Thodey review's implementation in doubt

Chairman, David Thodey, released his interim report on Tuesday, metaphorically five minutes out from the next federal election. His final report now seems unlikely to land until some time after the poll.

Given there are just a handful of sitting days left between now and when Australia votes, and that they are going to be given over to the budget in any case, the Morrison government will have little or no opportunity to respond to Thodey's work in this parliamentary term.

That means, if the polls are to be believed, the Coalition has a less than 50 per cent chance of implementing the findings of a review that was originally commissioned under Malcolm Turnbull. In the event that Labor does win two prime ministers will have come and gone, and the country will be on its third, over the life of the inquiry.

That was just one of a number of significant criticisms of the review raised by Canberra Times Public Sector Informant contributor, Paddy Gourlay, last June.

He predicted that in the event the review had not produced its final report by the election and that Labor won, the incoming government would likely scrap it and start over.

Gourlay argued the review was not as independent as it could have been, that the terms of reference were "vague" and that the composition of the review team was "unbalanced". He also called for the inclusion of a representative of an APS client group on the panel.

While only time, and the arrival of the final report, will tell if Gourlay was correct, it is fair to say that on what we have seen so far Thodey and his team have done some good work.

They have, for example, highlighted the undue level of influence being exercised within governments by ministerial advisers in recent times. At issue is the incontestable fact that, on occasion, the advice of a political staffer, whose career interests are closely aligned to the political fortunes of the minister he, or she, is working for, take precedence over that from the subject matter experts and senior members of the department.

Thodey's suggested solution, that senior APS staff be embedded in ministerial offices, and that these roles be given formal recognition, is an elegant one.

It is likely to be almost as controversial as the interim report's suggestion ministers and their staff be given training in how to work effectively with the APS.

Given some of the decisions we have seen in recent times, particularly in regard to decentralisation and pork barreling, this should kick off with a "101" introduction to the APS, why it was created and what its legal and moral obligations are.

Ministers and their staff need to realise that while, perhaps understandably, they are focussed on the political advantage to be gleaned from high office, the APS takes a much broader, and longer term, view.

It exists to serve the interests of the Australian people, not to perpetuate any given government.

If the Thodey review has, in its own small way, assisted in getting this message across then it has served us all well.