Why Oppose the Public Service Amendment Bill
This is not “performance improvement” — it is systemic erosion. The bill bundles sweeping changes under a technical banner, reducing independence, politicising appointments, weakening worker rights, and embedding secrecy powers. It recentres control in the Public Service Commissioner and Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, at the cost of neutrality, accountability, and trust.
Here’s what the bill really does, why it’s dangerous, and how it reshapes the public service into a more centralised, politicised, and opaque system.
What This Bill Really Does
- Centralises control: Gives the Commissioner authority over “key positions” and chief executive performance reviews (s.55A; Schedule 7), reducing agency autonomy.
- Politicises advice: Creates a fixed-term Policy Advisory Group inside DPMC reporting directly to the Prime Minister (s.66A), embedding a political cadre.
- Weakens protections: Limits redundancy and collective agreement coverage during reorganisations (ss.89A–89E), fragmenting worker security.
- Expands secrecy: Allows national security directions based on classified information (Schedule 3, cls.5B–5F) that cannot be fully disclosed or contested.
- Extends immunity: Broadens legal immunity for chief executives “acting in any capacity” (s.104), shielding them from accountability.
- Shifts costs: Agencies must reimburse the Commission for reviews and investigations (Schedule 3, cl.5A(3)), discouraging scrutiny and draining resources.
- Concentrates foresight: Long-term policy briefings and guidance monopolised by DPMC (Schedule 6, cl.8–10), narrowing plural perspectives.
- Adds compliance layers: Requires business continuity plans filed with the Commissioner (Schedule 6, cl.11), adding bureaucracy without assurance of resilience.
Why This Threatens Democratic Safeguards
- Executive overreach: Neutral roles become politicised, with Commissioner and Ministers shaping appointments and reviews.
- Reduced independence: Agencies lose autonomy in staffing and long-term advice.
- Transparency gaps: Secrecy provisions reduce visibility over national security decisions.
- Worker insecurity: Limits on redundancy and bargaining weaken stability and fairness in the public service workforce.
- Financial burdens: Cost recovery shifts oversight expenses onto agencies, reducing funding for actual service delivery.
- Accountability diluted: Immunities and classified evidence regimes reduce recourse for citizens and courts.
The Bigger Pattern
Centralise, politicise, shield, and burden. These moves are presented as efficiency reforms but form a clear pattern: consolidate control in the centre, weaken staff security, increase executive secrecy, and reduce independent oversight. What is sold as “improvement” is in fact erosion of neutrality and trust.
If You Care About Democracy and Accountability
This bill is not harmless restructuring — it is structural erosion. It converts the public service from an impartial institution serving the people into one more tightly controlled by the executive, less open to scrutiny, and less secure for its workforce.
If you believe public servants must be independent and neutral…
If you believe secrecy powers must never override due process…
If you believe accountability cannot be traded for “efficiency”…
Then now is the time to oppose this bill.
“Erosion comes slowly, in technical words and tidy clauses — but its effect is collapse.” — Ukes Baha