Introduction

New governments came to power in Australia in 1972 and 2013. There was a distinct contrast between the ways that the advisors prepared for a change of government in each case. In 1972, few senior departmental secretaries had worked with anything but a Liberal–Country Party (Coalition) government. The Public Service Board (PSB) was ill-prepared for machinery-of-government changes. Within a week, the secretary of Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) felt overwhelmed by the rush and what he saw as ‘ragged arrangements’ and lack of due process. In 2013, PM&C had detailed briefing folders on process and policy that they could present to the victorious prime minister the day after the election, regardless of which party won (Weller et al, 2011, pp xiv, 74–5). The processes were more professional; the attitude was bipartisan.

To understand the role of the policy professionals in government today, the best strategy is to ask what their role was 40 or more years ago and then what it is now. The two changes of government provide points in time on which the accounts can be based. By that process, we can identify what has changed, what has continued and where the differences have been. To achieve that purpose, this chapter will start with a comparison. What sort of advisory system did the incoming governments find in 1972 and 2013 and how satisfied were they with it?

The Australian advisory system in 1972

When, 40 years ago, the Whitlam government came to power, there were several key characteristics of the advisory community. The government was still heavily involved in service delivery, with Post and Telegraphs the largest-employing civilian departments. From the beginning of the Commonwealth government in 1901, its main responsibilities were the running of big programmes. It took over the postal services and ran the customs systems that it had inherited from state governments. Seventy years later, these departments still employed the majority of federal public servants, they were still scattered around the country and head offices remained in Melbourne, not Canberra. Ministerial oversight was constant. One Postmaster General had an electoral map behind his desk to check in which electorate proposed new post offices fell.