Power is the ability, capacity or authority to act in a particular way, or to get others to act in a particular way. It affects all human interactions but particularly workplace relationships, where personal power like expertise or charisma is augmented by authority derived from one’s position in the hierarchy.
But despite the indisputable influence of power in the workplace, it remains a force we hesitate to name. Even in workplaces particularly affected by it, like the public service, or in excellent reports about problems impacting such workplaces, such as that of the royal commission into the robodebt scheme, the abuse of power is mentioned just once.
Why does this matter? Because if we can’t name it we can’t slay it, and to my mind the core problem exposed by robodebt — and which the nation now needs to solve — is how you can stop those with extraordinary power from abusing it.
In particular, how can you get ministers and departmental secretaries to attend to the demonstrably valid ethical, legal and practical problems subordinates have with a policy, and use their power to fix them?
The answer isn’t more bureaucracy. First, because the changes recommended by the royal commission into robodebt for the referral, consultation and other processes of the various agencies that were involved are fighting the last war. Also, because as the evidence catalogued by the royal commission shows, where a determined abuse of power is under way, memos, sign-offs and checklists are not the tools required to stop the abuse.
This does not mean that no administrative changes to process are helpful. Indeed, as we know about the checklists used in aviation and medical surgery, some hit the spot. But just to avoid cock-ups, not conspiracies. They won’t stop a bad or cowed actor from having his or her way.
Worse, the creation of more red tape could seed a repeat of the cycle that led to robodebt in the first place. A cycle that began with business complaining about the time it took to comply with Centrelink requests for income information, which led to the Abbott government’s “red-tape bonfire” program, which resulted in one of the earliest and most damaging aspect of the robodebt scheme — income-averaging based on PAYG data — to reduce the “red tape burden on third parties”.
So what would actually assist public servants — many of whom did their best to raise the alarm about the scheme — to ensure they can make good on their obligations to serve the public interest while doing their work efficiently and ethically? The skills and tools to name abuses of power, and to refuse and resist.
Some of the reforms required are already in train. These include the implementation of key recommendations from the 2019 Thodey review of the Australian Public Service (APS) which affirm the imperative that public servants feel free to provide ministers with frank and fearless advice, that department secretaries have independence, and that the public service has the capability it needs to avoid the risks of workarounds like automation (as seen in robodebt) and outsourcing (one key issue in the scandal around PwC).
But more is needed. Cultural and behavioural practices as well as values and leadership capabilities under consideration by the APS’ integrity taskforce must address head-on the challenges to integrity posed by abuses of power. This will require considering the skills of courageous followership required by individuals, the enablers and disablers of the courage required to give voice to their values and, in instances where they are not heard on matters of critical importance, to strategise collectively about how to try again.
Already, in response to similar problems at the local level, public servants in one municipality are trialling the idea of “coaching circles” in which they learn the skills required to influence political leaders to do the right thing through dialogue that deepens self-knowledge and connections within the group. Such connections and mutual understanding can also be used to provide support and resistance to bullying and other abuses of power should the worst come to pass.
The sooner we recognise that this is what public servants need to ensure that the claimed “mandate” of any incoming government is tempered by the right of every Australian to have their rights as citizens and humans protected, the sooner we can make the changes the public service needs to more effectively resist abuses of power, and put what robodebt royal commissioner Catherine Holmes called the “venality, incompetence and cowardice” that led to robodebt in the past.
Surely the first step is to stop political appointments to high levels of the public service where their role has become defending decisions of the minister, rather giving the minister/government unbiased advice?
Quite often senior PS positions change when governments change. Which tells us very clearly that these senior positions have become politically based support roles/advisers, rather than ‘apolitical’ public service positions, as public service legislation mandates. But these are tip of the iceberg symptoms of deeper problems because these people are generally recruited from lower down the food chain – so the rot has to be setting in, for some, much earlier in career paths than by the time they’re ‘captain-picked’ for senior positions.
It’s the difference between the ABC’s Utopia program and the older Yes Minister series. In Utopia, it’s the Sir Humphrey equivalent that represents expertise, consistency and integrity. That’s a significant organisational culture shift in 40 years. Unwinding that isn’t going to be easy as there will already be too many corrupted links in the hierarchical chains that will be blocking reform (as they stand to lose by it).
Encouraging people to “do the right thing” is indeed necessary.
But there also needs to be a realistic risk of significant unpleasant consequences (criminal convictions / jail sentences) to concentrate the minds of those who might otherwise consider facilitating courses of action like Robo-debt.
The notion of training public servants in ethics and their promotion is a good idea, but it faces an uphill battle. There are some very dominant forces out there (see Lewis’s article) who would rather the reverse occurred, and that Machiavelli is the role model needed to run the country. My gut feeling is that any ethical/humanistic training needs to start in High School, but then we’re asking for another culture war.
One problem is that public servants are told repeatedly that they “serve the Government of the day.” I think this is wrong. Public servants serve the people of Australia through the Parliament elected by the people of Australia. The Government is simply the party or grouping that has a majority in the House of Representatives. Public servants report to ministers who are part of that Government, but they do not serve the Government.
Public servants serve the people of Australia.
Under the public service act 1999, The APS “works to achieve the best result for the Australian people and the government”. It is “apolitical and provides the Government with advice that is frank, honest, timely and based on the best available evidence”. it also is trustworthy and acts with integrity.
Any role of ministers in appointments surely undermines this legislation.
Speaking truth (or even just giving an alternative take) to power is the critical skill you have to develop to survive in the C Suite. I know it can be done with bishops, business founders and Macquarie bankers.
But speaking truth to someone who has been canonised by being elected, and who therefore believes themselves on a mission from God, must be of a different order. Particularly when, as with Robodebt, the foreseeable suicides and anguish are measures of success, not unintended consequences.
The PS has a chain of command to ensure that any research or recommendations that are unwelcome do not make their way to the top. This can be for many reasons, a common one is managers who don’t want their underlings to outshine them. Managers who manage their career, not public service. See Yes Minister.
True.