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

Corruption by politicians, sure. But what about corruption in the public service itself? Markus Mannheim says "Mr Abbott has no actual power to terminate a secretary's tenure; only the Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, is authorised to sack a department head." They are also entitled to Procedural Fairness, so I presume they went willingly. A more interesting question is, did any not go willingly?

The public service needs to be “open, accountable, efficient facilitators of the flow of information”, but why independent? If they’re not accountable to elected politicians, then who are they accountable to?

I’ve seen far too many senior public servants flagrantly breach the Code of Conduct, Criminal Code and Crimes Act because they know they are accountable to no one. Their peers and superiors don’t pull them into line. The AFP won’t touch them. They are a law unto themselves. http://victimsofdsto.com/psc

Let’s be very clear here: If you are a senior public servant, you can commit criminal acts without any risk of the AFP ever charging you. And if you know your subordinates are committing crimes and you do nothing to stop them, you are completely safe in your job.

Andrew Hooley (Victims of CSIRO): “My belief is that one of the fundamental causes of this dystopic public service is that a generation of senior bureaucrats believes that they have no accountability to the parliament and to date the parliament has enforced this lack of accountability by failing to discipline those who willfully mislead or disobey the directions of their cabinet bosses.” http://ozloop.org/profiles/blogs/do-we-need-a-public-service-defence-league

I’ve worked in the private sector my entire working life and we’re not “independent” of management. They’re in charge. If we don’t do what we’re told, we get sacked. Never had a problem with that. If we weren’t accountable to management, the company would become dysfunctional.

> need public servants who are able to speak out without fear of retribution

Section 70 of the Crimes Act, the (self-contradictory) restrictions on social media and Free Speech in Australia are all barriers to this. It is difficult for the press to report corruption in Australia. http://victimsofdsto.com/online/#freespeech

BTW it's worth describing the environment in which these sackings (more accurately resignations?) have taken place: I'm told there is a great deal of mistrust between the APS and the government, that Labor lost control of the APS, and that the Libs are determined not to make the same mistake.

A few examples I'm aware of:

1) Staff in the Attorney-General's Department who ignored orders from then Attorney-General Robert McClelland to investigate breaches of the Model Litigant Policy.

2) Take Labor Minister of Defence Stephen Smith. He might have been PM one day had he played his cards right, but public officials in his department undermined him. Victims of Defence abuse are still waiting for justice.

3) Take Labor Pubic Service Minister Gary Gray claiming the APSC has all the power they need to stop corruption, but the APSC privately contradicts him: http://victimsofdsto.com/doc/2013-04-27%20Comparison%20of%20statements%20by%20Public%20Service%20Commissioner%20and%20Public%20Service%20Minister%20regarding%20PSA%20Accountability.pdf

The general public would be surprised at how much goes on behind closed doors in the halls of bureaucracy, stuff that never reaches the media. Therein lies a contradiction: on one hand the APS touts impartiality, on the other many senior managers tell politicians what they want to hear and many programs are not delivered or managed as the relevant Minister intended.

Whether Ministers really care or not is another matter. This can only be judged on a case-by-case basis as to whether the intent is efficiency of the appearance of efficiency. It is easy enough to distort the figures or use selectively and to sweep bad news under the carpet.

Many public servants are too scared or too lazy to say anything. Why rock the boat. Some might fear losing their jobs, being targeted, being denied promotion and there is fear of isolation. The public service is about protecting its reputation and that of their respective minister, truth gets in the way of a really efficient public service that actually serves the public as well as the government of the day. A more open government and a more open public service would really be accountable to the electorate.

The dictators in charge of social media policy are just another part of this web of obfuscation within a largely self-serving organism.

The modern day APS is hardly a model of its own Values and Codes of Conduct which are selectively applied and ignored as required.

Interesting Post, @Pelican. ( Reposted it here: http://ozloop.org/profiles/blogs/aps-agencies-as-hackers )

Well I know for a fact The Canberra Times knows about corruption, but they don't report it. Presumably for fear they would start getting doors slammed in their faces, harming their other news gathering. Beat reporters won't cover corruption: “Evan Whitton ... believes that corrupt police made a conscious decision to get the press on side. The corrupt police make it their business to supply the people at the sharp end of crime reporting with a very good service. If you have got those guys [on side] they become a prisoner of the source and never drop [the corrupt police] in it. So you've virtually wiped out any investigation if you have got to the guy who is the crime-roundsman. [Investigative reporting into police] has got to be done from outside traditional police reporting. The roundsmen cannot do it." “Journalism: Print, Politics and Popular Culture,” Curthoys and Schultz, UQ Press, 1999.

> The dictators in charge of social media policy are just another part of this web of obfuscation within a largely self-serving organism.

PSC Segdwick claimed that secrecy is necessary to protect the "relationship of trust that must exist between ministers and APS," but we already know secrecy is being used to conceal corruption and maladministration from the public. Perhaps the purpose is also to keep ministers in the dark as well? Perhaps that's the reason for coming down like a tonne of bricks on people such as Ms. Banjeri and Mr. Kessing? http://victimsofdsto.com/psc

> Whether Ministers really care or not is another matter.

In my experience, under Labor at least, when Ministers found out they were being lied to they ignored it. An Opposition advisor told me it was because they knew it would have no effect on their careers whatsoever.

> Many public servants are too scared or too lazy to say anything. Why rock the boat.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/07/30/you-better-be-careful-blowing-the-whistle-new-laws-have-holes/

Agree Brendan. The media is part of the problem and for many of the same reasons. Fear of being excluded from an inside group with access to information as it comes to hand.

The rise of the blogger is an interesting phenomenon thrown into the mix. Among the blogosphere there is often more in the way of scrutiny, investigation and real analysis than coming from the mainstream press.

It is lazy journalism, whether it is due to pressures of the so-called 24 hours news cycle or fondness for tea and scandal is hard to fathom.