## Notes from 26 April 2025 [[2025-04-25|← Previous note]] ┃ [[2025-04-27|Next note →]] I came across another interesting article by [[Andrew Podger]], this time outlining what he believes should be a reform agenda for what I consider to be one of the most progressive public administrations in the world (Australia). Among his proposals is a requirement that the appointment of the [APS Commissioner](https://www.apsc.gov.au/about-us/working-commission/who-we-are/australian-public-service-commissioner) (the country's most senior public servant and the institutional head of the public service) should only be made after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. In Westminster-inspired systems, this role carries a delicate balance: senior civil servants are expected to loyally implement the government's agenda ("yes" energy), while institutions like the [Merit Protection Commissioner](https://www.mpc.gov.au/) (in Australia's case) uphold professional and ethical limits on how governments manage the bureaucracy ("no" energy when necessary). Podger's idea would shift the balance by giving the APS Commissioner bipartisan legitimacy, but in practice it would also give the opposition a kind of veto over the government's reform agenda. While non-partisan leadership is crucial to a healthy public service, I wonder whether this approach risks blurring the distinction between two equally important but distinct roles. In Australia, the APS Commissioner leads the service and supports the implementation of the government's program, while the protection of merit and procedural fairness is more the responsibility of the Merit Protection Commissioner. Strengthening bipartisan legitimacy for the latter seems natural; for the former, however, it seems important to preserve the government's discretion to appoint leadership, provided that strong ethical standards are maintained. Legitimacy is important, but so is protecting executive decisiveness. The piece is well worth reading, of course. Podger also offers thoughtful suggestions for reinforcing merit in APS values, tightening controls over contractors, and setting clearer rules for senior appointments and post-government employment.