Wednesday, 21 September 2022

Victorian Public Sector Commission

Report 2020–21

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (17:19): I rise to make a statement on the Victorian Public Sector Commission annual report 2020–21. The annual report sets out some detail on the state of the public service in Victoria—its headcount and its growth—and it talks about the values of the Victorian public sector as well, and the values the report covers are responsiveness, integrity, impartiality, accountability, respect, leadership and human rights. The area I would like to touch on today is the need for those values to be extended, if you like, to include courage. I raise courage in the context of risk management and risk avoidance. One of the things I have observed in working with the public sector in Victoria over a long period of time is the need to develop a better framework by which the VPS and its members can make decisions and can manage risk. Risk management for the public sector is a big challenge because the easiest thing for many people in the VPS to do is to avoid risk, and the best way to avoid risk is to either not make a decision or to make a decision which merely preserves the status quo. Now, that will not get the best outcomes for Victoria. We need members of the public service who are willing to make decisions that advance the state, who are willing and able to manage the risk of decision-making rather than simply avoiding the risk of decision-making by making no decision or preserving the status quo.

Last night I spoke briefly about the need for procurement reform in Victoria. One of the elements that was raised by the Australian Information Industry Association in their brief on procurement was the need to revise the suppliers code of conduct. Part of that suppliers code of conduct basically makes it impossible for public servants to engage with potential vendors who are looking to bid for government contracts. As soon as a potential contract is announced, the shutters go up and nobody can talk to each other, which is not getting the best outcomes for the state and it is not getting the best outcomes for vendors who are trying to deal with the state. What we need is a mechanism where that risk is managed. Yes, there is a risk of malfeasance in any sort of engagement, but we need to manage that risk and recognise the need to manage the risk, rather than simply trying to avoid the risk by having the shutters go up.

One of the things that really is required to create a culture and an environment where risk management and decision-making is encouraged, rather than simply risk avoidance, is to accept that from time to time the wrong decisions will be made, that from time to time the public service will get it wrong. Where that is not wilful or negligent, we need to accept that is the case—that from time to time, there will be the wrong decisions. Yes, if they are wilful and negligent, action should be taken. But if it is merely the case that a decision went bad—a decision was made and went bad—we need to accept that is the case.

We also need to look at mechanisms to incentivise our public service to make decisions. Previously there were bonus mechanisms in the employment of public servants. That was removed by this government. So now there is no incentive mechanism for public servants to go above and beyond—to make decisions, to take risks and to advance the state—and our state is the poorer for that. One of the areas I would like to see reformed in the future through the public service commission and through its values is to recognise the need to manage risk—to take decisions and manage risk—rather than simply trying to avoid risk by avoiding decision-making. We need to provide the incentives to ensure that our public servants and public sector leaders are encouraged to do so.