Political interference in the public sector, and the accountability void

Here we go again. Both sides of politics claim they want an independent, high-performing APS. Yet neither side can resist the urge to interfere, and the APS leadership seems to continually tread the path of least resistance.

The latest is the reported forming by the APSC of a consultative committee with representatives from 11 unions, 16 departments and 19 agencies.  An expansion of the post 2022 election Labor directives that union delegates were to be given access to facilities, paid time for meetings, training, and involvement in recruitment and workplace discussions

While unions do have a place in representing employee interests, they have no drive or interest in public sector outcomes. Forty-eight organisations with two or three representatives, along with the behind-the-scenes brief writing and spin-off workshops, sounds like bureaucratic make-work. Claims of enhanced productivity as a result are, at best, dubious. The public sector isn’t there to serve public servants, it’s there to serve the public.

These are the same hallmarks of political interference in the public sector as we saw with the Liberals.

The Liberal imposed staffing caps were a blunt instrument with poor outcomes. Overseen by an unimaginative and acquiescent public sector that avoided the intent by creating a second-rate consulting industry of revolving door contractors doing the same job at exorbitant rates.

With a stroke of a pen Labor tore down the industry under the guise of building APS capability. Not a bad thing but done bluntly and with neither the government nor the bureaucracy showing much care for those who had served the processes of that same bureaucracy. It was disappointing.

The Robodebt debacle was not only an example of inappropriate government coercion on the APS, but it also highlighted the willingness of the APS leadership to doff its cap and find the path of least resistance.

We seem to be heading down the same pathways again. Independence takes courage, and the APS needs to be clear on where its duty lies.

The public sector creates the conditions for Australia’s success: transport, communications, health, defence, public safety, emergency response, foreign affairs and regulatory frameworks. The public sector provides the essential services that industry cannot provide, and the frameworks for commercial success that brings wealth to the country. It also delivers the essential safety net for the unwary and unfortunate. We need a brilliantly performing public sector.

25% of Australia’s GDP is attributed largely to public sector activity. Individuals and businesses, small and large, fund 213,000 APS staff and all the contracted activity.

The size of the public sector should not be conflated with the ideologies of big government versus small government. That refers to the influence government has over our everyday activities: as individuals and corporations: a balance between intervention and self-determination. Neither is right or wrong, they are both valid choices. We have the enviable right, from time to time, to choose a government with differing policies and approaches so their leanings suit us as a nation at any particular time.

The role of government is to legislate and direct activity in accordance with the intent of the public that elected them. It’s the role of the APS to implement the policies of the government that the public have chosen. Effectively and efficiently, without favour or bias.

The APS serves the government, the parliament and the public—but they are not prioritised in the legislation. However, there is a clue in the name. While the APS serves parliament, and must be responsive to government and its policies, the APS duty is owed to the public.

Governments are not elected to manage the APS, nor are they accountable for its performance. The convention of ministerial responsibility is a myth. Ministerial resignations are an exception, not a norm.  Except perhaps for personal misconduct and political malfeasance. There has been an increasing shift from political responsibility to individualised bureaucratic accountability, especially under New Public Management, except that hasn’t taken hold either.

Ministers deflect blame to bureaucrats claiming misinformation and poor advice; bureaucrats invoke process and collective responsibility, and public enquiries focus on lessons learned without proposing actual consequences.

No side of politics is free of this stigma. To name a few examples: Robodebt (with its origins in the data matching activities of Gillard-Labor); the Home Insulation debacle with the Minister eventually moved but denying personal responsibility, with poor execution and the bureaucracy claiming political pressure to deliver too quickly; Victorian Health Quarantine Program, Queensland Payroll, and NDIS implementation.  

The public is now left in a hollow “accountability void”. A wobbly stool perched on two legs of Responsibility and Accountability, that can only be made stable by adding the third leg, Consequence.

The certainty is that there will be a change of government, and we will almost certainly see the yo-yoing of ideological based political interference into the operation of the APS: the simplistic Liberal fixation on reducing APS headcount countered by the Labor ideology of increasing both size and Union mandates. The arguments are simple, trite, repetitive and unhelpful in the pursuit of a high-performing public sector. Both positions are also very clear demonstrations of both parties ongoing political interference in the public sector.

That interference needs to be resisted, reset, and that duty lies with the APS. It needs to seize the opportunity to oversee its own destiny. Not wait to be told, but to lead the way in better governance, performance, visibility and transparency. The measure, though informative, is not how other countries or jurisdictions are performing, but how the effort and cost measures against best practice in industry—appropriately adapted for a public sector environment.

It’s not unreasonable for the public to expect standards in reporting and performance that are commensurate with what the public sector asks of public companies. Make performance visible, indeed the same visibility it demands of public companies it should deliver of itself.

Make APS organisational performance transparent to the public, as we do for public companies. Hold individuals to account for success and failure from the top to the bottom, commensurate with an individual’s responsibility.

Annual plans with detail, strategies with targets and outcomes, regular briefings to analysts on performance, and annually a clear statement of achievement or otherwise.  Is the cost of an APS call centre commensurate with an industry call centre, for the same level of performance? Are claims managed with similar velocity as say the insurance industry? Are the planned procurements achieved according to published schedules?

It’s visible measures like these, and ones specific to the public sector, such as the time taken to produce policy advice, that will help protect the public sector from the cyclic interference of governments. It might also serve to improve the public’s trust in the public sector – not just of integrity but in value and performance.

Governments need to stop playing with the APS, it’s not their plaything. Nor is the APS there to serve the APS, it exists to serve the public.

The APS cannot wait to be rescued from political interference. It must rescue itself by having the courage to resist interference, demand high performance of itself measured against public expectations, and making that performance visible. Only then will the public have the public sector it deserves.

Published in the Mandarin July 10, 2025 as The emperor’s new clothes: Political interference and the APS accountability void