Home page > About the Commission > Public Service Commissioner > Media archive > Speech: Helen Williams

The future of public sector management - The public interest

Ms Helen Williams AO
Public Service Commissioner
Thursday 20 August 1998
IPAA State Conference - Brisbane

Introduction

In a discussion paper prepared for A.P.S. Joint Council in 1993, Pat Weller et al listed issues that, in the late 1960s, were seen as integral to public sector employment. The list included the characteristic "distinctiveness of public administration", with the explanation that:

"Private management was not regarded as the same as management in the public sector. Parliamentary controls, political demands, a lack of market forces, the inability to determine a bottom line, and pressures for equity and social justice all meant that the pressures on public administrators were different." ^1.

Increasingly, however, global pressures for economic competitiveness have been reshaping the attitudes of government to the public service internationally. The focus on the cost of government, combined with the reality of ceilings on revenue and the expectations of citizens, have led to rigorous review of the funding of public services and the efficiency with which they are performed.

In these circumstances, it is not surprising that governments have looked to the private sector, used to coping with market pressures, for techniques to produce greater management efficiencies.

Thus non-core activities are being privatised or corporatised, delivery functions are being outsourced, core activities are being made contestable wherever possible, regulation and prescription are being significantly lessened, and employer powers are being devolved to individual agency heads. At the same time, there is growing emphasis on corporate governance issues in the private sector and both the public and private sectors are subject to the Workplace Relations Act 1996. From both sides, therefore, public and private sector management practices appear to be converging.

Weller et al argue that these moves have been in line with intellectual trends, including:

"the principle that management skills are generic and that the practices of the private sector, particularly those of leading companies, can be translated to the public sector and that, as a consequence, management practices and managers are interchangeable." ^2.

This trend across governments has led a number of public commentators to become nervous and to warn that the increasing commercialisation of the public sector could be damaging. Thus, Weller contends that:

"The view of 'government as business' and the unfiltered application of private sector management techniques (some of which are seen as having little currency in the best parts of the private sector) are likely to retard the attainment of important equity outcomes. And they will ultimately erode the collective good and public stewardship functions central to the meaning of good government." ^3.

The question, of course, is one of balance. Greater efficiencies are being demanded by governments and it is a responsibility of the public service to seek out processes that lead to the more efficient use of public money. At the same time, the very nature of public sector management brings its own responsibilities and accountabilities.

Distinguishing Public from Private Sector Characteristics

What, then, is the unique role of the public sector and what are the critical factors that define public sector management?

Peter Crawford, in his book The Serious Business of Governing, differentiates between the management objectives and accountabilities of the public and private sectors by emphasising that the values of the marketplace are not the only values relevant to government in meeting its management and service responsibilities:

"After all, government serves all citizens through the exercise of its powers, authorities and roles, including those who are direct recipients of its services. Government therefore governs in the public interest, a role which is unique to government. That is one role which it cannot allow to be usurped or delegated to the marketplace." ^4.

Webber lists four themes that he believes are most important in this context:

• "the public sector produces 'public values': promotes equity and protects the collective interests (eg. about the environment and international relations), as well as market ones
• the public sector operates in a complex decision-making environment: usually manages many and diverse stakeholder interests and often considers short, medium and long range effects of decisions (intergenerational equity is one example)
• the public sector's effectiveness often relies on the cooperative, as opposed to the competitive, participation of others. Competition has a dysfunctional effect if applied inappropriately in the public sector: examples include service duplication, loss of scale economies, the dismantling of collaborative institutional arrangements and the focusing on marketing at the expense of service delivery
• the public sector uses diverse resources to achieve its policy ends, involving not only public money but, significantly, public power as well." ^5.

