Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, , 4:01:06 to 4:23:16
The APSC responds to media reports on pregnancy discrimination and provides updates on the PwC tax leak integrity investigation.
Topics: Integrity, Workplace culture
Speakers: Jacqui Curtis, Senator The Hon Katy Gallagher, Dr Daniel Tracey, Senator Barbara Pocock, Jo Talbot, Dr Nicole Steele, Interjection, Senator Karen Grogan, Senator The Hon Jane Hume
So, welcome to Miss Curtis, uh, Australian Public Service Commissioner and other officers who are appearing here with you. Um, and also, uh, the Australian government consulting, there we go. Um, officers. Thank you all for attending. Do you have an opening statement, Miss Curtis?
>> Yes, thank you, Senator. I would like to make an opening statement and thank you for the opportunity. Um, before I begin though, I would just like to join my colleagues in wishing the member for Indie, uh, Dr. Helen Hayne strength and every support in her recovery following the tragic attack in Wangorata last Monday. Uh as you're aware, this is my first appearance uh before the committee as the Australian Public Service Commissioner, having commenced in the role in early June, 9th of June this year. Um I would like to acknowledge and thank Dr. Schubo Bajerie for acting as the commissioner before my commencement, including representing the commission at this um Senate hearing on a previous appearance. My immediate focus uh as the new commissioner has been on three things. planning for the future of the APS, building our people and capability, and keeping integrity at the center of how we work and deliver. The government has been very clear about its ambition for the APS to be a model employer, and the current APS-wide bargaining round is an important part of delivering on that ambition. It is about a sustainable employment offer that helps the APS to attract, retain, and develop the people and capabilities that it needs. That ambition extends to how we plan for and invest in our workforce. We are building on the strong foundations of APS reform work already undertaken, focusing on core public service skills and practical support to help agencies prepare for the workforce of the future. That includes preparing the APS to use emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence responsibly and effectively. Capability, as we know, goes hand inhand with integrity. The APS has strong integrity foundations, and my focus is on keeping integrity at the center of our work, embedding it in everyday decisions, behaviors, and workplace culture. Where matters do warrant further investigation, the commission will continue its statutory responsibilities and undertake them appropriately, proportionately, and with impartiality. I look forward to discussing the work of the APS commission with the committee today and at future hearings. Thank you.
>> estimates in general. >> Um we will start with Senator Hume.
Thank you. Thank you chair. Thank you Mr. Curtis. Uh first of all I want to ask a question of the minister here >> um about the and I'm I think you've had
questions about it earlier today. the four corners reporting last weekend of widespread discrimination of pregnant public servants and public servants returning from maternity leave. I suppose I want to ask first when you first became aware or you were approached for comment or were you approached for comment prior to the publication of that four corners
>> Uh I'd have to check that. I don't recall being approached. I wasn't asked to um
>> participate
>> participate. Um I will check with the media team on that. Um, I think I just became aware when they promote the the show ahead of normal programming. I think it's usually on the morning of the day, the the day, the evening that that goes to air.
the report showed that 24 public servants made have made the extraordinary step to go to the media with claims of being demoted or denied flexibility, turned down for promotion or refused a comfortable place to breastfeed, being made redundant or let go after they fell pregnant or took parental leave. Um I'm interested to know whether this is something that public service takes seriously. is at the tip of the iceberg and whether the APSC is aware of this systemic issue across the public service.
>> Thank you, Senator. Um, look, I will just draw on some uh of my colleagues to help with this answer. I think um we have uh a couple of colleagues here that can give you some data and give you some indication of what the evidence we have about this issue is. It is spread across the commission. So I might just throw to uh Miss Joe Tolbert first who can give you some broad data and then uh we have Miss Nicole Steele who looks after our upset database and we do have some things that are relevant to the conversation that might give you an indication of the issue at hand and how prolific or otherwise we think this is.
