address to parliament - BILLS - Public Service Amendment Bill 2023 - Second Reading

I thank the member for Wills for his contribution and, whilst I wasn't in the chamber for the entirety, there wasn't much that I disagreed with, if anything. I know how much the member for Lyons is champing at the bit to also speak on this very important bill, a bill which now is taking up all of the time of the parliament. People listening must think, 'What is this bill of such significant proportions that every single Labor member is coming in and spending 15 minutes of their time to talk about?' Well, it's the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023, the resumption of debate on the second reading and the amendment that has been moved.

Mr Khalil: Critical.

Mr McCORMACK: 'Critical' I hear the member for Wills say. Indeed, it is so critical that we are going to take up 5½ hours of debate, as every Labor member is told to go in and speak about this critical—as the member for Wills calls it—bill. Indeed, the Public Service is critical. I acknowledge the role that it plays and I very much concur with the member for Wills when he said that public servants work hard. They do. Whilst I the appreciate that, at times, public servants are criticised for being in the big Canberra bubble, the bureaucracy, by and large, they do work very, very hard. They get things done for and on behalf of Australians and we thank them for that. Whether that means that every Labor member needs to come in here and speak on this bill for 15 minutes, well we know why they are doing that. I will tell you why they're doing it, because they have got nothing else to do. So the manager of government business has told them, 'Get in there.' They are getting their talking points from the Labor dirt unit and they're being told to get up and speak for 15 minutes.

Those opposite could invoke the spirit of Albert Gardiner—known as 'Jupp'—a New South Wales ALP senator. He gained some fame—some might call it notoriety—by standing up in 1918 and delivering federal parliament's longest speech, 12 hours and 40 minutes. The combined Parnell-Bressington filibuster in the South Australian upper house went for over 13 hours. But what Senator Gardiner's speech did was force the introduction of the time limit on future speeches. More is a pity, because I reckon the people out there listening to the broadcast would love to hear the member for Lyons speak for a dozen hours, and I reckon he would be capable. I reckon he would be up to the task. Being a former journalist like myself, I reckon he would love that. He would relish that role.

I digress and I don't want to play down the importance of the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023. There are some things it does which are certainly very important. Noncontroversial, as we would argue, it creates a new APS value of stewardship. It creates a requirement for an Australian Public Service purpose statement to be developed by the Secretaries Board. It clarifies the operation of section 19 of the Public Service Act to provide that ministers must not direct agency heads on individual employment matters for the Australian Public Service. It requires agency heads to implement measures to create a work environment that enables decisions to be made by APS employees at the lowest appropriate classification. It provides a mechanism for the APS Commissioner to, at any time, cause the capability review of an agency other than the Australian Public Service Commission. I say this because I don't want somebody to stand up and say 'he is not being relevant'. I will continue so we can prevent that. It requires the Secretaries Board to request and publish regular long-term insights reports to make available information about medium and long term trends, risks, opportunities which affect or may affect Australia or Australian society—very important—and information and impartial analysis relating to those opportunities, risks and trends. It requires agencies to publish annual APS employee census results. It makes technical amendments consequential to the making of the Public Service Regulations 2023 following the sunsetting of the Public Service Regulation 1999—Commonwealth law.

Now, I know that all of those things are important. I get that the Public Service is important and does its due diligence and duty. This bill is important because we want the law to be updated. I get all that. I understand that. But what we've seen is the unedifying spectacle of having no Labor members on the speaking list—or very few—and all of a sudden the list is as long as Donald Bradman's batting average. From a very low starting point, it is now as long as the number of centuries he scored in first-class cricket. We're playing a bit of bazball here. Actually, we're probably not seeing bazball, because we're not actually getting things done in a hurry—more is the pity. We're not seeing Labor get on with the job of doing what they're supposed to do, and that is govern and bring legislation in. We were criticised so much during the last parliament—unfairly, with absolutely no justification—for not bringing in legislation in the House, but Labor is doing exactly what they criticised us for doing when we in fact weren't doing it. They're filibustering. They're sending in every member to speak about the Public Service as though it were the most important thing gripping this nation. I'll tell you the most important thing gripping this nation right now. It's cost of living.

People listening to this broadcast are probably wondering: 'Why aren't they talking about my electricity bill? Why aren't they talking about the labour shortages? Why aren't they talking about cost-of-living pressures? Why aren't they talking about how hard it is for business to keep its doors open?' What are we talking about? When ordinary, average, everyday Australians just want this parliament to work on making sure that their cost-of-living pressures are reduced, no, we're talking about the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023. Now, I appreciate that the Public Service is important. I get that Labor has put more money into making sure that there are more public servants. They've done it in your state, Deputy Speaker Vasta; the Queensland Labor government spent all that money, all those mining royalties, and have put in a whole lot of public servants. If they're police, ambos and firies, well and good, but the trouble is they're not. But I digress.

What we saw last week on 1 June was that we had a long, long list. At the risk of holding up a piece of paper when I shouldn't, there it is. This list meant that the opposition members who wanted to talk about the appropriation bills—they're the budget bills. With the budget bills, you get to speak about how important the budget is to your electorate. You get to speak about the things that are good. You get to speak about the things that you don't necessarily like. But no; for the first time since I've been here and no doubt since you've been here, because we've been together in this place for a long time, Deputy Speaker Vasta, the appropriation bills were guillotined. That is code for gagging. The opposition members were gagged. They gagged the members for Canning, Casey, Sturt, Independent teal Mackellar, Riverina—that's me. I was gagged. I couldn't speak for the first time.

