go to print this page

Need help?
Click here to find out more?

go to related pages

go to on our site

go to news

Logo - Australian Government - Australian Public Service Commission

© Copyright Commonwealth of Australia - Australian Public Service Commission

Home page
> Minister > Archive > Speech
‹ Previous page

Ministerial speeches and media releases - Archive

Building a career Public Service for the twenty-first century

The Hon. David Alistair Kemp
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service

THE CHAIRMAN (DR PETER SHERGOLD): I would like to welcome you to the PSMPC Lunchtime Seminar today and am delighted to introduce as our speaker, Dr David Kemp. Dr Kemp is, of course, the Minister for Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. He will be addressing us today, as the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service. I am delighted that Dr Kemp sees the issues of public service reform as so important that he has retained that responsibility after the machinery of government changes.

People will be well aware of the influential role that Dr David Kemp has played within the Liberal Party and within the Coalition Government.

You may be less aware of his background as a senior lecturer and then professor of politics - first at the University of Melbourne and then at Monash University. I ask you to join with me in welcoming Dr David Kemp to speak to us at this lunchtime seminar.

DR KEMP: Peter Shergold, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for the invitation to address you. I hope that everything I say will aid rather than disrupt your digestion. The message will be a very positive message about the future of the Australian Public Service, which I have no doubt is on the way to developing its reputation as one of the world's outstanding public services.

I start my remarks today with three fundamental propositions, namely, that public administration is a major industry, that government is a major employer and that delivering public services is big business. I want to talk to you today about the business of government: our business, your business, the business of governing the dynamic society that is Australia today.

I want to speak to you about the scale of the challenges that face elected politicians and career public servants in meeting rising citizen expectations about the way that we do our business. I am delighted to still have ministerial responsibility for the Australian Public Service. I do see the reforms that are currently under way building on those that have taken place over the last decade, as being very significant for the future of Australian democracy and holding out enormous promise to increase the satisfaction of citizens with the way in which government does go about its business.

I emphasise that I do not underestimate the distinctiveness of the business of the Public Service. Much of what you do, particularly, the key role played by the APS in our system of democratic governments is unique. There are some fundamental distinctions between the public and the private sectors. The private sector is directed wholly to the market. It delivers goods and services to customers.

The Public Service is also accountable to the democratically elected government and through it, to citizens. Where the Government utilises the market to deliver services it remains accountable to the Parliament for the decisions that it has made in that regard. The standards required of the Public Service and demanded of yourselves - and of elected politicians such as myself - reflect those differences.

Yet those important distinctions should not blind us to the similarities. Much of what you do including the manner in which you organise your workplace and manage your people is subject to the same economic, social and technological pressures that face other Australian business organisations.

The Government is committed to achieving significant micro-economic reform. That involves removing unnecessary red tape from business, providing greater workplace flexibility, encouraging a direct relationship between employers and employees, and providing the incentive necessary to encourage improved industry performance.

Achieving change in the Commonwealth Public Service is a key element of that process of structural reform. It means removing the monopoly that the APS has had in delivering services to the public on behalf of Government. It means acknowledging that the provision of policy advice to governments is now contestable.

At the same time, it places an obligation on Government to provide the APS with the flexibility you need to lift the performance of public sector organisations, so that they can compete on the basis of quality, effectiveness, cost and efficiency. In part, this depends on legislative reform.

I know only too well the constraints under which you operate. The 1922 Public Service Act, amended as it has been now more than 100 times, binds the Public Service in a great deal of unnecessary red tape. The rules and regulations prescribe the ways in which you manage. The legalistic approach to making employment decisions, necessary in a work place in which every action is potentially subject to appeal, or grievance, stymies many efforts to build a modern workplace. The Australian taxpayer picks up the tab. Equally important, it makes the Public Service a less rewarding career than it might be for many of those involved.

