Less than half of submissions to the biggest review of the public service in more than 40 years will be made publicly or attributed to a name, with more than 20 per cent to stay under government wraps.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Submissions to the APS review closed on Tuesday, with 668 submissions received. Just 273 submissions will be published and attributed to an individual or organisation.
Respondents were given the option to have their submissions published anonymously, or not published on the website at all.
In a statement on the review's website on Wednesday, its chair David Thodey said some 21 per cent - 143 submissions - had elected not to be published.
"I am pleased to see submissions coming from a broad range of people with an interest in ensuring the APS remains one of the best in the world," Mr Thodey said in the statement.
Of the more than 500 submissions that will be made public, 252 have been made anonymously, with many appearing to come from current members of the public service.
Mr Thodey and the board of departmental secretaries had encouraged public servants to engage with the review, despite fears from many that speaking openly could endanger their positions.
The overwhelming majority of submissions were made by those identifying themselves as individuals, with just 13 per cent of submissions coming from organisations.
Fewer than half of submissions had been uploaded to the APS Review website on Wednesday night, with the Australian Human Rights Commission the only government entity to have a published submission. More submissions are expected to be uploaded in coming days.
A spokesman for the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet was not able to confirm on Wednesday how many other government departments or agencies had made submissions.
In an interview with Fairfax Media in June, Mr Thodey said it was possible submissions from government departments may not be publicly available if they elected to make submissions confidentially.
He also said he wanted the review to be as "open and transparent" as possible, but that it was necessary to balance the privacy of participants in the review.
The public submissions are just one element of the review, with the panel expected to meet with public servants in other forums as part of the process.
