Power is the ability, capacity or authority to act in a particular way, or to get others to act in a particular way. It affects all human interactions but particularly workplace relationships, where personal power like expertise or charisma is augmented by authority derived from one’s position in the hierarchy.
But despite the indisputable influence of power in the workplace, it remains a force we hesitate to name. Even in workplaces particularly affected by it, like the public service, or in excellent reports about problems impacting such workplaces, such as that of the royal commission into the robodebt scheme, the abuse of power is mentioned just once.
Why does this matter? Because if we can’t name it we can’t slay it, and to my mind the core problem exposed by robodebt — and which the nation now needs to solve — is how you can stop those with extraordinary power from abusing it.
In particular, how can you get ministers and departmental secretaries to attend to the demonstrably valid ethical, legal and practical problems subordinates have with a policy, and use their power to fix them?
The answer isn’t more bureaucracy. First, because the changes recommended by the royal commission into robodebt for the referral, consultation and other processes of the various agencies that were involved are fighting the last war. Also, because as the evidence catalogued by the royal commission shows, where a determined abuse of power is under way, memos, sign-offs and checklists are not the tools required to stop the abuse.
This does not mean that no administrative changes to process are helpful. Indeed, as we know about the checklists used in aviation and medical surgery, some hit the spot. But just to avoid cock-ups, not conspiracies. They won’t stop a bad or cowed actor from having his or her way.
Worse, the creation of more red tape could seed a repeat of the cycle that led to robodebt in the first place. A cycle that began with business complaining about the time it took to comply with Centrelink requests for income information, which led to the Abbott government’s “red-tape bonfire” program, which resulted in one of the earliest and most damaging aspect of the robodebt scheme — income-averaging based on PAYG data — to reduce the “red tape burden on third parties”.
So what would actually assist public servants — many of whom did their best to raise the alarm about the scheme — to ensure they can make good on their obligations to serve the public interest while doing their work efficiently and ethically? The skills and tools to name abuses of power, and to refuse and resist.
Some of the reforms required are already in train. These include the implementation of key recommendations from the 2019 Thodey review of the Australian Public Service (APS) which affirm the imperative that public servants feel free to provide ministers with frank and fearless advice, that department secretaries have independence, and that the public service has the capability it needs to avoid the risks of workarounds like automation (as seen in robodebt) and outsourcing (one key issue in the scandal around PwC).
But more is needed. Cultural and behavioural practices as well as values and leadership capabilities under consideration by the APS’ integrity taskforce must address head-on the challenges to integrity posed by abuses of power. This will require considering the skills of courageous followership required by individuals, the enablers and disablers of the courage required to give voice to their values and, in instances where they are not heard on matters of critical importance, to strategise collectively about how to try again.
Already, in response to similar problems at the local level, public servants in one municipality are trialling the idea of “coaching circles” in which they learn the skills required to influence political leaders to do the right thing through dialogue that deepens self-knowledge and connections within the group. Such connections and mutual understanding can also be used to provide support and resistance to bullying and other abuses of power should the worst come to pass.
The sooner we recognise that this is what public servants need to ensure that the claimed “mandate” of any incoming government is tempered by the right of every Australian to have their rights as citizens and humans protected, the sooner we can make the changes the public service needs to more effectively resist abuses of power, and put what robodebt royal commissioner Catherine Holmes called the “venality, incompetence and cowardice” that led to robodebt in the past.