I am not criticising improvements that have already been made. Indeed, I marvel at how successfully APS organisations are managed, in spite of the legislative constraints. There is much of what you do that is good, and outstandingly good, and in many cases better than the private sector, or your State counterparts. Too often though, you are forced to navigate around the regulations. I will talk in more detail of these matters when debate resumes on the new Public Service Bill in the House of Representatives.

It is also important to recognise that the new Act under which you will do your business in the future will only enable change. It is up to you, as the leaders of the Australian Public Service, to drive change. The task, of course, is a large one. It requires us to change the work place systems, structures and most importantly, organisational cultures. It means building on the finest traditions of Australian Public Service, its non-partisan professionalism and high ethical standards, in order to meet better the needs of the Australian public, namely the provision of high quality services at least cost to the taxpayer.

Like other Australian businesses, it is incumbent on the APS to review performance. It is necessary to recognise that over the last century a number of institutions, including the APS, but including also of course some large business corporations, organisations in the educational sector, wherever we look, these organisations have become inward looking. It is true, even, from time to time, of political parties. They can forget their original mission was and become bound up with processes. In the end every institution has to reinvigorate and revivify itself to meet the challenges of a new era and Australia, as a country, is facing enormous challenges.

The world does not owe us a living. Our security comes from doing what we do excellently and that is true for every institution in this country.

The key to organisational health and motivation is whether people in those organisations see that they are delivering outcomes effectively. The role of government is changing. This will affect what services are provided and the means by which they are delivered. Increasingly, governments are utilising the market to deliver services and are introducing contestability into the delivery of publicly funded services. The public sector continues to be held accountable for the manner in which it delivers services. Over the last decade many of the foundations of public service reform have been laid. The Public Sector has moved to a devolved environment, focused more on results and embraced program budgeting.

You have been moving ahead, but so too has the world. The expectations of citizens, like those of customers have been increasing. People demand more, while demanding more control over their own resources. The performance of alternative service providers, public and private has been improving. To some extent your business, the Commonwealth Public Service, has been running hard just to keep up.

I recognise that these developments can be confronting to those who have to lead change. The structural adjustment of our manufacturing industry has been driven by the progressive reduction of protective tariffs. The structural adjustment of public administration, as its monopoly status is progressively supplanted by competition, will be no less profound. The industries share this in common. Both will emerge stronger, tougher, leaner, more efficient in the years ahead. My message for the future is simple. As we prepare Australia to meet the challenges of the 21st century, the pace and scale of reform in our systems of governance has to be increased. The changes flowing from new Government objectives, rising citizen expectations and new means of delivering public services will continue.

The globalisation of economies will place sustained and strong pressure on governments to improve Australia's competitiveness, including the cost and relevance of government itself. The community pressure for better access to improved services at lower cost will grow, as will demand for less regulation of business activity. In this environment I believe it is vital that we learn how to build high performance organisations within the Australian Public Service.

This means investing in our people, even as we downsize. The challenge for me, as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, and for you is how together can we best help revitalise the Australian Public Service and its organisations so that they are capable of responding creatively and innovatively to changing public demands.

I believe there are three things that we have to focus on.

Firstly, improving service to the Australian public - the citizens who are our 'customers' and our 'clients' - by providing the best value for money within a framework of enhanced accountability. By providing services in a way which best meets the needs of those citizens.

Secondly, ensuring the most professional advice to government: frank and fearless, certainly, but also informed, innovative and imaginative.

Thirdly, improving organisational and individual performance in the APS through the creation of workplaces which recognise, reward and motivate staff who are creative and change ready.

Your agency's ability to predict, prepare for and manage these challenges is critical. When I talk about high performing organisations I mean organisations that are customer focused; have clear directions and strong committed leadership; continually benchmark and improve their performance; seek out and promote changes that are responsive to the needs of the community and the government of the day; and see themselves as public sector businesses, judged by results, operating in a competitive environment.