Senator. Uh as the APS commissioner has has said, we we do actually um collect data relating to complaints that might be made. Um Dr. Steele will be able to give you some data in relation to gender and caring, which is how we actually break uh down that that information. Um I might just get her to to do that. But what I would say is in response to that um that promotion of the four corners, I did ask Dr. Steele to have a look at our data to see whether we were aware of any um particular complaints, but also our ethics advisory service um to see whether anyone had come forward um as well. And I'll just get Dr. Steele to go through that information.
>> Thank you. Dr. Nicole Steele, assistant commissioner, people insights. So every year we collect data on the reported complaints of discrimination as reported to an agency's HR system and we report on that every year in the state of the service report. So I have the most recent information which is the last financial year 2526. We break down the complaints of discrimination into several categories of most relevance would be the number of um complaints for caring responsibilities. That's eight complaints. And the number of complaints on gender discrimination and that's 10 complaints. Okay.
>> Over what period of time did you say?
>> 2526 the financial year.
>> Just in the last financial year.
>> Just in the last financial year.
>> Okay. So I mean I'm assuming this is information that you've reported back to the minister.
>> Yes. And we publish it as well.
>> Publish data.
>> Yes. So what was your response when you saw that data?
Um well it's it's data that's reported every year. So this has some been something we've wor we've been working on and don't stop working on really. I mean it's why we've been looking at how we can provide better flexibility through our enterprise agreement. It's why we're extending paid parental leave uh including to the second parent. Um it's you know it's informed a lot of our thinking about employment conditions at work. I mean we don't individually um those complaints are not complaints that we seek to resolve but you know it informs our thinking and you know people we want to see no complaints. We've got no tolerance for discrimination um on matters of care or pregnancy um across the board in the APS.
I might just add to to the minister's comments. I mean uh minister said earlier in the previous um uh officers that were here from different departments that we are looking at what's happening in bargaining and I can just say that some of the issues that are raised around uh conditions for parents returning to the workplace are being addressed in the current bargaining around and we do actually have our chief negotiator here today that can talk about some of those things that have been put forward as initial proposals on the table but obviously we're still in bargaining. I would say looking back over the data though that we don't see a really significant trend towards this that's come through in our data. That's not to say there aren't issues in the workplace, but the provisions that are in our enterprise agreements and in legislation really do uh I would say put agencies in a very strong uh position to be able to manage their workforces effectively. and most agencies uh have very strong mechanisms for people to speak up if they do feel that they're discriminated against. I
suppose it in that context then the four corners episode must have come as something of a surprise. Did either you as the APS-C commissioner APSC I should say or as the minister sort of seek to find out the veracity of the claims that were reported in that four corners episode or find out whether there was some correlation between that data and the data that you collected yourselves.
So, Senator Hume, um Joe Tolbert, my colleague, did actually speak to the Department of Home Affairs. She might be able to give you a little bit more information on that space.
>> Um when I saw the uh the promotion of that article, I actually did reach out um to uh Miss Blind, who's the chief people officer at Department of Home Affairs, um just to understand a little bit more in around that. And as I mentioned earlier, I also um went to have a look at what our data holdings were as well given as you have indicated um the inference was that there was 24 um public servants. Um but the the data that we've got obviously uh is is only over the last number of years and it doesn't obviously break down into particular um the matters that obviously the four corners article went into. What?
>> So, it's not necessarily inconsistent.
