or the committee that's looking at the behavioral standards and the behavior.
>> I am having trouble hearing you. It's maybe it's the Yeah, that's much clearer.
>> Right. What I just wanted to say was um that yesterday evening these issues were all canvased with Secretary Kennedy and members of the um Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and witnesses. The submission speaks for itself. I don't have anything to add that's different to what's in the submission. And um I believe that it's now up to the joint committee that's looking at the parliamentary standards and inquiring into the operation and effectiveness of the behavior codes to look at the submission take it on its merits and determine what course of action if any which suggestions if any it would like to take up and I also believe that it's incumbent on all parliamentarians to think about some of the issues we've raised and how they address them personally um or implement any of the suggestions that we've put forward here.
>> Um well, of course, Mr. Kennedy can give his evidence as one of the signitaries of this. You understand? I'm asking you for your evidence as one of the signitaries of this. And um and and that is actually the purpose of this exchange, not from not for for you to repeat the fact that Mr. Kennedy gave evidence, but I'm interested in your evidence. You understand the difference?
>> Yes.
and and I I I will continue to ask questions about this until I do get an answer from you do understand that this process is a democratic process.
>> Yes, Senator.
>> And that most but not all of the senators engaged in this are members of political parties. >> Yes, Senator. and that um indeed being members of political parties is one of the ways we engage in the democratic process. Do you do you understand that? on what basis were were you saying and what did you intend to achieve from making the statement that these officials have not consented to a subsequent use of their image or its use by parliamentarians and their political parties for party political purposes? What were you hoping to achieve by saying that public officials have not given such consent? What was
the purpose of that? I think senator it just goes to the fact that um when giving evidence officials are very well of their aware of their obligations under the witness guidelines but they not are not necessarily consenting to images of themselves or some of the uh evidence they are giving in committees framed or shaped in a way that could be >> used for [clears throat] to um I guess support a a particular political view and that's what the clipping of these um recordings and broadcastings of are doing in some instances is my understanding of the examples that were given. So that's my understanding of
is often a political contest. It's a political contest public service. >> It's a political contest about how resources are being used. It's a political contest about how the government is directing resources. It's a political context about whether issues that are serious for people in their lives are being properly addressed. It it is not it is not the job of officials to be telling politicians that they can't use the evidence that's being given to address matters of politics. The these are the officials may not be engaged. >> No senator can I I would the phrase here is four party political
and let me respond.
God,
>> You've had a sermon and a question.
>> I have given an answer which is my understanding of what you've asked me. If you disagree with that, that's totally acceptable. That's your prerogative. My interpretation of this is that when officials come to committees or hearings or appear in front of parliamentary committees, they need to um respond to questions and give evidence that is accurate and clear and transparent. That is the responsibility they have and they need to abide by the official witness guidelines which is what they do in doing that. What then can happen in certain circumstances, which is what we were drawing your attention to, is that is then broadcast or used to communicate to the public and that is totally acceptable. But the official guidelines for those broadcasting is that it needs to be fair and it needs to be accurate. And what we are saying here is that sometimes the transmissions whether they are on social media or [clears throat] in other types of media format are not fair and accurate. And then what that can do is potentially mislead people because things are taken out of context or do not give the full answer to a question which can then be used to support a particular political view. That's what we were trying to raise. But as I said previously, the intent of the secretar's board submission was to raise concerns about some of the behavior in committees which is harming officials either from a mental health perspective or uh potentially eroding their confidence to appear at these committees by humiliating them, demeaning them, etc. Now, that may not have happened in your committees, Senator Schub, but we've heard evidence here even today from other senators that they've witnessed this. And we were also raising concerns over the use of social media. And as I have said previously, it is incumbent on the secretar's board as the most senior leaders of the public service to make sure that we are fulfilling our obligations under the work health and safety act and we are raising these concerns so that our officers are treated respectfully and are given every opportunity to have information that reflects what they have said in a committee hearing. trans I guess transmitted if that's the word you'd like to use but communicated in an accurate and fair way and that's the intent of the submission. It does not by any means go to us uh trying to
>> circumvent
>> circumvent or um stop frank and fearless advice discussion answering of questions in these committees. Well, well, you
see, Commissioner, none of what you just said would be objected to if it was included in the submission, but your submission went well beyond that. It didn't put those caveats in about um unfair, misleading, um inaccurate. It simply said these officials have not consented to a subsequent use of their image or its use by parliamentarians and their political parties for party political purposes. Well, that's one element of the >> commissioner. It's a very different proposition that's in your submission to what you just gave as an answer. How do you explain that?
>> Senator, I've answered the question. I
just I'm going to intervene here. >> Senator Shoebridge, I appreciate where >> Um, the witness has answered the question a number of times in a very consistent fashion. I've read that document. I appreciate that you're picking one piece out of it. There is a range of things within that document. It is a submission and as the witnesses says, it is up to you to either accept it, reject it or whatever. It has been put to a committee who is considering these things. The committee will weigh up what they believe to be valuable in that submission and will do as they see fit with it.
>> I I just look I don't want to have you know extend this in any way. I don't think it is the role of the chair to make commentary like that. Um, but I'm happy for you if you what you're asking for is for the the assistance of the committee to move on. If that's what your core request is, I'm happy to comply with that.
>> Thank you very much, Senator Schub. I appreciate that. >> Yes, you may, Minister.
>> In the break, I've also remembered um further representations, including letters that have been sent to committees, not this one, uh, objecting to behavior that occurred in committees to no outcome. So, I think letters have been written, issues have been raised. Uh and the reality is um Senator She if if what you seek is uh a better engagement in Senate estimates whatever your criticism might be I don't think the way they're operating now is going to elicit that you know because people are scared people are leaving the public service because they don't want to come to Senate [clears throat] estimates and essentially be bullied harassed demeaned and ridiculed by senators. Um well any
of that any of that is unacceptable and and and suggesting that that is in any um been um the proposition from any senator that that is acceptable is I think it's a straw man argument but what I would suggest is for these to have the benefit for the public which is ultimately what this is meant to be about clear answers and commissioner I as you characterize them clear direct and accurate answers is the simplest way forward to make these these these sessions timely, give the public confidence in the public sector, and to allow for us to do our job as efficiently and respectfully as possible. Um, this is a two-way street, and if we are at the end of all of this getting to a point where we recognize it's a two-way street, I think that's a very useful advantage.