I am not saying that we do not have many highly skilled and committed public servants, We do. To criticise inefficiencies, to say that there is room for improvement is not to criticise individuals, rather it is to recognise that we all come into systems that we did not create and it is up to us to take charge of those systems and to mould them in ways which will achieve our objectives for our time. Change requires us to invest in continued development, to provide a more rewarding work environment, to recognise individual and team performance. The rate and pressure for change is great.

The APS needs to make sure that it is geared up to deal with today's challenges in tomorrow's way.

First, we have to reposition our thinking squarely in the context of business strategy. We have to focus on how our people can best deliver our strategies.We have to focus on the business outcomes sought by governments and citizens.

Second, we have to be better at comprehending the changes we have to make if the Government's objectives are to be met. The biggest changes are cultural - learning that the market for the provision of services to and for Government is competitive and contestable and introducing practical ways to plan for, recognise and reward high performance.

Third, we need to understand that the intellectual capital in your organisations is critical. It needs to be nurtured. It is what adds value to the things that you do. It is the basis of career public administration.

We need to provide an environment that is motivating and respects the contribution of all our people. We have to understand that diversity of backgrounds and perspective can improve productivity, properly recognised and managed. We also have to develop our skills base in a disciplined way. The skills we need in the future will be, in part, different from the skills we have needed in the past. However, we must also recognise that the understanding that the APS has of current and former government policies is a major national asset. That is where the role of the career public servant remains crucial. That experience built up over time, that institutional memory is very important to providing governments of any political colour or persuasion with the quality of advice that they need to be effective themselves.

We need to be efficient in the management of our resources. Presently, it does appear to be the case that we are not cost competitive in the delivery of human resource services. I remind you that salaries represent about 70 per cent of the cost of running the Public Service. Running a business that ties up too much valuable time, your time and the time of your colleagues in mundane, process-driven activities is a huge opportunity cost to the strategic management of people in the APS. To remain relevant to Australia's future the key challenges for the APS and for you is to find ways to link your people strategies and your distinctive business goals.

I believe that the present Government, through the Workplace Relations Act and the Public Service Bill, has created the capacity for agencies to adapt their employment practices to better meet their business objectives. The challenge before the leaders of the Public Service is to seize hold of these opportunities for change - not to race back to "tried and true" ways but to see what the objectives of the organisation require and to assure that the arrangements within each organisation give it the flexibility to achieve those objectives. My agenda for Public Service reform could be seen as comprising some seven key elements.

These elements are:

This is an agenda for a high-performance APS which I will be developing in detail over the coming months. It is an agenda in which I seek your active participation.

Let me deal in a little more detail with three of these things.

First, leadership. A sense of direction and purpose and a consistent, clear focus and message is critical to any organisation that claims to have a shared purpose. The APS is no different. This is what leadership is. It requires you to identify and pursue directions and to communicate them to your staff in a way that they can understand. It asks that you build an environment in which your people are able and willing to contribute to and commit themselves to the goals set.

I see my main role as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, is to provide the highest level link in that chain of leadership. I will continue to be as clear as I can about what the directions and expectations of the Government are. This will not necessarily make life easy or comfortable for the APS but it will ensure that we are clear about the types of changes that are required in order for the Service to do its job in the best possible way. Of course, my role does not replace those of my fellow Ministers in providing direction and purpose relevant to their own portfolios. What I can add is information about what the government needs and demands from the Australian Public Service as a whole and try to ensure that you are provided with what you need to succeed.

The second matter I want to talk about is customer service. There is no option here but for the APS to commit itself to excellence. Excellence has to be measured in terms of both quality and cost. If we are to achieve high levels of performance we have to focus on the user of many government services, the consumer.

The lifestyle, expectations and demands of the community for services are changing. The Public Service needs to ensure that the entitlements it provides and the services it delivers are available when the public wants them. Households, often with two parents working, expect access to government services in the evening. They hope that they might gain access at weekends. You in this room do not provide services to the government only between 8.30am and 4.51pm yet that is the culture that too often seems to be brought to delivering services to the general public. And, of course, that cannot continue. The community is asking for more.

