"We need a culture that respects these public servants and the integrity of their work and advice. Scientists need to know that presenting scientific facts is not going to jeopardise their funding or their position. There is a lot of untapped potential in our Public Service."

Address to the Federation Chamber, Debate - Australian Public Service

Tuesday 12 September 2023

I rise in tonight's grievance debate to express my concerns over the conditions for scientists, engineers and technology professionals employed by the Australian government. After nearly a decade of funding cuts, the imposition of staffing caps, efficiency dividends and outsourcing to consultancy firms and labour hire companies, the former government left the Australian Public Service in a parlous state. The Department of Defence, as an example, was left in a position where they had significantly more contractors then ongoing civilian employees.

With increasing complexities in government business—including AUKUS, climate change and environment policy—in-house science, technology, engineering and mathematics skills are essential. There has never been a more crucial time to have a serious conversation about rebuilding science and engineering capability within the Australian government, after more than a decade of outsourcing this capability as part of a mantra of 'experts on tap, not on top', and understanding that to do so requires restoring respect and recognition of the value of the expertise of our in-house engineers and scientists to effectively meet our most critical challenges.

Our government promised systemic reform of our nation's Public Service, and I am proud that this reform is underway. The big consultancy firms have been exposed as the greedy and manipulative cartels they are, but they've been enabled by governments that have neglected or undervalued public sector expertise. Unsurprisingly, profit-driven motivations are not a good fit with an ethos that should be driven by the public good.

Before I entered parliament, I was the Australian government director for Professionals Australia, the union representing scientists, engineers and other professionals. I spent over a decade working closely with Australian government scientists, engineers and technology professionals. My priority was to ensure these workers had conditions they could not just work with but thrive in. I understand the importance of supporting these professionals and the essential work they perform for government.

Professionals Australia has brought a draft statement of scientific integrity to recent bargaining negotiations with the Australian Public Service Commission. This will allow scientists to give fearless advice to government. Professionals Australia's members care deeply about evidence based science and proper processes. Yet we know mismanagement and errors in scientific understanding are, on the contrary, quite systematic and have been politicised in recent years. The APS needs a systematic process to ensure scientific and engineering knowledge is considered and respected with independence.

Professionals Australia proposes that scientists employed within the Australian Public Service should be able to give free and frank scientific advice to the government that is guided by the most reliable research and data. The APSC must recognise that scientific and data driven evidence are central to the development of good policy. Scientists and engineers in the APS should not be pressured to change or manufacture their evidence based advice or findings for political reasons. Scientists and engineers have proposed the APSC work with Professionals Australia to develop the scientific integrity statement. This would recognise the professional skills of scientists and engineers and prohibit improper political interference with evidence based science.

The APSC claims that existing policies adequately address scientific integrity, although Professionals Australia strongly disagrees. Feedback from the Public Service also disagrees with the APSC's assessment. It's been identified that in some cases scientists self-censor information for fear of damaging their careers, losing funding or being misrepresented in the media. In others, senior managers have prevented researchers from speaking truthfully on scientific matters. A code of conduct should allow government scientists to speak freely about their research in both a public and private capacity. Government scientists and other staff should report to new, independent state and federal environment authorities to minimise political and industry interference. Information ensures government policy is backed by the best science. For example, conservation dollars would be more wisely invested, costly mistakes would be avoided and interventions would be more effectively targeted. Importantly, it would ensure the public is properly informed, a fundamental tenant of a flourishing democracy.

Scientific integrity is just one of a few issues that STEM professionals are currently dealing with. The Department of Defence is on track to face severe, expensive and protracted internal skilled labour shortages in the areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics personnel because of a persistent refusal to pay technically skilled staff anywhere near their market value. I was disappointed to hear that Professionals Australia had been shut out of any upgrade and formal pay recognition of its members' skill sets, despite formal evidence to previous parliamentary committees that pay gaps exist as large as $100,000.

Jill McCabe, the CEO of Professionals Australia, acknowledged that, although the Defence Strategic Review report indicated that pay and service conditions in the APS should be highly competitive in the labour market, the APSC has since rejected Professionals Australia's claim for a specific STEM structure that would help recruit, develop and retain a skilled technical science and engineering workforce. This is despite the fact that the DSR report highlighted that the Defence APS workforce was understrength and an innovative and bold approach to recruitment and retention was required.

As part of the APS enterprise bargaining negotiations, Professionals Australia had proposed a specific STEM classification and pay structure to help the Department of Defence compete with the private sector and attract and retain the critical skills needed to deliver strategic defence projects. Under the current APS pay structure, departments simply cannot compete with the salaries offered by the private sector. We also know that engineering and technical specialists develop their skills and expertise in the first few years working in the Department of Defence but may then move to private sector companies due to the higher pay on offer.

In David Thodey's review, Our Public Service Our Future: an independent review of the Australian Public Service, he recognised that the existing APS structures do not nurture STEM staff to meet today's challenges. Culture and structure must both be reformed. The skill shortages are not a future problem. They are with us in the present, which is why action is so urgent. Professionals Australia's members have a clear view that the continuation of forcing technical and specialist skills into the current APS classification structure is not fit for purpose and does not get the best out of our APS.

The APS has a long history of accepting the need to set out different classification structures to meet APS requirements. The current enterprise agreement for the department of industry has science and technical trade measurement and legal classification structures. The Bureau of Meteorology agreement offers occupational classification structures. DFAT's agreement offers a medical classification structure. The Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment has legal, public affairs, veterinarian and research scientist classification structures. There are many examples across the APS. All of these classification structures have been drafted to fit approximately with the current single APS approach but are imperfect in the way they operate. Caps to salary and staffing levels have meant that one of the only ways to offer competitive employment conditions to technical subject matter experts has been to promote them into managerial positions. As a result, technical ability has diminished due to the increased administrative and HR responsibilities of APS executive level roles.

If we're going to deliver on nuclear submarines, the environment, and deal with the challenges of AI and a sustainable transition to a net zero economy, we need STEM public servants. The Public Service will not attract or retain this talent if they're not remunerated properly. Furthermore, these staff need the classifications that will allow them to operate appropriately, as well as the resources that will support them. We need a culture that respects these public servants and the integrity of their work and advice. Scientists need to know that presenting scientific facts is not going to jeopardise their funding or their position. There is a lot of untapped potential in our Public Service. We need to use the industrial mechanisms available in a smarter and better way that ensures we harness talent and bolster our Public Service STEM capabilities so that they can be well equipped to deliver and meet our national priorities.