A 'politically independent' public service is a public service which is dedicated -- even more than the current establishment -- to increasing its own size and influence. Like the practitioners of 'politically independent' science, its members will spend most of their time working out how to increase their funding and power. Each mandarin will do their best to construct his or her own empire, reinforce its boundaries, and increase their status at the expense of all the others.

A public service which is committed to the goals of the government of the day can at least be purged when a new government is elected; a public service devoted to its own interests is a large and ever-growing drain on taxpayers' funds.

Read the old classic Parkinson's Law for a blow-by-blow description of the inevitable growth of an 'independent' public service.

We would presume that the previous government acted on the advice given to it by the public servants. When you look at the erroneous forecasts of the treasury, and the production of the enormous deficit it is no wonder that the liberals think that there should be many changes of personnel within the PS.

David

Come off the grass Kellie.

If you really mean "We need a truly independent public service with departments led by competent managers appointed on merit", we will have to sack at least half, or somewhat more, of the upper echelons of our existing bureaucrats.

I suppose we could start by sacking all those promoted to senior positions in the last 6 years. Perhaps you would like to point out any conservatives appointed in that time, bias, & lack of independence is a two way street you know.

Then there's the ABC. About the only to get an unbiased, independent public broadcaster with staff appointed on merit, would be to sack everyone above janitor or tea lady, although some of those are a bit dodgy too.

As Australia, once again, lurches from one political extreme to the other, I can't help but wonder where we are headed as a country.

Of course, worshiping Amerika is our main obsession it seems. If you turn over a large stone you will find Yanks scuttling everywhere.

But, that aside, how much longer will we continue to be pre-occupied with the 'bosses versus workies' paradigm? Are we still caught up in the Eureka Stockade mentality in which only friends or enemies exist?

Governments should not advantage particular groups and should help disadvantaged groups. They should be apolitical!

Does that blow your tiny minds?

Kelly, I've long held the view that with every change of Government, there ought to be a change of public service heads. No ifs, but or maybes.
Other industries have to cope with fixed term contracts, and the brightest stars never ever have had a problem finding work in the private sector.
In fact, it might be fair to say, private enterprise is constantly active in recruiting the best and brightest public servants!
If heads were to roll with every change of government; as par for the course, one could argue, the advice would always be both fearless and without favour. If only for self survival!
We are often told there are no free lunches, nobody is owed a living, we need to be multi-skilled; given most of us will have several different careers, during the course of any one lifetime.
If we make public servants a protected species, we will stifle new ideas unborn, or destroy essential nation building vision.
After all, it is the advice that politicians receive and embrace that determines most outcomes and the term of the tenure, not the original thinking of visionary politicians.
And if the advice and ideas are good enough, the Government of the day will survive along with their department heads! And that's why heads should always roll, with every change of government!
What we don't need is empire building bureaucrats, creating work and or duplication, simply to justify their existence or constantly expanding budgets.
Fear can and does beget positive outcomes, if it is used exclusively to motivate excellence and or positive outcomes!
Or, we could follow the flawed thinking of the Greeks and employ three public servants for every one real job?
What we need is rationalization, streamlining, efficiency gains, downsized depts, less red tape, fewer chiefs and a much bigger ratio of Indians/coal face workers.
Rhrosty.

I fully agree we need a truly independent public service.

The important question is whether these individuals were sacked because they were too willing to given the Labor administration what it wanted (in which case Abbott's actions DE-politicise the public service) or not willing enough to give Abbott what he wants (in which case Kellie has a point). Certainly there has been much comment on Treasury’s decline from the days of Ken Henry due to both the growing inaccuracy of its fiscal and economic forecasting (in admittedly difficult times) and the tendency of its errors to support government spin on surpluses etc