>> Well, it's very low numbers uh that are in our actual data, but what I would say is that um we have a range of legislation that we actually operate under um in terms of the Fair Work Act, obviously the maternity leave act, the sex discrimination act. Um we do a lot of work to ensure that our uh that APS agencies and departments are aware um of of their obligations. We also have our APS gender equality strategy um as well. So there's a range of supports and things that are in place and and as uh the APS commissioner has said these are sorts of matters around you know flexibility and parental leave and other arrangements that are you know underpinnings of um the enterprise uh
think one of the um things that it I don't think certainly not in the numbers of complaints it would it does not depict a systemic problem across the APS when you consider the size of the workforce and the numbers of people who who take up parental leave and and issues like that. The thing I am worried about which will be dealt with partly in some of the bargaining but it's also how we do our work is the people who aren't raising complaints and what are the structural kind of barriers or what are what are the things that we can remove or amend to ensure that uh you know as much as we can the flexibility and the arrangements ments for returning to work which seems to be one of the pressure points returning with young ch you know after a period of leave are the best that they can be. Now the the issue that's been raised with me that I haven't got an answer for yet, but it it is one we talked about it in the earlier session is the issue of as you climb up it see as you move up the levels in the APS it seems to become harder to balance those two roles and um and that is because there's a belief that if you're moving in the EL2 category and then into the SCES that part-time and flexible working arrangements should not apply that they are full-time in the office roles and there's some of that I mean we've had talk we've had discussion about that in estimates as well um but that seems to be a particular area of pressure senator
Hume we're going to need to rotate the call um obviously we're going to come back to the APSC after lunch >> but we have promised Senator PCO a a quick block before the lunch break >> thank you so Uh, Senator Pot,
>> thank you, Chair. Um, and, uh, welcome, Miss Curtis, and it's great to hear your commitment to integrity in the service, and that that's going to be a real priority for you. Um, I have some questions uh, around a complaint letter uh, lodged by Mr. Michael O'Neal, former CEO of the Tax Practitioners Board during the investigation of PWC in relation to the Tax League scandal. The complaint letter was lodged with the ATO on the 1st of September 2025 and referred to the APSC on the 5th of December. So I table the complaint letter and an email from Mr. O'Neil giving consent to the tableabling of the document. And I have some questions about the role of the APSC in relation to this matter.
>> Can I just confirm, Senator PCO, this has also been referred to the economics >> um legislation committee.
>> My questions relate to the AP APS-C role.
>> Thank you.
>> I'm sure that will proceed uh independently. >> Um so I I'll make sure you receive a copy um of that document. U Mr. O'Neil makes a number of allegations in his complaint email with reference to firstly breaches of the APS code of conduct. Uh then evidence provided at parliamentary hearings and responses to questions on notice which go to questions of privilege which are being picked up by the at the economics committee. Uh the ongoing bullying, harassment and threats against him as the TPP CEO and and secretary as he was at the time of the PWC matter. and then uh a whole range of issues related to the independence of the TPB tax practitioners board and the TPP's investigations in relation to PWC and Mr. Peter John Collins. Um can I start by asking what was the process undertaken by APSC in the investigation of the matter?
>> So Senator, I'm going to have to ask my colleague Dr. Tracey to come to the table because as you would be aware I was working at the tax office prior to this role but Dr. Tracey has dealt with this matter uh since he's been at the commission which is also a slightly shorter time than myself but he also has representatives here from the department that can speak to the issue. So I could just ask Dr. Oh, there he is. Wonderful.
>> Um hello Senator. Um lovely to speak to you today. Uh Daniel Tracey, acting first assistant commissioner for integrity and enabling services. Um I can speak in broad terms to the the commission's um sort of handling of procedures and um as you've uh articulated there. So um I I would say at the outset the commission's ordinary sort of practice is not to speak about individual matters but I appreciate you've sort of tabled documentation. I haven't had a chance to read that but I will speak in general terms to the commission's processes. Um concerns raised by Mr. O'Neil were referred by proactively referred by the tax commissioner to the APSC. Um at that time the former commissioner of the public service commission um delegated uh decision-making authority in relation to considering the matters that have been referred to us to an independent delegate. So someone outside of the commission.
>> Can I just clarify uh Dr. Tracey, you're referring to this document in your comments here, are you? Because you received this in December last year at the APSC.
>> So I don't have a copy of that in front of me unfortunately. Could you make sure
the copy is provided? Please
>> clarify. Thank you.
>> It is the document provided.
>> Yeah. To be fair, Senator Poke, you've just provided it.
>> Sure.