The first of these, the public values, is perhaps the one that has been given most prominence by commentators generally, including by the Senate Committee on Finance and Administration which addressed the question of motivation of senior public servants in its 1990 Report:

"It has long been accepted that important differences between public service and private sector employment imply differences in the motivation of employees. In particular, the traditional concept of the career service was intended to develop in public servants the desire to serve the public interest as well as loyalty to the government of the day and to the system of government. A commitment to social equity has often been seen as associated with public service." ^6.

This concept of service in the public interest is probably the most commonly used umbrella term for the set of characteristics that distinguish public sector employment.

Certainly, we can learn much from private sector methods and motivations, especially when seen in the context of the effective use of public money. But there are a range of other characteristics particular to managing in the interests of the Australian people that must be taken into account, including the need for transparency and accountability to parliament and, through it, to the public for the use of those public funds.

The Public Interest

What do we mean by the "public interest"? Does it differ from terms such as "national interest", "general interest", "community benefit" or "the greater good"? Indeed has the term been so over-used in order to justify political tactics or a particular course of action that it has been denied meaning as a useful concept?

Raymond Wright, tracing the historical development of the concept in his book The Bureaucrat's Domain, writes that:

"Within the English political tradition, few notions have proved to be as rich, as enduring and as elusive as the public interest. Since the seventeenth century, Governments, communities, pressure groups and individuals have used it as a justification for all kinds of decisions and actions, and in doing so have steadily exposed an enormous reef of interpretative possibility." ^7.

Wright argues that:

"Public interest theoreticians have plotted the gradual transformation from belief in the will of God as the guideline for social and economic behaviour to the more narrow acceptance of a monarch's determination of means and ends. The process of refinement is charted in the work of Machiavelli, Grotius and Hobbes, all of whom gradually clarified and reinforced the 'right' of a central authority, be it ruler or government, to define the public interest, and later in the work of Rousseau who sought definitions of the common good in those values and behavioural norms to which all members of a society could unreservedly subscribe.... The common thread of these views is that what applies to one member of society applies to all." ^8.

By the early 1800's, a different perspective had developed, whereby society was regarded as a collection of discrete individuals rather than an organic whole.

Giving nineteenth century Victoria as an example, he sees public interest discussions as increasingly being based on the assumption that a reciprocal linkage existed between the social and economic welfare of the individual, and the prosperity and security of society as a whole:

"The rise to prominence of liberalism and its expression in the vocabulary of moral enlightenment reinforced the belief that economic individualism buttressed by a Crown-furnished infrastructure would stimulate the colony's development." ^9.

From this historical perspective, he concludes:

".... the public interest was (as it remains) a wash of ingredients in which at any given time traces of any and all variations may be discernible. As circumstances alter, and different, newer conditions prevail, then so will those elements separate and reform to produce yet another variant.... In sum, there neither is nor was a fixed definition of the public interest." ^10.

This conclusion is illustrated by the varying definitions of the term. The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles (1993) provides the simple definition of "the common welfare". The Dictionary of Administration and Management suggests "an ambiguous term referring to ideas, activities, services, programs or qualities, which are perceived to be beneficial to the majority of the members of a community."^11. And Donald Warwick defines it as ".... concerned with promoting and protecting the common good. The public interest is not the same as what the public wants or the sum of the goods and services that the public requires. Rather, it is the set of conditions and outcomes providing advantage to the society as a whole." ^12.

At any one time, discussion of what constitutes action in the general good cannot avoid being influenced by the prevailing philosophy of government. For example, the degree to which a system favours intervention and regulation, or tends towards market mechanisms and deregulation, will impact on the way action in the public interest is defined.

Thus the interpretation of the public interest would seem to be inextricably bound up with the question of whose role it is to define it.

In a democratic system, where a government is in power as a result of being elected by the people to represent their wishes, it is difficult to escape the view that the government must have the major role in deciding what the people's interest should entail and how it should be brought about. Particularly in terms of the traditional Westminster system, this role would seem to be the deciding one, and the interpretation by public servants of the public interest would therefore have to take into account the directions of the elected government that they served.

