In other words, it should not be based on the narrow recommendation of Innovation and Science Australia to which Adamson and Smith referred. Better use of technology by the APS may well improve its capability and performance, but it will not address the deeper issues Smith outlined in her speech (nor the issues she carefully avoided).

Apart from technology, Smith identified two other factors that make fundamental reform urgent: the rise of China and the "dangerous ambivalence towards institutions", which is now evident internationally. It was unclear exactly what she was getting at in referring to these factors, but perhaps she was alluding (appropriately) to the need for a more outward-looking, internationally informed public service and to the apparent loss of appreciation of the values and institutions that underpin responsible government in Western democracies, and the need to demonstrate anew that public administration can effectively meet the Australian public's needs.

She went on to propose three major shifts:

Some of this is not new. The desire for more horizontal management and better networking was articulated in the 2004 management advisory committee report Connected Government; super ("portfolio") departments were introduced in 1987 (and with much more rational structures than the examples – including Home Affairs – Smith mentioned); and increasing mobility has been a constant theme since Terry Moran's 2010 Ahead of the Game report.

Some is also debatable. The shift from the management advisory committee to the secretaries board has already reduced its management capacity (for example, by losing the Tax Office as a member), and limiting the number of secretaries involved seems likely to exacerbate this weakness; is insufficient mobility such a central concern or is loss of corporate memory more important (c.f. Laura Tingle's thoughtful essay in late 2016), or lack of constancy in APS relations with individual clients and communities (c.f. Fred Chaney's continuing criticism of APS management of Indigenous programs); and has the shift to APS as "broker" been as successful as proponents promised?

Some of Smith's proposals also need more teasing out, such as when and how best to integrate domestic and international agendas.

Another secretary noted to me after Smith's speech how none of the speakers (including CSIRO chairman David Thodey and NSW's top public servant Blair Comley, as well as Smith and Adamson) mentioned the elephant in the room: the impact of ministers and their advisers, and politicians more broadly, on APS capability, its risk-averse culture and its focus on short-term tactical policy advice as distinct from longer-term strategic (and evidence-based) advice.

The positives for me, nonetheless, were the thoughtful contributions of two of our APS leaders, and the evident support from at least some of their colleagues. They also made clear in a refreshing approach at the event that they are keen to listen to younger APS members, both women and men.

As Smith said, quoting Paul Keating, nostalgia for the reforms of the 1980s and 1990s will not help. As a participant in those reforms, I would go further: it is time we reflected on the effect of those reforms and subsequent developments, testing whether some of the gains had unintended consequences (for example, on APS capability) and whether a radically different context today requires new approaches. We – including the Institute of Public Administration – also need to be more proactive in learning from outside Australia.

Yet, as Smith also suggested, some fundamental principles are timeless. That is not always appreciated, including today by some conservative politicians and some senior public servants, who too often give insufficient regard to age-old public service values of merit, impartiality and non-partisanship.

The Coombs royal commission, which reported in 1976, had very extensive terms of reference, the main task being to: "inquire into and report upon the administrative organisation and services of the Australian government, and in particular:

and to make recommendations for improving efficiency, economy, adaptability and industrial relations and the despatch of public business."

In hindsight, we can see the Coombs report appearing at the point of transition from traditional Weberian public administration to new public management and its emphasis on articulating objectives, allowing greater administrative flexibility to achieve results and introducing market-type measures to improve efficiency, including the wider use of non-government providers of services. The report helped to shape public service reforms over the subsequent two decades, including the governance of government business enterprises, the introduction of program budgeting, the devolution of management authority, the shift in accountability from a focus on processes to a focus on results, a more inclusive and representative APS, an APS much more responsive to the policies of the elected government, and an APS more engaged with the public.

It may be that the APS is "not broken" as Smith opined (using Moran's famous phrase), and that we do not need to start with a blank sheet of paper. But we do need to question the assumption that things are not too bad, and we need to look at today's context of a highly connected world whose public has lost much of its trust in institutions.

We have moved on from new public management (though retain many of its structures and processes) through new public governance and its more extensive use of organisations and networks beyond government. It is not at all clear we have done this well (recent revelations of ineffective regulation of markets being just one serious concern), nor that we understand where government administration internationally is likely to move next. What we do know is that we cannot look at the APS, or Australian government administration as a whole, in isolation or assume trust will re-emerge without special effort to re-earn it.

Perhaps a new major inquiry could have the main terms of reference based broadly on the main task given to Coombs, but with a more contemporary flavour. It could be asked to inquire into and report upon the administration of government policies and services. In particular, it might not only consider:

but also explore:

The main terms of reference might also talk about recommendations for improving effectiveness and ethical standards as well as efficiency, economy and adaptability.

If a list of specific matters were to be included (12 specific matters were included in Coombs' terms of reference, the last being "any other matters which the attention of the commission is particularly directed by the prime minister in the course of the inquiry"), this might be best presented around three key relationships:

The Coombs commission was not only chaired by a highly experienced former public servant, but included a then current senior public servant (Peter Bailey), a public sector union leader (Paul Munro) and two academics with public sector expertise (Professor Enid Campbell, an expert in constitutional and administrative law, and Professor Joseph Isaac, an expert in labour economics and industrial relations). It may be that a new major review should include expertise beyond the public sector, particularly given trends to networked processes and inter-connectedness, but this must not be at the expense of public sector experience and expertise. The review team must also have the confidence of all sides of politics.

A strength of the Coombs commission's approach was its openness and its emphasis on evidence, including through experimentation as well as research and community engagement. It was properly resourced with a strong secretariat, and it was helped by substantial submissions from within the APS (including the Public Service Board) as well as from external organisations and individuals. Nonetheless, it was given just two years to report.

To gain such priority attention again requires, as Smith acknowledged, a sense of urgency, that things are not right and that the context has so changed that a new strategic direction is needed. To get the necessary political attention, the concerns to be addressed must go beyond those of the insiders: they must include, as suggested above, concerns among the public about the quality and effectiveness of service delivery and regulation, and about trust in public institutions.

My view is that the case for a major review is very strong. But it must be done properly, with terms of reference sufficiently broad, with a suitably experienced review team and with sufficient resources.

Andrew Podger is a professor at the school of sociology in the ANU's college of arts and social sciences, and a former departmental secretary and public service commissioner. andrew.podger@anu.edu.au