>> Two minutes ago. So, I don't I think just let's give the uh the witness a chance to have a look.
>> But I'm not referring to other documents pro provided by other officers. I'm referring to a document provided by Mr. O'Neil which is uh because I am familiar with many other documents provided by other officers that have a different account of these events.
>> Um so I may have to take on notice whether this document that you've tabled is precisely um the documents that were provided to the commission on referral from the tax office from last year. Um so if you'll indulge me I will take that query on notice. Um just to come back to your point around um process though um as I said upon referral by the tax office to the commission the former commissioner appointed an independent delegate to carefully and thoroughly consider the matters that were referred to us and that independent decision maker um has assessed very carefully all the matters that were raised um and the matter is now concluded.
>> Sorry I've missed the last sentence.
Apologies, Senator. The matter from our perspective, the process that we run, the delegate has made a decision and the matter is concluded.
>> So, um, who was interviewed and engaged within that process?
>> Uh, Senator, I'm I'm mindful again of the fact that when we talk about individual inquiries conducted, um, exercising the commission's commissioner's statutory functions, um, that we operate in a space where the information we obtain is confidential information and protected information under the public service act. Um it's for those reasons that we're often um just very mindful of the level of detail we provide in forums like this. Um balancing not just that statutory framework but privacy considerations as well um particularly when they lead could lead to um identifying um the parties or witnesses who were involved. So um it's not usually the level of detail we would speak to in these
>> Can I ask was Mr. O'Neil interviewed? um
again and going to the specifics of um who was spoken to at any given time by different people is not what we would typically speak to.
>> Which of the allegations made by Mr. O'Neil uh were investigated by the APSC? The remembering the investigations were breaches of the code of conduct uh bullying accusations uh um made by Mr. O'Neil against him. uh his document points to uh adverse action taken against him. Uh uh similarly a third one was around the actual behaviors within TPB and its culture and so on. Which of those accusations were uh pursued by the APSC to investigate?
>> Thank you Senator. So again, without going into the detail of what concerns um may or may not have been referred to the commission for consideration, what I would say is that our ordinary practice with any integrity related referral is to carefully consider all of the concerns that are raised to us by anyone who comes through. Um what we do with any integrity intelligence that comes to us through different channels is that we assess the nature of any concerns raised against the information that the commission has to hand and we map that effectively to what the commissioner's statutory functions are under the public service act and a delegate of the commissioner makes a decision about appropriate action. So um I I appreciate your question goes to specifics. Again I think we're straying into territory where the commission is very mindful of the confidentiality that applies to this information. Um but in general terms we assess the entirety of information that's referred to us by anyone who wishes to reach out to raise concerns of
specifically different categories of complaint here. Did you pursue uh the bullying, harassment and adverse action uh complaint that Mr. O'Neil has made?
Sen Senator Pot, can I just jump in here because I think we've had this discussion before about what information the commission is able to discuss in relation to code of conduct matters um as allowed or required under the public service act and it it is very constrained. So I'm not sure about whether there's a way with perhaps um Mr. O'Neil or giving certain permissions to you that this can be done in another way for you to get the information that you need but they are constrained by law about what can be discussed publicly and specifically in relation to individual complaints and I think um Dr. Tracey has been trying to say at a general level we look at all the issues that are referred to us but I'm not sure we can go one by one through Mr. O'Neil's um complaint and we considered this at length during the robo debt code of conduct inquiries and some of the constraints on on the commission at that time and the code of conduct investigations have offered protections to people involved in it so that we don't head down legally stick. you know, it's really been a pathway to assess and investigate employment related concerns in a non-legalistic way. And the minute we kind of open that up into a broader discussion about individual complaints, I think that that will lose the ability of the co of the commission to actually undertake these very important investigations. I'm not trying to frustrate. I just wonder if there is a different way that we can get you the information other than a public hearing.
>> Thank you. given that we've now reached that 10-minute point.
>> Okay, I'll come back.