Can we change? Can we adapt the delivery of government services to meet these new demands from the community? The answer has to be yes.

The objective of the workplace relations reforms and the new Public Service Bill is to provide you with the flexibility to adapt how your organisation does business so that it can provide the service that the government and the community need. The implementation of Government Service Charters over the next two years will provide you with the opportunity to articulate the level and quality of service that you are able to provide to citizens.

The third matter I want to talk about is people management. I think you are all well aware of the very strong need to improve how we manage our people in the APS. There are very significant issues about reducing cost which we have to continue to work on but more importantly we have to refocus our people management efforts on the business outcomes the Government is seeking. We have to align strategically corporate and human resource objectives.

Several of your organisations are already participating in the trial of the Investors In People Standard which is an internationally recognised benchmark for aligning the development of people with business goals. I congratulate those agencies already involved for their willingness to commit publicly to such a challenge and encourage others to join the scheme.

There is a key role for all of you to play in the new workplace relations environment. It is possible for us to change our work practices to become more efficient and effective. Under the new agreement making practices put in place by our government it is critical that you, the people who plan and deliver government business outcomes, participate and drive this process of change.

If you are displaying leadership in your organisation then the question you should ask is not just, "How will this certified agreement affect me?" but "What will this certified agreement enable me and my team to do better?"

Issues such as improving conditions, streamlining administration and raising productivity are important. However, learning how to use the new flexibility to better provide service to the community and advice to government is essential. This requires leadership. Only you can identify the people management practices that will deliver the government services for which you are responsible. Leaving it to "corporate services" or specialist human resource managers is unlikely to work. You are all responsible for managing your people in such a way that employment decisions can be based on trust and common sense rather than set in regulation.

I seek your active participation in the change process. I want to know about your ideas and good practice achievements so that the Government can reward and learn from innovation. With that in mind I have set up a direct e-mail link entitled, "Let the Minister Know Your High Performance Innovations in the APS". I will not read out the internet address at the moment but I am sure that it is readily obtainable from Peter Shergold's people, (apscasestudies@apsc.gov.au) so that you can tell me about the things that you have done in making a real difference to the Public Service. Equally, you can let me know the things you could achieve if I and the Government were to provide the opportunity. I will be publicly acknowledging all innovations that pass a simple test: that they have helped us better align our people with our business, and consequently have allowed us to improve the services we provide to the public.

So how does this agenda of reform relate to building a career service? It requires a career service which recognises that the future APS will be a Public Service that is a major national asset, and that can add value to the directions set by the government of the day, because it is professional, because it is apolitical, and because it is innovative.

It recognises that it will be a Public Service that can change and adapt, and stay relevant which I, as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service can pass on to future governments, in good condition - a Public Service which is more open to and responsive to the Government which it serves. A Public Service which is a source of knowledge and expertise, based on experience over successive governments. A Public Service which is willing and able to respond creatively to the changing roles and demands of governments. And a Public Service which understands how it is different from other businesses, but is willing to learn from them and exchange best practice with them.

So what am I offering to you and your successors?

I offer to you and your successors careers - motivating, worthwhile, stimulating and influential careers in public employment.

Australia needs talented people, such as yourselves, who can undertake on behalf of the democratically elected government, the business of government. But to succeed in this, as I have said, you must be able to lead, you must be able to change. Bunkering down obviously is not the way forward. Staying in the middle of the pack is not the answer.

The Government needs public servants willing to be at the cutting edge of change. It will require those who seek not a job for life, but a rewarding career in a fast changing public sector environment. I envisage a Public Service which, early next century, has become the provider of choice to the government of the day, across the board.

It will probably be smaller , but no less influential. It will remain at the heart of administrative accountability; whether or not it delivers a government service itself, or more commonly, through contractual oversight of providers outside the APS.

