Numerous reports around Australia,particularly the recent,have revealed a public service overly responsive to the elected government of the day,whatever its colour.
Ombudsman Deborah Glass investigated whether the state’s public service had been undermined by the hiring of dozens of Labor operatives.Luis Ascui
Concerns widely shared by retired public sector luminaries,academics and political commentators reveal the erosion of a core Westminster principle:an apolitical public service that serves the government while providing it with ‘frank and fearless’ advice.
The referral from the Legislative Council,which referenced,alleged the public service had been improperly ‘stacked’ with ALP operatives. We did not find this. A single media report does not always tell the full story.
We did find instances where people’s reputations had been unfairly sullied by stints,sometimes many years previously,in ministerial offices. Public sector leaders should feel relieved,in some cases vindicated,by this outcome.
But the newspaper article also referred to other problems,which we did substantiate. Politicisation can take many forms. It is not just the hiring of people with political affiliations. It is also the closing down or marginalisation of apolitical,independent voices.
We found ongoing marginalisation of the traditional public sector – a more subtle form of politicisation – in the early development of the
The brainchild of a former ministerial staffer – whom we do not criticise – this project was shrouded in excessive secrecy until it was announced as an election promise in 2018. It was so secret it was kept from the secretary of the relevant department,and most of the board of the originating agency.
The stated reason for the secrecy – to mitigate against land speculation – does not stack up,as no land was acquired by the responsible agency before a public announcement,and in any event would not justify keeping the relevant secretary in the dark.
It was ‘proved up’ by consultants rather than developed by public servants,and its announcement ‘blindsided’ the agency set up by the same government to remove short-term politics from infrastructure planning.
I can’t tell them the bad news,no one wants to know it.
A former agency head
Since its announcement,its projected cost,evaluated by both the Auditor-General and,has increased exponentially and will dominate Victorian infrastructure spending for generations.
As the (now former) secretary pointed out,a project of this scale competes with many other claims on public funds. They told us that not being able to test the opportunity costs creates a high risk that better uses of funds have been crowded out.
Excessive secrecy and the use of consultants also featured in the early planning. History has since revealed major flaws in the assumptions underpinning the financial modelling. The lack of rigorous public sector scrutiny of such projects before they were announced poses obvious risks to public funds.
We also found that confidence within the public sector that senior hiring decisions are based on merit has been undermined. While our examination of recruitment did not find partisan ‘stacking’ of the public service,the justification for some appointments was questionable,and we could easily understand why so many senior figures suspected decisions had been politicised.
The notion that the VPS should just implement government policy,not challenge policy or offer new ideas,is a misguided article of political faith.
Former agency head
These included the frequent appointment of former ministerial staffers without open and advertised processes;often explained by a pressing need to hire someone familiar with government policy to ‘get things done’.
We found multiple examples of rushed and shoddy recruitment practices,poor record-keeping and opaque selection methods. Perception matters. Not only must merit selection be done,it must be seen to be done.
Disregarding this principle makes it less likely that the public sector will attract and retain capable leaders. The quality and candour of advice upon which important decisions are made will suffer. Confidence in the strict neutrality of public service will be shaken.
Perceptions are heightened by the increasing growth and influence of the Premier’s Private Office. In 2022 the Victorian premier had roughly as many staffers as the Australian prime minister and New South Wales premier combined.
Decisions made in ‘echo chambers’,not subject to the scrutiny of expert career officials,do not make for good public administration.
While it is impossible to quantify the impact of marginalisation on either the public interest or the public purse,we should all be worried about the trend.
Creeping politicisation is a reality in Victoria,and requires urgent attention. We were also deeply troubled by the number of people who were afraid to speak to us.
While the response to our request for submissions was overwhelming,particularly from current and former senior public officials with deep knowledge of the issues we were examining,many more declined to speak on the record.
Two sentiments stood out – concern and fear. Concern about what people saw as the quickening corrosion of longstanding Westminster principles of responsible government. Fear that if they spoke up,if they were in any way identifiable as having done so,their careers would be finished.
Whatever the truth of the question at the heart of this investigation,that so many people were
concerned and fearful should be a signal to this government that all is not well.
A culture of fear in the upper echelons of the public sector does not support frank and fearless advice. It is disappointing and disturbing that to protect the identities of so many people we were unable to follow some promising lines of inquiry,and the report does not set out the evidence as fully as I would have wished.
Restrictions on cabinet documents also prevented other lines of inquiry from being followed to a conclusion. Definitive answers about the early development of the Suburban Rail Loop are shrouded in the fog of cabinet secrecy.
Not all departments were alleged to be ‘politicised’;tens of thousands of dedicated public servants carry on their business serving the public,and their ministers,without question or controversy. But many people noted a growing pressure to tailor official advice to the preferences of the government of the day.
This ‘over-responsiveness’ appeared more common when major infrastructure development and job creation was the desired political goal,not coincidentally those areas required to deliver major election promises.
What now? Is there a need for reform,and if so,what needs to be done?
Neither the current nor the former premier responded to a draft of this report,so I cannot say whether there is any appetite for change within the government,nor indeed if there is any consideration of the need for it.
Deborah Glass has handed down the findings of a two-year probe,exposing a culture of fear and secrecy among Victorian government employees.
But it seems to me the case for reform is compelling,not only from the individual strands of this investigation,but from the evidence of current and former senior public officials who are deeply troubled by these problems.
There will always be a creative tension between an unelected bureaucracy adhering to public sector values and an elected government eager to deliver on its election promises.
That creative tension is a feature and strength of our system of governance. It energises the former and tempers the latter. But good public administration relies on the observance of boundaries,which either are,or are in danger of,being crossed.
There are greater issues at play than we could possibly examine fully,including the diminution in at least some areas of government of public service expertise,and the extent to which its traditional advice role is being outsourced to consultants and ministerial advisers.
It is also apparent that some of these trends have been continuing for decades under multiple governments of all stripes,and elsewhere around Australia.
But nothing will change without a recognition at the highest levels of government that change is necessary.