Before any new ministry is announced, the current minister, Katy Gallagher, or the shadow minister, Jane Hume, should provide early advice to the prime minister-elect on the structure of his ministry and the machinery of government.

That machinery should promote good decision-making and constructive alignment with the public service. The Hawke Government’s arrangements, largely retained by John Howard, provides the best model. It successfully supported those governments’ lasting policy reforms.

Key elements were:

• Every area of government being represented in the cabinet, without the cabinet becoming unmanageably large (foreign affairs and trade being the exception with two cabinet ministers);
• Cabinet (or portfolio) ministers having assistant ministers as necessary to ensure sufficient political attention to key within portfolio issues;
• No ministers having responsibilities across portfolios, with portfolio ministerial “teams” able to be given some discretion in the management of relevant policies and resources, further relieving pressure on cabinet business;
• Clear alignment between portfolio ministers and departmental secretaries, with most assistant ministers having the support of a dedicated deputy secretary; and
• The allocation of functions to portfolios and departments to have greater stability, strengthening relationships not only between ministers and the APS but also between the government and its many stakeholders.

This clear framework has become increasingly muddied over the years, particularly since the Rudd and Gillard Governments, with the nadir of confusion over lines of accountability occurring under Scott Morrison. Albanese’s arrangements are only marginally better.

Gallagher or Hume should also advise firmly against the termination of any current secretaries, but look for advice from the APS commissioner and the secretary of PM&C on possible movements to refresh administration. Every reasonable effort should be made to offer any displaced secretary an equivalent position.

Hume should also firmly advise against the reappointment of Mike Pezzullo or Kathryn Campbell. Both were found, after careful examination, to have breached the APS code of conduct. Reinstatement of either would send a dreadful message to the APS undermining the critical importance of the APS values and code of conduct. APS commissioner Gordon de Brouwer would have to seriously consider resigning in these circumstances.

Labor priorities

If Labor is re-elected, I would look to consolidate the reforms pursued over the last three years. Far too little of that agenda was included in legislation that would lock in the reforms, and rhetoric about “frank and fearless advice” and “APS independence” was not matched by actions. Maybe the Teal independents will help me convince the prime minister to go further.

A new tranche of reform should be presented in the form of a new Public Service Act Amendment Bill which would, inter alia, finally address the underlying causes of Robodebt:

• Taking up Katy Gallagher’s 2023 commitment to the Thodey report recommendations about secretary appointments and terminations, the role of the APS commissioner, and requiring the commissioner’s appointment to be subject to consultation with the leader of the opposition;
• Going further, replacing term appointments and requiring every reasonable effort to find a new position for any secretary displaced for reasons other than poor performance;
• Revising the wording of the APS values to include merit and to clarify commitment to serve the Australian public as well as the democratic responsibility to serve the elected government;
• Imposing firmer rules about the use of contractors, consultants and labour hire;
• Addressing the excessive hierarchical culture in the APS by requiring the commissioner to approve any deputy secretary position and agency heads to consult the commissioner annually on their SES structures; and
• Giving statutory weight to rules about post separation employment.

Lynelle Briggs’ 2023 report on merit-based statutory appointments should be released as soon as possible and legislative action must be taken to constrain appointments to statutory positions and boards, and to limit political appointments to ambassador and high commissioner positions.

The action taken over the last three years to address disparities in pay and conditions across the APS has had limited success because it was not based upon proper market assessments. A rigorous labour market review is needed, with a transition plan for implementation. Increases in remuneration of some high demand occupations such as IT are almost certainly required, but it may well be that the bulk of the APS is already well remunerated, evidence suggesting some are over classified.

The Remuneration Tribunal also needs a shake-up and its support over the last decade for eye-watering pay for top executives should be subject to proper review.

Labor will also have to quickly forget its criticisms of Coalition attacks on the APS and recognise its own forward estimates demand very significant improvements in efficiency.

Coalition priorities

Much of the above agenda should be equally pursued if the Coalition wins government. I might have a harder challenge, however, in convincing the prime minister and colleagues, though, again, pressure from the Teals will help.

My first step would be to call for a hard-headed review of the lessons from Robodebt and other failures of the Morrison era identified by ANAO and which caused us such immense political damage.

Why did ministers not receive the frank and fearless advice that might have saved them from the errors made? What relationship with the APS and secretaries will ensure that ministers do receive the expert advice they need, as well as ensuring that the APS delivers our government’s policies and programs? How might we demonstrate our commitment to a professional, non-partisan public service, in contrast with the politicisation so evident in the Labor Governments now operating in Victoria and NSW?

The government will also need to face the reality that our election commitment to reduce the APS by 41,000 over five years and to deliver savings rising to $7 billion a year is simply unachievable, particularly if defence and intelligence agencies are exempt and service delivery quality is not to be adversely affected.

A more nuanced view of how to achieve efficiencies is needed, focusing more on budgets for administrative expenses than on public service head counts. This would not exempt defence or service delivery agencies like Centrelink and the ATO, but would encompass careful consideration of technology investments such as AI, performance issues such as in procurement, and the top heaviness of much of the APS.