It will provide strategic leadership for results, not management of process. It will develop creative policy options and innovative delivery mechanisms.

The APS has sometimes been seen as defining itself as a career service in terms of a highly regulated and protected labour market in which external recruitment is restricted above base levels, most promotions and appointments are filled from within, merit is premised on the interest of insiders and there are prescribed processes of appeal and grievance against a wide range of employment decisions. It has been based upon the artificial notion of a homogenous APS bound together, not by a common commitment to public interest values, but by standard terms, conditions and job classifications.

There is no point in looking back nostalgically to an inward-looking, rule-bound culture, constrained by legislation, regulation, award and agreement in which career service meant a guaranteed job for life. This would not be a career service appropriate to the development of a public service which is chosen by government on the basis of its performance. The government is not interested in preserving the vestiges of a career service defined in that way.

But I have no doubt that graduates will continue to be attracted to the new public service, not as a safe low risk career, but as a stimulating environment in which to serve the interests of the community, while at the same time working on matters of national importance. Some will not have perhaps the commitment or potential to rise to leadership positions, others will choose to move onto careers in state public services, private industry or the voluntary welfare sector. I hope that increasingly our best and brightest will have the opportunity to move between sectors during the course of their career.

On one matter I have got no doubt whatever. Future governments will continue to depend on the contribution of elite public administrators to provide advice, implement legislation and oversight program delivery. Indeed, the availability to government of that group will be critical to the future quality of democracy to this country.

Probably they will work alongside colleagues recruited for shorter periods from private sector businesses or community organisations. Certainly, they will be operating in a contestable and competitive environment. But through the values that they espouse and the behaviours they model, they will uphold the traditional ethos and conduct of public servants.

The Australian Public Service is a great institution. No government owns it. Rather it can be seen as being on lease to the government of the day. It is an institution which has had outstanding leadership, which has sought to reform itself, which has in many ways led the change for reform.

I see it as being my responsibility to pass it on to future governments in a better shape than it was when I came into this portfolio, to preserve that which is best, to strip away the structural inefficiencies that accumulate inevitably over the years in any organisation which have hindered relative efficiency and to provide a solid foundation for a devolved, innovative, high-performance Public Service.

It is up to you, the leaders of the APS - public servants, certainly, but business leaders also - to seize the opportunities which are now available and I believe that you will do so. Thank you.

THE CHAIRMAN: We will move straight into question time now.

MR OATES: My name is Chris Oates from the PSMPC. You have spoken about the career service and you have also spoken about your vision of public sector businesses. You have spoken about distinct business goals. It is almost as if your vision of the Public Service is as a group of different agencies doing different things with core values. You have also spoken about the problems of the career service in the past, uniformity, regulations, red tape, but there is also a vision of the career service which says that we are a unified organisation, that there is a core way of doing things which we share and in particular that people can move from one organisation to another, from one agency to another in pursuit of their careers. Do you think this concept is obsolete and if not what aspect of it do you think is worth preserving?

DR KEMP: No, I do not think the concept of career service is at all obsolete. I think that there is going to have to be a continuing significant body of people within the Public Service who see that it is there that they really want to achieve their major objectives. Now, that does not mean they are going to be within the Public Service for every year of their working life. The fundamental basis of the career service lies in the values of the organisation itself and I think one of the very significant initiatives within the Public Service Bill that is currently before the Parliament is the emphasis on the fact that it is a value-based institution. It is not defined by its regulations and procedures. It is defined by its basic values. Those who are committed to those values will have the chance through the various procedures that are put in place to gain experience in various parts of the Public Service, in different agencies and organisations, and what they will experience when they move from one to another will be a sense of the diversity within those organisations. Although there are - and have been for a long time - significant differences between government departments and agencies, there is no doubt that the flexibilities that are built into these organisations will increasingly allow each agency to adapt itself and shape itself so that it can meet the specific kinds of demands which it faces and that will lead to greater diversity. Now, the key thing from the point of view of the career service is that there will remain, nevertheless, across those agencies a sense of a common ethos, a common set of values, a common membership of a significant institution and there will be specific rules and procedures that will facilitate movement across those different agencies. So, the careers available to people will be careers with somewhat greater variety and hopefully greater excitement, in many cases, than they have had up until now.