Mr Brian Mitchell: Should have got in early!

Mr McCORMACK: The member for Mallee did get in early, and good on her, because her people were able to listen to what she thought about the budget. Her people were able to know that they are going to hurt from that budget. They are going to hurt from water cuts. They are going to hurt from the truckie tax. They are going to hurt from higher electricity bills. 'Where's the $275?' they're all asking. At least the member for Mallee was able to enunciate and clearly articulate exactly what she thought about the budget, but all of these other members weren't: O'Connor, Moore, the Greens leader, the member for Melbourne—they gagged him too. Good luck with your preferences next time there. There was the Independent from Indi and the member for Brisbane—not that I value what the Greens say, but I will stand up for their ability to say it, and they're right to say it in the house of democracy every day of every week. There were the members for Barker, Capricornia, Lyne, Cowper, Grey and Hughes, and the Centre Alliance member for Mayo. There were the members for Petrie, Nicholls, Fisher, Bowman, Groom, Wannon, Banks, La Trobe, Wright, McPherson and Hume—the Shadow Treasurer, because he was gagged, was not allowed to have his say on the member for Rankin's budget speech. What a disgrace that is! The member for Hume, the shadow Treasurer, should've been able to speak on that.

Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—

Mr McCORMACK: There were the members for Deakin and Lindsay, the Katter Australia party member for Kennedy, and the member for Monash. And, let's face it, there were probably more as well.

To be fair, and I'm always fair, as the member for Lyons knows, there were Labor members who were also not allowed to speak on it. But, in good, disciplined Labor fashion, they would've just copped that. They would've accepted that, but some of them—no doubt all of them—have been up, even though they were not allowed to speak about the member for Rankin's budget speech. But guess what? I bet you they're in here talking about the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023.

Do you know who misses out? It's not the ALP members. Quite frankly, it's not the LNP members or the Independents or the teals. It's the people of Australia. They deserve better. They expect better. They demand better. And they demand better of this place. It was supposed to be a nicer, more polite way—

Dr Webster: Gentler.

Mr McCORMACK: and this proves—gentler, thank you, Member for Mallee; it's supposed to be a more gentle place as well—that it's not because, when you can't actually get up and speak on the budget bills and speak to your electorate and have your electorate listen to how the budget will affect them, more's the pity.

There were some things in a budget which the member for Mallee and I probably agreed with. There were some things in there which will, yes, make the lives, the lots and the livelihoods of people in regional Australia a little bit better. I tell you what: there was a lot there which was not good at all. But I wasn't able to enunciate that because I was gagged, as were all of those other members who did not get the opportunity, and that is just so wrong. That is so wrong. Yet here we are on a Tuesday evening. We're going to be talking till the adjournment, and tomorrow we'll be resuming, and what will we be talking about? It'll be the Public Service Amendment Bill.

We won't be talking about the cost of living. We won't be talking about Labor's broken promise—the $275 that they said, without clarification, every household would be getting off their power bills. No, we won't be talking about that. We won't be talking about the truckie tax. We won't be talking about why the cost of groceries is higher every time people go to the supermarket. We won't be talking about all the things that matter to ordinary, average, everyday Australians who are doing it so tough. But what will we be talking about? The Public Service Amendment Bill 2023.

And when those Labor members go back to their electorates next week and they bump into people in the street and they go into small businesses which won't be having their instant asset write-off in an unlimited fashion—it's only $20,000; that was in the budget, but I wasn't able to talk about that. When they go into those small businesses or into that pharmacy, good luck there. I hope you've had your flu jab. They'll be shutting soon because of the 60-day dispensing rules. When you go into those small businesses and people front up to you and say, 'Well, what did you do in parliament last week?' I want you to look them in the eye and make sure you earnestly say, 'I spoke about the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023, because that's really going to affect your life. It's really going to make a difference in how you live your life in coming days and weeks and months and years.'

Never mind the budget. Never mind what went on in the member for Rankin's speech. You spoke about the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023. And when they say, 'Well, what did that involve?' you'll be able to say, 'Well, in 2018 the coalition government commissioned an independent review of the Australian Public Service to ensure it is best placed to serve Australian governments and the Australian people into the future, and Mr David Thodey AO, former CEO of Telstra and then chair of CSIRO, was appointed to lead the review. The review received more than 750 submissions. It involved more than 120 round tables,' and they'll say, 'Well, you should go down to the racecourse because you read that like a race caller.'

Mr Brian Mitchell: I spoke on the appropriations. I got in on time.

Mr McCORMACK: Well done you! How lucky were you! You got in early, but so did everybody else. But they weren't allowed, because they cut it off unfairly—unjustly cut it off—because the appropriations normally have more time. I'll tell you why I know Labor cut it off—because there wasn't that much good in it to talk about. There wasn't that much good to share the love and to go around the nation, as Josh Frydenberg did when his budgets came down, to talk about what we were doing for small business, what we were doing for power prices, which came down in our term of government. We helped Australians—families, businesses, farmers—to get ahead. But what did you do? What did you do after a year of government? You spoke about the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023; that's what you did.