Wright summarises the primacy of executive government in these terms:

"Acceptance of the view that a civil servant's paramount duty is to his Minister, and to the Government collectively, effectively precludes any formal concept of a wider duty to "the State" or to a "public interest", however defined." ^13.

Thus, after the trial and conviction in Britain of Sarah Tisdall, who leaked information to the press that Michael Heseltine had lied to Parliament:

"Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher declared in the Commons that she found the very idea of a civil servant possessed of a duty pro bono publico to be intolerable." ^14.

On the other hand, some commentators would argue that public servants have a higher responsibility for the public interest in cases where they believe that governments are acting contrary to its interests. Vivian Creighton who, as Chairman of the Queensland Land Administration Board, had leaked details of suspected irregularities in the administration of Crown Leases, stated in his letter of response when informed of his suspension in 1956:

"I have never wavered in the opinion that an officer in my position, in the circumstances now found by the Royal Commission to be proved, has a higher duty to the people of the State than to his Minister or any member of the Government of the day, and that he is justified in taking the most effective means available to serve that duty." ^15.

This can be an enticing line of argument as it permits the concept of a public interest that is above and beyond the political process.

Similarly, Jackson argues that the public service has two masters: the government of the day and the public interest and that there is an inherent tension between them. He supports the guardian role of public servants and argues that their role as trustee of the public interest takes precedence over duty to the government of the day:

"To know that the government of the day has won the election entitles none of us to surrender our own conscience to it, least of all public servants trusted with the public interest. The duty public servants owe to the government of the day is engaged only as long as the government is acting in the public interest." ^16.

A difficulty with this argument would seem to lie with the very issue that we have been considering: who defines what should constitute the public interest and on what basis would public servants have the right to decide that the government had contravened it?

As Mike Keating, a former head of Prime Minister and Cabinet, asks: how can a public servant legitimise his or her perception of the common good against that of a democratically elected government? "Any assessment of the public interest cannot be divorced from a consideration of who will be held accountable for it." ^17.

The Accountability Chain

Accountability for decision making in the Australian system in most cases lies squarely with the government and its Ministers.

Public servants' accountability is generally directed to their Ministers, but within the framework of legislation passed by the Parliament:

"Adherence to the law of the land is of paramount importance for public officials. Other accountability obligations, of whatever weight, must always be subject to the need for actions taken in an official capacity to conform with legal requirements." ^18.

It follows from this that Ministers' power to direct public servants does not apply where the Ministers themselves are not operating in accordance with the law.

The concept of the primacy of legislation is an important one. For example, a statutory authority and statutory officers have functions independent of the Minister as defined in the relevant enabling legislation. And they can defend their policies publicly, including where these differ from those of the Minister. ^19.

In reality, of course, the accountability relationship is less clear-cut than theory would suggest, and the boundaries between ministerial and official responsibility are less precise. The complexity of government operations and the immediacy of issues today means that no Minister can be fully across the operations of his or her Department. In practice, therefore, Ministers cannot be held accountable for every action of their Departments, although they can be held responsible for the overall administration of their portfolios and for issues of such a level of significance that they would have, or should have, been aware of them.

Similarly, Ministers can be expected to set out the principles and values that would be expected to guide public interest management and to clarify broad directions to be followed. But the complexity and immediacy means that a degree of discretion must be available to public service administrators and that the concept of public interest must be interpreted on an on-going basis by public servants in line with their understanding of government directions.

Despite this slight blurring of the responsibility chain, however, the accountability relationship is generally understood and usually works well.

The new Commonwealth Public Service Bill seeks to clarify the framework for public interest management. Written in the context of a greater devolution of employment powers to agency heads and a significant reduction in regulation specific to the public sector, it nevertheless sets out those aspects (such as the Public Service Values, the Code of Conduct, the merit principle and protection for whistleblowers) that define the public interest aspect of public sector employment. It also includes additional accountability measures, including an annual audit of these public interest matters by the Public Service Commissioner through a State of the Service Report to Parliament.