THE CHAIRMAN: Next question?

MS ROYSTON: Dr Kemp, my name is Penelope Royston. You have spoken about high performing organisations. My question is, how does that differ from where the APS is at the moment?

DR KEMP: Well, I suppose what I have tried to do in my remarks today is to outline what the specific characteristics of a high performance organisation are. I will not go through the list and contrast each of the elements with where the Public Service is at the moment. I think you all have to make judgments about that. We all recognise the need for significant change to take advantage of the flexibilities in the Workplace Relations Legislation, and the change in the leadership styles that will be required under the new Public Service Bill.

The major differences are that we are going to be relying less and less on process, more and more on teamwork - on teams operating flexibly, on multi-skilling across those teams, with less emphasis on some people telling other people what to do, and more emphasis on explaining what the organisation is about and gaining commitment and motivation from those in the teams That is what high performance business organisations are increasingly doing. In a way it is devolving management. It is devolving functions that were traditionally seen as being management functions or knowledge that was traditionally seen as being management knowledge to those working within those teams. The PSMPC has already reconstructed itself on a team basis. That is a very significant organisational innovation. It has written a certified agreement which reflects that. That is a very significant change.

What I am asking is for other agencies within the Public Service to adopt and work at the cutting edge in these areas, exploiting these opportunities, looking at structural change that will produce this kind of broad commitment within their organisations and a strong focus on serving the needs of the customer, the client, the citizen and the government of the day.

THE CHAIRMAN: Next question.

MR THROSBY: Chris Throsby, Foreign Affairs and Trade. Dr Kemp, as a manager of people one of the most effective ways of achieving high levels of performance is through encouragement. One of my senses is that with the present government's agenda of reform and change and improving performance is that there is somewhat less recognition of the achievements that we have already made. For example, I am astounded that in the Australian Public Service we have embraced multi-skilling to the extent that we have. And you read in the news the degree of business practices in the private sector that have not even come close to multi-skilling. It is in many respects a question of emphasis and balance and to my thinking there is a need in the APS to give recognition of the enormous shifts in management practices that we have already achieved, and multi-skilling is one of those.

DR KEMP: Thank you for that comment. Obviously, that is one of the thoughts behind setting up the Internet site where innovations and achievements can be registered. To the extent that Ministers perhaps do not acknowledge achievements enough, it is partly because of the way our government has traditionally operated that Ministers tend to expect that they are just going to receive good quality advice from the Public Service. They do not feel, particularly, in the early days of a government the capacity to dig down deeply into the Service and become well acquainted with what is actually being achieved on the ground.

I know that I try to speak to as many layers in the Department as I possibly can and to talk with those involved in the various groups and sections of the Department closely to gain a sense of the work that is being done there. And taking your point, if insufficient recognition is being given well, we would certainly want to see that given as part of the Government's general communications.

Governments themselves often have the feeling that not enough recognition is given to their achievements. And so, I am quite sympathetic to the view which is put. I think we all feel that. We all feel, "Why aren't people complimenting us on what we're doing well? Why are they always coming to tell us how badly we're doing or what we need to do better?" I suppose to some extent, that is the nature of the world in which we live. People generally are not all that interested in our achievements. They are interested in what we are going to do next for them and democratically elected politicians are as alert to that as anyone.

The fundamental point remains that good management within any organisation does mean rewarding achievement and recognising it. It is worth focussing on that word, "reward". There has to be a capacity within public service agencies to significantly reward real achievement and that comes to the nature of the certified agreements that are going to be written to ensure that the managers do have that capacity within their agency's budget to actually produce these rewards. The rewards are not always financial. There are rewards in terms of recognising activity which has contributed significantly to the organisation. It means breaking away from the culture of criticising those who innovate when innovations go wrong.

