Check against delivery
Acknowledgements
Thank you Selina for your Welcome to Country.
Please allow me to also acknowledge the Ngunnawal people as traditional custodians of these unceded lands and recognise the many Aboriginal people with connection to the lands of the ACT and region. We are privileged to be on your country, to benefit from the continuing culture and care you bring to this community.
My thanks to Kate Driver, IPAA ACT Chief Executive Officer, and the entire IPAA team for their efforts organising tonight’s event, as well as Katherine for hosting proceedings.
I’d also like to acknowledge Gordon de Brouwer, Australian Public Service Commissioner, and along with Katherine Jones my fellow Secretaries in attendance this evening:
- Tony Cook, Department of Education
- David Fredericks, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water
- Jenny Wilkinson, Department of Finance, and
- Steven Kennedy, The Treasury.
Introduction
2024 offered fascinating elections around the world.
Amid noisy campaigns in a number of nations, some tough things were said about the value of public service.
Though details varied, elections surfaced three familiar assertions about government services. These may influence discussion around the world, including in Australia.
These are claims that
- government programs slow down the economy,
- public service is by nature inefficient, and
- public servants operate in their own interest, not that of their nation.
Who would want such people as stewards?
Many people at an IPAA annual address have dedicated their professional life to public service. We may struggle to be objective when others assert our work is at best unnecessary, perhaps even harmful.
Yet when powerful voices offer fundamental critiques it is important to hear what they say, and to weigh the evidence.
Because if accurate, these three statements pose a blunt question: does our work as public servants have value and meaning?
So my theme for today is the challenge to public administration.
The scale of the state
Let's start with the big picture: the suggestion that many, if not most, government agencies are a drag on prosperity.
There is no right answer to the appropriate scale for government. Some argue for a minimalist state, concerned principally with law and defence, otherwise leaving citizens to make their own choices. Taxation, regulation and government services should all be constrained to ensure prosperity.
In this worldview, as Ronald Reagan memorably said, government is the problem not the solution.
Others see the state as carrying a responsibility to support citizens by creating programs and services which address needs from health and disability to financial security in old age.
The balance between sharing resources through taxation, and minimising the call on citizens, is the core debate about the role of the government. Every nation arrives at a different equilibrium. In democracies, the long-run trend has been to help those less fortunate through state action. It is no surprise social services is the single largest area for public expenditure in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, ahead of both defence and health.
In an ideal world, we test claims against evidence. So are states with smaller governments more prosperous than those with larger public sectors? The many macro studies of this question reach slightly different conclusions, depending on the variables in play, but none reports a clear correlation between the size of the public sector and real GDP growth.
Instead, there is significant variation, even among otherwise very similar nations. Overall national growth, it turns out, rests on a complex mix of policy settings, natural resources, geography, investment in research, political stability and exposure to international trade. And, perhaps, sheer good luck.
There is a stronger correlation between tax rates and inequality. Higher taxing nations have resources to redistribute, and typically report a lower Gini coefficient ratio. This means a more even distribution of wealth across the society.
So, concerns about the scale of government are not driven principally by evidence. Rather, they reflect beliefs about the legitimate role of the state, and the type of society we prefer. Australians have made their own choices about the balance between market and state, to which I will return.
Efficiency
Next, what about claims of inherent public sector inefficiency? These too can be hard to test. The public and private sectors rarely undertake the same task in a way that allows rigorous comparison.
Within that significant caveat, a global study commissioned for the United Nations Development Program found no conclusive evidence that public, private or mixed ownership is intrinsically more efficient.
Likewise, a survey of available data on relative productivity by the European Federation of Public Service Unions finds no inherent private sector advantage.
As the report noted, "efficiency is not the same as cutting costs." Lower costs may also reflect lower quality of service or lower pay and conditions for workers. Any assessment of efficiency must measure results alongside inputs.
So efficiency is not a universal, but must be gauged against objectives, the type of service in question, and the tools available.
Nonetheless, the belief that government is always wasteful has deep historical roots. It was at the heart of the public choice economics which urged – and achieved – a shift to contracting during the 1990s and 2000s.
Several decades on, research shows that service delivery through private providers does not produce a consistently more effective model. Professor Mark Considine's detailed comparative study of various contracted government services in Australia reports very mixed outcomes, rather than clear and sustained efficiency gains.
None of this is definitive. It may be that government is simply poor at procurement, and so fails to harness the gains possible through contracting.
But rather than presume an answer, suggests Professor Considine, we should ask "how do you get a system that delivers the best possible service?"
To be compelling, claims about relative efficiency must be program specific and evidence based.
Can we trust public servants?
The third theme is trust. Even if government can be efficient and effective, some people simply do not want public servants holding any power. They warn of an administrative state which is unresponsive to political directive. Public servants, it is suggested, are motivated by personal advancement and block any moves which threaten their privilege.
Again, there is a long tradition at work here, from Niskanen's argument about budget-maximising officials to any episode of Yes Minister.
Sadly, it is not hard to find examples of bureaucratic intransigence. Most organisations – public and private – bridle at criticism and resent demands to change. Few organisations are good at admitting mistakes or correcting errors. Some do not welcome direction from those authorised to govern.
Yet claims that public servants conspire to frustrate the popular will are difficult to test. Context matters. A public official who gives unwelcome advice, or declines to act on an instruction because it is unlawful, is hardly a covert operator. We might instead call them brave – such as Centrelink officer Colleen Taylor OAM, who called out the faulty and unfair logic of the Robodebt program.
Over more than half a century Australia has legislated to make the work of government more transparent. Initiatives range from administrative review tribunals to Freedom of Information legislation, whistleblower protections, ombudspersons, estimates hearings and anti-corruption commissions.
