By Professor Caron Beaton-Wells, ANZSOG Dean and CEO
The issue of politicisation of the public service has surged back into the forefront of debate in recent years. It is neither a new issue and nor is it confined to Australia.
At any given time, the flavour of the debate will invariably be determined by the incidents or episodes that have re-enlivened it. Of late, the flavour is undoubtedly Robodebt, an episode that has been one of the most damaging to public trust in government in many years.
But this is not another commentary on the Robodebt fall-out. Rather it is a reminder that politics is an unavoidably grey area for public servants and the backdrop to much of their work.
Both independence and responsiveness are core public service principles. But in practice, there can be a seemingly irreconcilable tension between them.
This makes politicisation or the counter-factual of political neutrality a slippery concept, and means we need strong well-understood and mutually respected ground rules that recognise the tensions and clarify the different roles of public servants and elected representatives (and their political advisors).
It also means that public service leaders in particular need a very particular set of skills and approaches that will help them navigate the slippery slope.
The politicisation pendulum
There have been efforts to provide some definitional clarity: politicisation is the “preferencing of politics in policy-making”; it is “breaches in the boundary between the political and non-political arms of government that put the apolitical character of the public sector at risk”.
However, a great deal of the attention has been on identifying the manifestations or symptoms of politicisation in practice.
Those fall on a spectrum, from the most obvious such as partisan appointments or dismissals, to the more subtle or strategic such as when elements of the policy advisory apparatus become captured by ideological frameworks or when dissenting voices are marginalised by a culture of fear.
There has also been some valuable interrogation of the underlying causes of politicisation, as a phenomenon shaped (driven or restrained) by the prevailing political ethos surrounding the role of the public service in a Westminster system.
In particular, there is emphasis on how New Public Management swung the balance between independence and responsiveness excessively towards the latter, where politicians make decisions and the public service implements them. More recently there appears to be a deliberate effort to create a new equilibrium in the respective roles of the political and administrative branches of executive government.
The growing emphasis on stewardship – the creation and maintenance of a public service that has the capability to advise and act beyond responsiveness to the demands of the government of the day – is a manifestation of this. Stewardship is captured as a principle in the Aotearoa New Zealand Public Service Act 2020, and on this side of the ditch is now ensconced as an Australian Public Service value.
Public servants and politicisation: spare a thought
In Australia, the restoration project, led at the federal level, has been subsumed largely under the banner of ‘integrity reform’, which in turn is part of the broader APS Reform endeavour. It is an ongoing project, with a second tranche of reforms currently in consultation, and is parallelled in some States and Territories that are also focusing on a renewal of integrity.
While there will inevitably be calls for more, these current efforts are to be commended. This is particularly as many of them recognise that politicisation, and integrity risks more broadly, arise in a complex interplay between structures, systems, processes and cultures.
In amidst of this, spare a thought for individual public servants and particularly those lower down in the hierarchy who must detect and walk the line between too much and too little responsiveness to political masters.
In some cases, the line is not fine at all. When deferring to a government priority results in failure to fulfil the (basic) professional obligation to advise against illegality, the line has clearly been crossed, as borne out in the aftermath of Robodebt. And there are other bright lines, as reflected, for example, in the dismissal of Mike Pezzullo.
But in other cases, things won’t be so obvious.
Public servants operate in an environment that is inherently political. They are responsible to governments and Ministers who in turn, operate in a world that is increasingly fractured and combative, amplified by a 24/7 media cycle, and under pressure to deliver quick solutions to often intractable and complex problems.
If one takes the view that public servants also serve Parliaments through Ministers and the public more broadly, then the tension becomes potentially more acute. What if the evidence, uncovered through the policy advisory process, means that an election manifesto promise doesn’t make sense, is unworkable from say a legal or budgetary perspective, or will affect certain groups adversely?
Navigating the tensions: the need for political nous and strong ground rules
At ANZSOG, we support public servants in navigating these tensions by focusing on the practical skills associated with “political nous”.
More art than science, these are skills aimed at shoring up government confidence in the public service’s capability and willingness to provide robust high-quality advice and strengthening the authorising environment for this. They help public servants distinguish between being aware of the politics and getting involved in it, and to understand the difference between a political problem and a policy (or legal or budgetary) problem.
Understanding these distinctions is important in developing what Richard Mulgan has usefully described as constrained responsiveness. As shown in the work of ANZSOG Practice Fellow Sally Washington, essential to mastering this art are skills relevant to the “demand side” of the policy infrastructure.
Beyond the quality of leadership, systems, people capability and engagement (all relevant to the policy supply side), her work underscores the need for equal attention to be given to the role of Ministers in the policy eco-system and more particularly, the relationship between Ministers, political advisors and policy advisors (the policy demand side).
The mutual trust required for these relationships to function effectively cannot be left to chance; it should not be a function merely of personal alchemy between the parties.
Rather, there are ways in which to establish and maintain the relationship consistent with an approach of constrained responsiveness, and ultimately in support of good policy advice – advice that is trusted and therefore more often sought out instead of outsourced, or when sought, more likely to be given weight amongst the numerous other sources of advice on offer.
In particular, public service leaders can seek to work with Ministers to agree on a policy program, both short and long-term, and ensure that is communicated throughout their department.
They can ensure clear ground rules are in place for commissioning advice and adjusting the priorities as needed.
They can engage with Ministers on the operating model that will enable that frank and fearless advice to be provided in a form Minsters can use to take good decisions, and that will establish feedback mechanisms to continually improve the relevance and quality of future advice.
Of course, as in any relationship, these ways of working will only work if all parties subscribe to their value. Confident ministers will encourage frank and fearless advice and surround themselves with advisors who are confident enough to deliver it – not cronies or ‘yes people’.
For their part, public service leaders can and should seize the initiative to deliberately agree the boundaries of the relationship with ministers, especially with new Ministers. In doing so, they may avoid some of the slipperiness inherent in the politicisation slope.
Read more from ANZSOG on this topic at:
- Ministers and Officials – how to get the relationship right | ANZSOG
- Political nous is an essential policy capability (themandarin.com.au)
- Fixing the ‘demand side’ – helping ministers perform (themandarin.com.au)
- Fixing the ‘demand side’: how the public service can support ministers in becoming ‘intelligent customers’ of policy advice (themandarin.com.au)
- Building effective relationships with ministers: a timely ANZSOG Masterclass for Queensland public servants
This article first appeared in the Mandarin.