One of the greatest forces for conservatism in any organisation, as we know, is the feeling that if you innovate and it does not work, you are going to be criticised for it and may be punished within the organisation. I think a mature view of a government towards high-performance organisations is to recognise that sometimes good things will be tried and they will not work. I know with my own dealings with senior officials that, really, I encourage them - and I hope they feel this - to say to me, "Well, look, we're taking a bit of a risk here and maybe this won't work". When I hear that I think, "Well, who's going to bear the cost of this risk if it goes wrong?"

And sometimes it does go wrong and in the end the Minister has to bear it and I think Ministers have to say, "Well, sometimes things are going to go wrong and I am going to have to bear the cost of it" rather than pursue the matter through the organisation and drive it into a frame of mind where it is going to become increasingly conservative. That is a very difficult balance and it requires a great deal of maturity on the part of all sides. In order to achieve that, requires very clear communication, between Departments and Ministers. Where there is risk tell the minister so that the minister has personally accepted the risk and if there is a down side the minister who is going to be held accountable has said, "All right, I'm prepared to be held accountable for it. You'd better back me up and give me the best argument when it goes wrong but I know I'm prepared to carry the can for that". And when that happens, I think we will get the right culture.

MR STUBBS: Dr Kemp, Daniel Stubbs from DEETYA. The idea of frank and fearless advice has become a bit of a mantra of public servants lately. You talked about frank and fearless advice but you also talked about policy advice contestability. A lot of public servants are wondering if policy advice is contestable, will it remain frank and fearless and, of course, will those from the private sector or from other organisations who may give advice, will that be frank and fearless or will they be telling Ministers what they want to hear? Will we continue to see independent advice?

DR KEMP: Well, advice which is not frank and which is not fearless is advice which is not going to deliver results in the end. It is in no government's interests to put its advisers in a situation where they feel that frank and fearless advice is not welcome because what is the opposite to frank and fearless advice - it is advice which actually papers over the realities of the situation, which tells a government what it wants to hear today but which may lead it into trouble tomorrow. Advice which is wrong is always found out in the end. Ministers who take bad decisions are always found out in the end.

When advice is contestable Ministers are looking for the best advice. That is why it has become contestable because Ministers are saying, "If we think we can get better advice that will help us achieve our objectives we will pay for it ." If advice which was paid for as a result of a contract turned out to be poor advice that contract would never be renewed and there would not be a future contract coming. So in the end there is no alternative to frank and fearless advice.

Ministers always have to provide frank and fearless advice to Cabinet. Do you give frank and fearless comment? How far do you colour what you say? It is something that has to be faced by everybody in a leadership position in any organisation, how far are you going to be frank? And in the end it is the quality of the people there who have to decide what they are going to say and whether that is the right advice to give and those pressures are going to be on senior managers and leaders in the Public Service, as they are on Ministers and as they are on the leaders of any other organisation in the community. In the end it is only good advice which is going to deliver results and that is why in the end there will always be an incentive to provide the best possible advice.

THE CHAIRMAN: Minister, Dr David Kemp, on behalf of all of us at this luncheon I very much appreciate the frank and fearless way that you have portrayed the career public service of the future. You have indicated your role in the leadership chain, in helping to communicate to us, the Australian Public Service, your vision of the future and of the role and responsibilities that we as public servants are going to play. I realise that it was difficult, on a very tight time schedule, to make your time available. I am delighted that you were able to do so and to answer the questions that were put to you.

I would like to thank you very much for that time. We look forward with interest, not only to the resumption of debate in the House of Representatives next week on the Public Service Bill, but also to how you flesh out your agenda for public service reform. On behalf of all of us thank you very much indeed.