In the new devolved environment, therefore, the important quid pro quo for that devolution of power is a strengthened accountability to Parliament and a restatement of the values that are central to the public service framework.

Public Interest Policy Advice

In his address to IPAA's National Conference last year Dr. David Kemp, in his role of Minister for the Public Service, articulated what he saw as the public servant's "public interest" role by stating that:

".... the public service is more than an instrument to implement government policy. I believe that the public service must have a corporate commitment to the betterment of the society in which it exists - in addition to its obligation to the democratic government of the day. That commitment manifests itself through the consideration of policy within a framework that recognises the worth and rights of citizens and responsibility of the public service to the community." ^20.

At a time when policy advice itself is becoming increasingly contestable "with a growing number of analytical think tanks and lobby groups which actively voice their private interests in policy advice" he argues that "the distinguishing feature and unique value of the public service is its role in providing 'public interest' policy advice." : ^21.

"I believe the community service obligation of the public service is to continually test how the development and implementation of government policy will actually improve the lives of people. That obligation exists regardless of the political persuasion of the government." ^22.

In this context, much has been said and written about the duty of the public servant to provide frank and fearless policy advice to Ministers, to give the Minister a balanced, knowledgeable and strategic assessment of possible options in terms of their impact on the economy and on society.

The degree of attention given to this issue by commentators flows directly from the crucial importance that frank and fearless advice plays in the articulation of the public interest. If a public servant believes that what a Minister wishes to do is badly conceived, it is his or her public interest responsibility to try to convince the Minister of that fact, however unwelcome the advice may be. As Bill Cole, a former Chairman of the Public Service Board, said nearly twenty years ago:

"it is important to avoid an attitude that a Minister should be free to find his own road to hell if he wishes". ^23.

This has been reiterated more recently by Peter Hennessy in his 1997 John Manion Lecture:

"the key ethic of public service - fearless advice resting on top-class analysis, itself fashioned by evidence and reason - is not a marginal good, an optional extra. It is the crucial element in advanced and rational governance." ^24.

The special expertise of the Public Service in providing this top class analysis is seen to lie, not only in the expectation that its advice would be both impartial and ethical, but in its accumulated skills and understanding of the system of government, its familiarity with the relevant laws, its experience with community client groups, its corporate memory that allows it to build on similar experiences in the past, its understanding of and ability to select practice from other systems, and its longer term view that facilitates a strategic look into the future.

As the Service is pared back to its core functions, the provision of high level public interest policy advice may prove to be our greatest challenge for the future.

The issue that this raises is the degree to which a public servant should press his or her case where he or she believes that an important public interest issue is involved. The reported words of the then Secretary to the Treasury, Sir Frederick Wheeler, to Prime Minister Gough Whitlam during the loans affair are often referred to in this context:

"Prime Minister, you will listen to me. I am bringing to your attention facts, your ignorance of which will bring you down."

The degree to which advice is pressed must, of course, depend on judgement of the particular circumstances and the ability to judge "where the dividing line is between pressing an argument and nagging." ^25.

Public Disclosure and Whistleblowing

There have, of course, been particular situations where a public servant believed that an issue was of such importance that it overrode his or her duty to the government of the day and justified public interest disclosure.

The argument that the unauthorised provision of information is justified in certain circumstances is an old one. Jackson contends that:

"There are occasions when leaking serves the public interest. Leaking may always be illegal but it is not always unethical or immoral." ^26.

The British case of Sarah Tisdall has already been mentioned. In a similar case, Clive Ponting had information showing that Michael Heseltine had misled Parliament and revealed it, not to the general public but to a parliamentary committee. Although he was eventually acquitted, the fact that he had restricted his revelation to Parliament didn't influence the judge presiding at his trial who instructed the jury that the interests of the state were determined wholly and completely by the government of the day. ^27.

