Election or not: we need to stay the course with public service reinvestment

This article by ANZSOG Dean and CEO Caron Beaton-Wells was first published in the Mandarin. 

Few things feel guaranteed nowadays. But election-inspired debate about the size and adequacy of the public service is one we can count on. 

Campaigning for the federal election continues down this well-worn path. 

Regardless of the politics surrounding public service cost savings and working arrangements, it is important to recognise that in the current climate there are chaotic and catastrophic global events adding a dangerous dynamic. 

The early days of the Trump administration have seen the slashing and burning of public institutions built over centuries to support what was once held up as the global exemplar of a liberal democratic system.  

This is accompanied by unnerving rhetoric that portrays routine and, in some cases, essential functions of government as a ‘deep state’. Misleading attacks on the public sector will have real consequences for how well it can serve the government of the day. The associated loss of business, investor and consumer confidence is likely to be enormous.  

Australia may be geographically and, arguably, socially and politically distant from these troubling developments, but we should not imagine that we are entirely immune. 

In our political discourse, a grossly oversimplified distinction between big government-big public service vs small government-small public service is risky. It invites ill-informed attacks on an institution that is a bedrock of our way of life. 

But it also detracts from the important and healthy debate that we should be having, about what it is we most need from our public services now and in the future. 

Australian public services have undergone successive waves of change and reform over many decades. Ranked above the OECD average for trust and 8th in an Oxford University league table for effectiveness, each wave has contributed to a world class public service of which we can all be proud. 

At the heart of reform exercises are fundamental questions about the proper role of the public service and its relationship with the government, parliament, citizens and the private and not-for-profit sectors.  

These questions should be regularly revisited when the challenges facing us are constantly in flux, particularly in an era when public expectations of government are high and public confidence ambivalent (at best). 

A debate about fitness for purpose shines a spotlight on what mindsets, capabilities and make-up we need in the workforce that advises government, implements policy and delivers frontline services. 

Numerous reviews, inquiries and Royal Commissions have shone that light. And reform efforts are underway – at federal level, an APS reform agenda has been progressing since the 2019 independent review led by David Thodey AO. 

Many of these efforts are more continuous improvement than radical surgery. In stark contrast to what we are witnessing in the US, they are deliberative and incremental. This avoids the risk that we throw the baby out with the bathwater, disrupting functions on which citizens and businesses routinely rely. 

But there are three aspects of the ongoing reform project that warrant emphasis. 

The first is the recognition that government can’t address the major challenges of our age – be it energy, climate, health or housing – on its own. This acknowledgement is generating conscious investment in the capability of public services, not just to consult or engage, but to partner.  It is an important but challenging adjustment. Adherence to Westminster principles have meant that government departments traditionally struggle to partner with each other, let alone with organisations outside the tent. 

The second is the emphasis on delivery. Under successive governments, the capabilities core to delivering on significant policies or projects have been eroded over time. We’re talking about what some might call ‘the basics’ – procurement, project management, people management even.  

We have to keep rebuilding these capabilities.  They are essential to delivering on time and on budget and complement a commitment to cross-sectoral partnering. Investment in them also recognises that the operating environment is more complicated, more interconnected and more dynamic than ever. If we want public servants who can negotiate and deliver multi-billion dollar projects in defence, infrastructure, health and elsewhere, we need public service skills and systems on par with private sector partners.    

Third is an emphasis on integrity and ethical practice. Not just the avoidance of corruption, but in building a pro-integrity culture that emphasises accountability for public money and resources, robust governance, and an appropriate balance of advice for, and responsiveness to, our elected governments.  

Staying the course with reinvestment in our public services is critical. It will help save us from the slippery slope the US, tragically, seems set on.