The biggest conversation starters from yesterday’s edition were Helen Razer’s reflection on the “goodies” and “baddies” in the Syria conflict, and Bernard Keane’s analysis of accountability in the public service.

Yes, a whole lot of people with experiences related to the public service had responses to the latter. Here are a few of the most interesting:

Ruv Draba writes: Re. “Does anyone in the public service get held to account?”

I’ve consulted with the federal Australian Public Service for over 20 years, Bernard. In my view there are some skills issues, but also significant internal accountability. I’ve seen people moved for conspicuous under-performance, especially at senior levels, and the churn of senior public servants that you can notice in Senate Estimates may in part be testimony to that. The old joke is that if you do ten things and get nine of them right and one wrong, in the private sector your score is “nine” — in the APS, it’s “minus one”. I’ve seen plenty of evidence thereof.

The APS works in a treacherous, shifting environment unlike any I’ve seen sustained by the private sector. Rushed policies driven by Utopia-style “announcables”, politically over-constrained problems, conflicting and outdated legislation, the politicisation of professionals expected to be neutral, an acute dearth of commercial and hands-on sectoral skills, the challenge of resourcing changing skills in an environment where “efficiency dividends” are levied each year so that people are judged by price rather than capability, constant machinery of government restructures, and the integrity of major procurements at risk from private sector grey gifts (especially sinecure consultancies for senior figures) make it a tangled environ in which to perform.

Arguably, there are sometimes public servants who should be named and shamed; I’ve known of a few whom I believe should have been jailed but weren’t; and some I was glad to hear were fired and marched from their building. But as tempting as it might be at times to charge through with a stick, I’m not myself clear on who should wield it. It certainly can’t be Parliament, who already do too much blame-shifting; in my opinion the Australian National Audit Office lacks both skills and appetite; and I don’t believe Attorney General’s has anything like the management experience you seem to think.

I think there does need to be HR reform in the APS; there certainly needs to be some moratorium on post-APS conflict-of-interest employment just as Parliamentarians (are supposed to) have. But that has to take place in a different political environment than the one the APS currently inhabits. In my view a Stick of Vengeance would just be more of the same: fear and blame-shifting in a workplace already suffering too much from that.

I think we could begin by looking at how Parliament engages, and then talk about the right kind of strategic resourcing, integrity, performance frameworks and accountability. Though not nearly as melodramatic, that’s the approach that as both a citizen and as a professional engaged to help prevent and solve problems, I’d most like to see.

Judy Hardy-Holden writes: Re. “Does anyone in the public service get held to account?”

I remember when the public service (I’m nearly 80) was held in high regard. Slow, nit-picking, thorough, trusted and usually right in the end. What happened? John Howard happened, with his great idea of sacking any departmental head that had worked for the previous government. Tenure was predicated on who was in power. Now, instead of “speaking truth to power” a well grounded public servant “speaks whatever needs to be said to whoever needs to hear it”.

Some of them might have been a bit moribund but they knew right from wrong and watch out if anyone tried a swifty on them.

Peter Schulz writes: Re. “Does anyone in the public service get held to account?”

Good article, Bernard — especially the last paragraph. Bureaucracies (both public and private) encourage conformity and sycophancy towards those above oneself in the bureaucracy — hence the power of the person/government in charge to set the culture. If bureaucrats know the minister/government wants them to be derelict in their duty, 90% of the noddy-dogs will oblige. The other 10% will burn themselves out, leave, or be ostracised.

The modern, corporatised bureaucracy has exacerbated this tendency greatly. I know this from working as a professional in a state health department. In the 1970s, diverse opinions based on professional ethics were understood and valued. By the 2000s calling out the emperor’s obvious nakedness was considered disrespectful, failing to follow a reasonable directive, not being a team player, etc.