There has recently, however, been a growing recognition of the need to make some distinction between the unauthorised leaking of information and the provision of information to the appropriate authorities in a way that will not attract criminal sanction to allow an assessment to be made of whether its release is in the public interest.

The Senate Select Committee report on Public Interest Whistleblowing In the Public Interest, which was tabled in August 1994, argued:

".... that there have been, there are, and there will continue to be occasions on which whistleblowing is the only available avenue for the concerned ethical citizen to expose wrongdoing." ^28.

The Committee identified the need ".... to develop a greater understanding and acceptance within the community that whistleblowing is an action undertaken in the public interest. It needs to be seen in positive terms of benefiting not just the organisation involved but society generally". ^29.

The Senate Committee put forward a fairly broad definition of whistleblowing which would:

"include the public interest disclosure of the following categories of wrongdoing and that 'any person' should be able to make such disclosures on:
- illegality, infringement of the law, fraudulent or corrupt conduct;
- substantial misconduct, mismanagement or maladministration, gross or substantial waste of public funds or resources; and
- endangering public health or safety, danger to the environment." ^30.

The scheme that is included in the draft Public Service Bill, and that has been put into effect through regulation, is restricted to a breach of the Code of Conduct by an Australian Public Service employee. It is, nevertheless, an important provision for drawing attention to public interest issues.

Application of the Public Interest Criterion

I mentioned earlier the view that public interest terminology may have been both overused and misused to the extent that it has been denied meaning as a useful concept.

Certainly the use of 'public interest' provisions in Commonwealth legislation is considerable; a quick Internet search identified 359 examples (some examples in Commonwealth Legislation are attached) with a further 98 instances using 'national interest', the terms appearing to have been used interchangeably.

There is often only limited elaboration of these terms in the legislation, with their application depending on the discretion of governments and individual Ministers responsible for the legislation. Claims in relation to the existence of public interest considerations are commonly made on Ministerial authority. For example the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 allows the responsible Minister to deprive a person who was a migrant to Australia of his or her Australian citizenship in the public interest. Similarly, under the Workplace Relations Act 1996, the Minister may intervene in the public interest in a proceeding before the Industrial Relations Court in a matter arising under the Act.

Public interest claims can also be made by a statutory commission - a situation where the right to determine the public interest is gained not from democratic election but from appointment to a statutory office, that is, an office established by the Parliament through legislation.

For example, a 'public interest test' is a pivotal element of the National Competition Policy where it is used to determine whether competition reforms will be implemented. While the term 'public interest' is not specified, the Competition Principles Agreement lists some of the diverse factors that may be relevant when weighing up the costs and benefits of government activity, including appropriateness, effectiveness, social welfare and equity considerations.

Public interest tests are also used in the exemption provisions of The Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act), prior to which the disclosure of government information was at the discretion of the government.

A joint Australian Law Reform Commission and Administrative Review Council Issues Paper produced during the 1994 review of the Act addressed the balance of competing interests in disclosure or non-disclosure of government held information:

"A properly framed public interest test provides a balancing test by which any number of relevant interests may be weighed one against another. For example, the public interest in disclosure might be weighed against the public interest in the effective functioning of government." ^31.

The frequency with which public interest terms are mentioned in legislation flows on to their appearance in High Court judgements, as the references are normally in the context of the Court's adjudication on the validity of specific legislative provisions. It is also interesting to speculate about the interaction between the increasing role played by the courts in judicial review of government decisions and the number of instances of Ministerial discretion on public interest grounds appearing in relevant legislation. The Internet shows 420 references to the public interest in High Court judgements with a further 44 references to the national interest.

The balance of competing interests, mentioned in the context of the FOI Act, was also relevant in the High Court consideration of the Commonwealth of Australia v the Northern Land Council where the Commonwealth had resisted the inspection of Cabinet notebooks on the grounds that disclosure of their contents would be against the public interest.