So too APS legislation, integrity guidelines, value statements, conflict of interest declarations and code of conduct procedures.
Though far from perfect, each initiative calls public servants to account who behave as if beyond scrutiny.
Government agencies are just people, and therefore fallible. From the crooked tree of humanity no straight thing was ever made, as Kant reminds us. Yet we can design organisations to call out self-interest, insist on integrity measures, and test for fairness. And we can recruit for personal qualities. There is a reason some people choose to commit their life to serving others.
The case for an APS
I linger on these three criticisms because they raise important issues worth mulling. There are always competing narratives about the best way to organise the state, even if the debate sometimes relies more on belief than evidence. Just as good policy advice is based on facts and analysis, so the value of public service should be evaluated on its merits.
Australia has its own administrative traditions, including a non-partisan public service that informs and implements the decisions of ministers and the Parliament. Government has long been a significant theme in our history. As he looked back on legendary public servants such as Nugget Coombs, political scientist A.F. Davies argued that Australians have demonstrated a "talent for bureaucracy".
I suspect eminent historian W.K. Hancock was less enthusiastic when he suggested that we depend too deeply on government services – Australia, he said "has come to look upon the state as a giant utility which could meet most of its needs."
From different perspectives, both were reflecting on the early and enduring role of the government in our national life, from pioneering social provision to Medicare in the 1980s and beyond.
Supporting this commitment has been a Commonwealth public service which remains relatively small in scale amid a changing world.
As Budget Paper 4 makes clear, the average staffing levels of the Australian Public Service are still below those of the final year of the Howard government as a percentage of the labour force.
So the APS has grown more slowly than the Australian population. Yet we continue to need public servants who are proud to work for the National Disability Insurance Agency, defend borders, respond to crises and contribute to foreign policy – just as earlier generations did, and in similar numbers.
For just on 125 years, the APS has been a national institution, trusted by the overwhelming majority of the Australian people, as the annual APS reform trust survey demonstrates. They will continue to look to the APS in times of hardship, for swift action in emergencies, for protection of the public interest.
So let me turn briefly from the why to the how.
When Prime Minister Anthony Albanese invited me to lead the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, he stressed his commitment to cabinet government. In his experience, the Prime Minister finds government most effective when there is collective decision-making and a continuous conversation about goals informed by good advice and thorough process.
I share this outlook. Government has too many moving parts to steer decisively from the centre. The task instead is to ensure a rigorous policy cycle so the elected ministers in Cabinet have the information and advice to make choices eyes wide open. After all, they are the ones who will stand or fall on the strength of their decisions.
In his recent book On Leadership, Tony Blair notes that while people are usually "sniffy" (his word!) about public service routines, we get better decisions when we care about the means. With encouragement and support, suggests Blair, officials will deliver "process genius."
An effective policy cycle requires an ethic of service – public officials who put aside personal views and ego and insist on intellectual and personal humility as they move through each stage of policy development, decision and implementation. This means listening to those with whom we disagree and engaging with ideas which make us uncomfortable. It requires collegiality and respect, and a maturity in handling conflict. It asks us to understand and navigate those conflicts inherent in the society we serve.
In return, public servants earn the extraordinary privilege of contributing to the fundamental issues of our time. This is why I see a professional public service as crucial. The APS builds judgement from experience, from living with policy success and failure. Good process and timely expertise are nurtured – the work of stewardship.
Ministers get the benefit of daily political counsel from their offices, and they also receive independent advice from officials, particularly around the detail of drafting laws and planning complex implementation.
At its heart, cabinet government brings together these two worlds – politics and administration. It is served best when political advice is separate from policy analysis, and ministers have access to both.
This requires a public service committed to supporting the Cabinet system, willing to deal with the complexity that so often crosses ministerial portfolio and departmental boundaries.
It requires central agencies committed to collaboration and coordination so policy analysis, economic settings and budget implications inform every decision.
I see this preference for teamwork each month at Secretaries' Board, including this morning's meeting. The best outcomes are achieved by agencies working together, informed by shared data but each willing to put forward its best argument. The decisions are published soon after the Secretaries meet. I am fortunate to work with a like-minded group of departmental leaders – lots of opinions, some great debates, but an underlying shared commitment to co-operation.
Hence the extensive use during 2024 of multi-agency taskforces to tackle cross-cutting issues, some chaired by PM&C and others not.
From review of NDIS rules to the establishment of the Net Zero Energy Authority, from the care economy to policy lessons from the Covid-19 response, from A Future Made in Australia to addressing domestic and family violence, from insurance affordability to updating Commonwealth emergency management plans, collaboration across agencies makes the public service an effective partner with ministers in the shared work of government.
This approach can serve us well for the challenges confronting this and future governments – responding to a greater tempo of natural disasters, the shifting global order, the opportunities of Artificial Intelligence, the stresses on housing, services and costs.
In a recent speech Governor-General Sam Mostyn called for strong, ethical and modern governance. This, she argued, is why Australians will trust their public service. We should bring "the spirit of care" to our work every day.
It is a wise observation. Public office is a public trust.
The Australian Public Service is not some impersonal machine, but a reflection of national aspirations. It is a repository of democratic choices, embodied in programs and institutions, a storehouse for experience and future capability.
It is guided by stewardship, a sense of doing the right things in the right way so they endure.
I see a fundamental commitment to public service every day in the people I am proud to call colleagues. Our Australian Public Service is an enduring project in the interests of citizens – and an inspiring vocation for those with an ethic of service.
So, listen to the critics, worry about efficiency and effectiveness, reflect on what we do, and find ways to do it better. But never doubt that our work is honourable – and necessary.
Thank you.