Richard Mulgan

A sample of submissions on regulating lobbyists immediately raises questions about the unequal power of special interests over public policy.

Given the urgency of the issue of pork-barrelling at the last election, one might have expected proposals for reform to have emerged before now.

When the history of Australian government transparency is written, the OGF will probably warrant only a brief mention, perhaps in a footnote.

The robodebt royal commission picked up on a long-term APS trend of leaving important matters unrecorded. The government has promised action.

Being a watchdog (calling out non-compliance) must take precedence over being a guide dog (education) with regulators.

Most of those responsible for robodebt have been relentlessly interrogated, named and shamed. Even if they were to suffer no further penalties, they could not claim to have escaped accountability. 

Becoming a consultant after public service means not letting APS knowledge, experience seep into abuse of public interest for private gain.

Government policy, particularly economic policy, should be quarantined as far as possible from the intervention of elected politicians.

Public service leadership and the FOI lobby should consider how to achieve consensus on the practicable limits of government confidentiality.

Access to ministerial diaries is a useful reminder to government insiders that their comings and goings may be open to public scrutiny.

Unless it is so restricted in meaning, APS stewardship risks becoming all things to all people and thus losing any significant meaning.

Too often after royal inquiries, ministerial heads remain intact. The ministers responsible for robodebt seem destined for that very outcome.

Labor ministers will not easily adopt the critical independence needed to impose effective cultural reform on the senior public service.