The court stated that it had never been doubted that it was in the public interest for the deliberations of Cabinet to remain confidential, regardless of the contents of the documents, as the collective responsibility of Cabinet could not otherwise survive in practical terms. It continued, however, that immunity from disclosure was not absolute and that a claim of public interest immunity had to be weighed against competing public interest considerations. ^32.

Public Interest Immunity

But the issue of public interest immunity doesn't only arise in proceedings before the courts. The claim by Ministers of public interest immunity to avoid producing evidence for the Parliament of which they are a member or the committees of that Parliament is a particularly controversial issue.

At the Commonwealth level, it was brought to a head in 1994 by conflict between the Senate Print Media Committee and the Treasurer over the Committee's request for Foreign Investment Review Board documents.

On 23 March 1994, Senator Kernot introduced the Parliamentary Privileges Amendment (Enforcement of Lawful Orders Bill) 1994, designed:

"to ensure that when a Minister in one House, who is immune from the contempt powers of the other, instructs a public servant who is not so immune to disobey an order of that other House, a mechanism is available to bring that Minister before a court with a capacity to make orders binding on the Minister concerned, rather than on a public servant caught in a conflict between the operation of two contradictory orders." ^33.

The committee considering the Bill was agreed that, in certain cases, information held by the executive (such as information that could damage national security or defence) should not be disclosed. The problem was how to decide whether information fell into this category where the claim was disputed. The Bill had proposed a judicial solution but the committee firmly rejected: ^34.

"the concept that jurisdiction in respect of the determination of claims of executive privilege or public interest immunity against a House of Parliament or its committees should be conferred on the courts," ^35.

It concluded that, in such circumstances, it was "for the relevant House to take such action under its contempt powers as it considers appropriate in the circumstances."

A practical example of the interaction between judicial and parliamentary review is, at the time of this address, currently under consideration in the High Court.

The refusal by the NSW Government to produce papers requested by the Legislative Council was taken to the NSW Court of Appeal which, in November 1996, decided that the Legislative Council had the power to order the production of the documents.

The NSW Government subsequently sought leave to appeal to the High Court which has reserved its judgement. During the hearing, counsel for the respondents questioned whether the Court was really going to:

"set itself up as paramount .... to say 'No, we unelected are going to say it was wrong of the majority in that parliamentary chamber to locate the public interest where they did.'" ^36.

Implications for Public Sector Management

What, in summary, are the implications for public servants and what skills do they need for managing in the public interest that are above and beyond best practice in the private sector?

First, the accountability framework, and in particular public servants' understanding of their accountability obligations to Ministers of the government of the day and to Parliament, is crucial to proper management in the public interest.

The need for public servants to understand their accountability obligations in the parliamentary framework is an ongoing issue, and led the Senate Committee of Privileges to say, in some exasperation, in 1993:

"That the Senate is of the opinion that all heads of departments and other agencies, statutory office holders and Senior Executive Service officers should be required, as part of their duties, to undertake study of the principles governing the operation of Parliaments, and the accountability of their departments and authorities to the Houses of Parliament and their committees, with particular reference to the rights and responsibilities of, and protection afforded to, witnesses before parliamentary committees." ^37.

Indeed accountability expectations in all aspects of public sector management are high and are the quid pro quo for the significant devolution of employment powers to agency heads that are increasingly occurring across governments. Secondly, the need to be scrupulous in the management of public funds and to put systems in place to ensure that their use is efficient and appropriate and that the processes are visible and open to Parliamentary and public scrutiny, are essential parts of the sector's management controls and its duty of care for public resources.

There are some additional costs inherent in management in the public interest. In particular, the need to be publicly accountable, to be visible and open, to respond to scrutiny and review of decisions and to preserve privacy, all mean higher costs for public sector managers than for their private sector counterparts. But preserving our proper accountability obligations does not mean that we cannot also learn from and apply examples of good practice private sector process.

