The purpose of this paper is to help promote discussion about the ways in which the efficiency, effectiveness and capability of the Australian Public Service (APS) and its integrity can be improved, and the standing of the APS as a key institution in Australia’s democratic system can be restored.

Competent democratic government in the public interest requires an effective and efficient public service distinguished by probity and accountability. It is a fundamental responsibility of the Parliament and the Government to see that its public service is maintained in the best possible form for if that is not so, the well-being of society and citizens is at risk.

There are natural impediments to giving priority to public service laws, structures and procedures. For example: There is a tendency to see the public sector more as a cost than a benefit, a drain of resources that could be used more productively elsewhere. So resourcing of government administration can be based not so much on the basis of what is desirable but what is the cheapest, with the sector being seen more as a source of savings than an avenue for community investment.

Public administration does not have the allure of other policies that more directly engage the interests of citizens and politicians – health and social security, education, defence, economics and taxation and national security. In the Commonwealth, for example, it has been rare for Ministers to engage deeply with public service matters except when things go wrong and cause political strife.

Inappropriate forms of politics rather than sensible administrative policy can have baleful effects on the public service subverting the support it can give to governments and the services due to citizens. Examples of political and bureaucratic empire building and appointments based on political allegiance rather than merit and much in between are common.

These impediments, their inter-action and other influences have combined in the more recent history of the Commonwealth and under successive governments to damage the Australian Public Service (APS). The consequences have been detailed by the 2019 Thodey Review of the Australian Public Service, the Robodebt Royal Commission and numerous reports of parliamentary committees and the Auditor-General.

The Thodey review report said that ‘the APS is not performing at its best today’ and it ‘is not ready for big changes and challenges Australia will face’. It said that

The Government has also taken notable steps to rehabilitate the public service including by:

Legislation to amend parts of the Public Service Act has also been passed by the Parliament in May 2024. In the main, its provisions are useful although they have been criticised for being too modest and unambitious for the seriousness of the problems now besetting the public service.

In acknowledging these criticisms, Senator Gallagher, has said that ‘not everything can be done at once’ and, as mentioned, she has foreshadowed a ‘phase’ of reforms. That is welcome and necessary. Much has changed in government and politics and it is important for the public service to keep up with the times.

The Minister has also said that ‘everyone who wants to play a role…has a role to play.’ This paper is a response to that invitation and it is hoped that it might be helpful to the Minister, the Government and the Parliament.

Role and values of the Australian Public Service

The role of the APS is set out in the Public Service Act 1999. The first main object of the legislation in Section 3(a) is: ‘to establish an apolitical public service that is efficient and effective in serving the Government, the Parliament and the Australian public’.

The way this role is to be performed is set out in the APS Values in Section 10 of the Act. The Robodebt Royal Commission noted ‘a lack of understanding on the part of some of those involved of the APS’ role, principles and values’. It drew attention to the Thodey Report recommendations which ‘were largely directed at the need for a clear understanding of the APS’s role’ and included the codification of new ‘principles’ in the legislation to complement the existing APS values. The proposed principles, drawing on New Zealand practice, were apolitical, stewardship, openness, integrity and adherence to merit.

The Government has instead only added ‘stewardship’ to the current APS Values in the legislation passed in May.

A more substantial change, avoiding Thodey’s possibly confusing addition of new principles, would be to review the current articulation of the APS Values so that they more directly reflect the APS role to ‘serve the Government, the Parliament and the Australian public’. Such a revision could address the Royal Commission’s recommendation for ‘a fresh approach to customer service’ while also acknowledging explicitly the central democratic principle of serving the elected government. The current articulation, even with the inclusion of ‘stewardship’, blurs these responsibilities while also omitting the original Westminster principle for a civil service of merit-based employment.

Proposal 1

Consideration be given to a more substantial revision of the APS Values in the Public Service Act to better reflect Westminster principles of being professional and apolitical, serving the elected government and administering its policies and programs, being accountable to the Parliament and the public through the system of ministerial responsibility, being impartial in its exercise of authority, being committed to serving the Australian public, adhering to the merit principle and having the highest ethical standards (the recently added value of stewardship of the APS could also be retained though that is primarily the responsibility of Secretaries and other senior public servants and there is still work to be done to clarify what this value means in practice for other public servants).

The Thodey report also recommended that its proposed ‘principles’ apply to Commonwealth bodies outside the APS. The above approach to articulating the APS Values – based on relationships with the Government, the Parliament, the Australian public and in the workplace – could clarify distinct values for other Commonwealth employees. That is already the approach for Parliamentary Service employees in the Parliamentary Service Act, recognising they work for the legislature not for the executive arm of government. Value statements could also be included in the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act for both ministerial staff (who work for Ministers) and other employees of Members, including Ministers (whose work relates to the Members’ legislative rather than any executive role), all of whom unlike APS employees are allowed to be partisan.

Proposal 2

Consideration be given to review the Parliamentary Service Values in light of the revision to the APS Values, to include in the MOP(S) Act statements of values for ministerial staff and other employees, and to require other non-APS bodies to articulate the values for their employees using the framework developed for the APS.

Relations between ministers and departmental secretaries

Section 57 of the Public Service Act defines the roles of Secretaries as, among other things, ‘the principal official policy adviser’ to Ministers and for ‘ensuring delivery of government programs and collaboration to achieve outcomes with the Government.’

In discharging these functions mutual trust and confidence between Ministers and Secretaries is vital for effective government and administration.

Trust and confidence between Ministers and Secretaries can be affected by many things often not related to Secretaries’ competence. Personal incompatibilities, including working styles, can affect relations to the point where they become unworkable. In such cases it must be possible for Secretaries to be removed from their particular positions.

Since the 1990s, it has been unfortunate that this possibility has come to be taken as an opportunity for Secretaries not just to be removed from particular positions but to be sacked for any reason. This has gone against a longstanding tradition that staff in the........

© Pearls and Irritations