The new US President, Donald J. Trump, has begun his term with a bang not a whimper, issuing a record number of new Presidential executive orders (35) in his first week, and many each week. Some are quite radical, for example on restructuring the US public service, and ending DEI [Diversity, Equity and Inclusion].
What effect will the Trump revolution have on Australia?
Apart from defence, where Australia and the US will remain very close, it will partly depend on who wins the next Australian federal election, due in weeks or months.
There is likely little policy overlap between an Albanese Labor government and all of Trump’s new initiatives. Jim Chalmers, Treasurer, announced on December 16, 2024, that a majority of Reserve Bank Board appointments were now women, for example. This does not suggest restricting DEI is likely.
Some will claim there is a greater commonality with a new Dutton Coalition government.
There will, however, be no automatic application of new Trump agendas. Our political parties always make their own decisions.
One key issue is Elon Musk’s Doge, the new US Department of Government Efficiency created by Presidential executive order on January 20. There is an obvious similarity between this and Peter Dutton’s recent announcement on January 25 that Jacinta Price will also be Shadow Minister for Government Efficiency.
Yet Jacinta Price and the Coalition had already announced an audit of Aboriginal organisations. It is a logical step to extend that across the public sector. This is another example of an overlap of policy interests between US Republicans and the Australian Liberal/National Parties Coalition. It was not a simple replication or automatic adoption of US policies.
There are after all key differences between our countries.
Australia has a long tradition of a apolitical and professional public service, providing advice based on evidence not a common political allegiance.
The US has a tradition of the top echelons of the US public sector being replaced by each incoming President.
All US civil service senior personnel share a common political allegiance (Democrat or Republican) with the incoming President, with the exceptions that the President decides on. One estimate is that this is 4,000 appointments.
President Trump has added ‘Schedule F’ to this, which allows him more flexibility to remove other civil servants, those appointed on an ongoing relatively apolitical basis.
In our federal public service, since the ‘reforms’ of 1984 onwards, there is more scope for a new government to change some senior public service personnel, but the tradition of an ongoing professional service is much stronger.
There is unlikely to be a Schedule F here. The law may not allow it. The law could be changed, but it would be vastly controversial.
The apolitical public services of the states are much weaker. They are more politicised, even seriously compromised.
Like in the US, where the DEI function has been declared redundant across the civil service, an Australian government can make redundancies. Yet the procedures for doing so are restrictive. Redeployment, notice, consultation and payment requirements apply here that sometimes do not apply there. There are industrial agreements with trade unions.
Australia has a tradition of a ‘quasi-property right’ in a job, while the US dominant tradition is dismissal ‘at will’. For whatever reason apart from for example discrimination.
Nor is Australia as comfortable as the US with a political public service.
The apolitical public service tradition was in the eyes of some Australian politicians seriously discredited by Yes Minister, the BBC satire of the UK public service.
Sir Humphrey Appleby, permanent head, praises Minister Jim Hacker for a ‘brave’ initiative. Hacker immediately backtracks. No politician wishes to be ‘brave’! There is a five-step ‘stalling’ procedure for stopping any Ministerial action.
But Yes Minister is brilliant fiction. Who can forget the Prime Minister whose motto is, ‘In defeat malice. In victory revenge!’
I worked closely with the incoming Howard Coalition government. Their new 1996 labour reforms were not subject to Humphrey Appleby stalling procedures.
We had disagreements with the public service, but with one exception I can think of they were legitimate debate. I for example stressed that labour market restructuring, including redundancies, was how the market economy grew. This was an attempt to reject a trade union campaign for new monetary redundancy entitlements.
Senior public service officials warned me that this would lead to the NSW system of several difference sets of redundancy rules depending on the reason for the redundancy (restructuring or something else), which was unworkable. Fair enough debate.
The exception was a new provision allowing unrepresented employer associations to represent employers in the Industrial Relations Commission. This was mysteriously omitted from the 1996 Bill.
A quick discussion with the Minister’s office restored the omitted provision, which was government policy. A good example of political interference working well!
Overall I much prefer our current system of a relatively apolitical public service. While the internal political debate in government departments may at times be which faction of the Labor Party you should join, it still functions relatively well is my experience of 17 years of closely working with them. Yes Minister cannot change that reality, brilliant though the jokes are.
In a democracy new government platforms must be implemented, subject to Parliament.
But translating policy platforms into legislation is rarely easy.
Perhaps that is why our parliamentary debates are so difficult.
Governments need help not just enthusiastic cheerleaders. But they also need support.