We know that public administration must operate differently; we also know that, in order to remain relevant, we must do it well.

A further aspect of public service accountability concerns the maintenance of its values. While embracing the flexibility that the devolution of employment powers can bring, the public interest values and ethical standards that are crucial to management in the public interest must be embedded into the corporate culture. High ethical standards, the apolitical nature of the service, the merit basis of employment, high levels of professionalism and effective and courteous service to the public are all integral to management in the best interests of the community. And Codes of Conduct, with their stress on integrity, high standards and the avoidance of conflict of interest are no less central.

In the words of the New South Wales Discussion Paper on Public Sector Reform:

"Judging by community response to perceived lapses of standards of behaviour in relation to accountability and performance of public duty, the ethos and the principles are regarded as nigh-on absolute in their application." ^38.

Finally, the place of high quality, public interest policy advice is central. We need to ensure that we add value to the development of public policy by providing persuasive policy advice that not only is responsive to government priorities but, in the public interest, is informed, balanced and comprehensive.

The challenge for the public sector is to be the policy adviser of choice, and to foster the skills, experience and creativity necessary for success. As Dr David Kemp has said:

"The public interest policy analysis skills of the career public service in the next century must be exceptionally strong." ^39.

But the skill required to provide high quality, relevant, public interest policy advice is only part of the story. In working to be the provider of choice, we also need the ability to convey unwelcome advice where necessary, and to be able to provide that advice frankly and fearlessly in the public interest.

In the final analysis, however, all aspects of our role are potentially contestable and are likely to be contested unless we perform.

Public sector managers must have both the ability and the confidence to combine high order public interest skills with best practice techniques from the private sector in a way that enables us to be the adviser and provider of choice.

We must concentrate on our role and our values and we must build creatively on our strengths and uniqueness:

"Instead of posing as prophets we must become the makers of our fate." ^40.

Attachment A

Examples of Inclusion of "Public Interest" in Commonwealth Legislation

Archives Act 1983	s33	Exempt records
Australian Federal Police Act 1979	s49H	Notice of restraining orders
Australian Heritage Commission Act	s7	Functions of Commission
Air Navigation Act 1920	s19HC	Disclosure of air safety records to a court or a person
Australia New Zealand Food Authority Act 1991	s39	Confidential commercial information
Australian Securities Commission Act 1989	s52	General discretion to hold hearing in public or private
Customs Act 1901	s183CQ	Investigation of matters relating to an agents licence
Copyright Act 1968	s183	Use of copyright material for the services of the Crown
Companies Act 1981	s290	Application for carrying out of investigation
Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995	s91	Waiver of fees
Complaints (Australian Federal Police Act) 1981	s74	Hearings to be in public except in special circumstances
Designs Act 1906	s40A	Use of designs for services of the Commonwealth or a State
Evidence Act 1995	s130	Exclusion of evidence of matters of state
Fisheries Administration Act 1991	101	Publication of Council reports
Geneva Conventions Act 1957	s10A	Court may determine whether a person is a protected prisoner of war
Health Insurance Act 1973	s23B	Undertaking by optometrist
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986	s24	Disclosure of information or contents of documents
Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1989	s17A	Grant of transit permits
Life Insurance Act 1995	s21	Decision on application for registration
Migration Act 1958	s33	Special purpose visas
Navigation Act 1912	s286	Permits to unlicensed ships
National Crime Authority Act 1984	s29A	Disclosure of summons
Ombudsman Act 1976	s35A	Disclosure of information by Ombudsman
Ozone Protection Act 1989	s64	Failure to answer questions
Privacy Act 1988	s95	Medical research guidelines
Prices Surveillance Act 1983	s33	Confidential information
Radiocommunications Act 1992	s221	Termination of period of emergency
Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993	s231	Minister may grant financial assistance
Telecommunications Act 1991	s38	General functions - protection public interest and consumers
Trade Practices Act 1974	s152ED	Registration of agreement
Wool International Act 1993	s58	Ministerial directions
Workplace Relations Act 1996	s170LT	Certifying an agreement which does not pass the no disadvantage test but is not contrary to the public interest

 

1. P. Weller, M. Gardner, N. Ryan, B. Stevens The Role of the Public Sector - Implications for the Australian Public Service . Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration No. 72, April 1993. p1-2.
2. Ibid p3.
3. M. J. Webber (ed) Putting the people last: government, services and rights in Victoria. Hyland House, Melbourne 1996. p133.
4. P. Crawford The Serious Business of Governing. RIPAA(NSW). Hale and Iremonger. Sydney 1996. p5.
5. M. J. Webber (ed) op.cit.
6. Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Administration Development of the Senior Executive Service. Canberra, September 1990. p2.
7. R. Wright The Bureaucrat's Domain: Space and Public Interest in Victoria 1836 - 1884. Oxford University Press, 1989. p10.
8. Ibid p11.
9. Ibid p256 - 257.
10. Ibid p12 - 13.
11. Ivan S. Banks Dictionary of Administration and Management. Systems Research Institute 1981. p571.
12. Donald P. Warwick The Ethics of Administrative Discretion. Public Duties: Moral obligations of Government Officials, Fleishman, Liebman and Moore (Eds) Harvard University Press, 1981. p113.
13. M. Wright Ministers and Civil Servants: Relations and Responsibilities. Parliamentary Affairs v.30(3) Summer 1977. p299.
14. M. W. Jackson The Eye of Doubt: Neutrality, Responsibility and Morality. Australian Journal of Public Administration. Vol. XLVI No.3, September 1987.
15. R. S. Parker Public Service Neutrality. Decisions: Case Studies in Australian Administration. Schaffer B. and Corbett D. (Eds) Melbourne 1965.
16. M. W. Jackson The Public Interest, Public Service and Democracy. Australian Journal of Public Administration XLVII(3), September 1988. p247.
17. M. Keating Managing for results in the Public Interest. C. G. Lewis Memorial Lecture, Adelaide, 1990.
18. MAB, MIAC Accountability in the Commonwealth Public Sector. MAB/MIAC Publication No.11, June 1993.
19. M. Keating The Public Sector: Independence, Responsibility and Responsiveness. March 1998. p3.
20. D. Kemp Public Administration in the New Democratic State. 1997 National Conference of IPAA, Canberra 1997. p3.
21. D. Kemp Reforming the Public Service to meet the Global Challenge. PSMPC. 25 February 1998.
22. D. Kemp Public Administration in the New Democratic State. 1997 National Conference of IPAA, Canberra 1997. p3.
23. R. W. Cole Responsible Government and the Public Service. 1980. p5.
24. P. Hennessy The Essence of Public Service. 1997 John L. Manion Lecture. Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration. No.85, 1997. p2.
25. R. W. Cole The Role of the Public Service in a Changing Environment. Australian Society of Accountants National Congress, Perth April 1979.
26. M. W. Jackson The Public Interest, Public Service and Democracy. Australian Journal of Public Administration. Vol XLVII(3), September 1988. p248.
27. M. W. Jackson The Eye of Doubt: Neutrality, Responsibility and Morality. Australian Journal of Public Administration. Vol. XLVI No.3, September 1987.
28. Senate Select Committee on Public Whistleblowing In the Public Interest. August 1994. p12.
29. Ibid p84.
30. Ibid p163.
31. ALRC and ARC Freedom of Information. Issues Paper 12, September 1994. p35-36.
32. Commonwealth v. Northern Land Council. High Court. 1993, CLR 604FC 93/013
33. Senate Committee on Privileges Parliamentary Privileges Amendment (Enforcement of Lawful Orders) Bill 1994. 49th Report. p3.