PART 1 | To begin our special Mandarin/IPAA ACT series, national president Andrew Metcalfe examines values and codes of conduct, and the role of ‘frank and fearless’ advice.

After more than four decades working in public administration, I have become increasingly convinced of a simple truth. Institutions do not succeed because of structures. They succeed because of people and values.

And in my many leadership roles, including serving as a Commonwealth departmental secretary for almost 12 years (appointed or reappointed by prime ministers Howard, Rudd, Gillard, Morrison, and Albanese; and dismissed by prime minister Abbott), I have come to one clear conclusion:

Public trust is built when institutions and the people within them operate consistently within a principled ethical framework. It is weakened whenever expediency replaces principle.

Public servants must remain politically impartial, but they cannot be ethically neutral.

Impartiality requires a firm commitment to integrity, professionalism, accountability, and service to the public interest. Those values are not in tension with democratic government. They are essential to its effective operation.

These ideas are hardly new.

The foundations of modern public administration can be traced to the Northcote-Trevelyan Report of 1854, which argued that public service should be based on merit, professionalism, and political impartiality rather than patronage or personal connections. Those principles shaped Westminster systems around the world and remain remarkably relevant today.

Successive reviews of Australian public administration have reached similar conclusions. Effective government depends not only on policy expertise and technical capability, but also on ethical cultures, stewardship, and values-based leadership.

Values, codes, and ethical behaviour

This is why public sector values and codes of conduct matter.

Codes of conduct are sometimes viewed as compliance documents. In reality, they translate broad principles into practical expectations.

Yet ethical behaviour is about more than compliance. Legislation, policies, and procedures establish important standards and boundaries, but they cannot anticipate every circumstance or resolve every ethical dilemma.

Integrity often requires judgement. It requires public servants to consider not only whether an action is technically permissible, but whether it is consistent with the values and purpose of public service. Rules define minimum standards of behaviour. Values help guide decisions when the rules alone do not provide a complete answer.

This is why integrity cannot be reduced to mere compliance. Ethical cultures emerge not simply because people follow procedures, but because they exercise sound judgement and act consistently with the principles those procedures are intended to serve.

Codes of conduct help public servants navigate conflicts of interest, maintain impartiality, treat people with respect, and understand their obligations to government, colleagues, and the community. They do not create integrity on their own, but they provide an essential foundation upon which ethical cultures are built.

Ultimately, however, values are lived rather than merely documented.

Public servants provide professional and diligent support to ministers in implementing the policies and decisions of the government of the day, while remaining apolitical, impartial, and committed to the law and the public interest. They also serve the Australian people through ethical decision-making, sound administration, effective service delivery, and the responsible exercise of public powers.

Around 2 million Australians work for the Commonwealth, state, territory, and local governments. For many public servants, their responsibility is exercised through direct service to the community. Teachers, nurses, doctors, paramedics, child protection workers, immigration officers, biosecurity officers, police officers, corrective services staff, public transport workers, and countless others represent the public service at the point where citizens interact most directly with government. Their professionalism, fairness, and integrity shape public trust just as surely as the quality of policy advice provided to ministers.

These responsibilities are not contradictory. Indeed, they are mutually reinforcing. Governments are best served when they receive advice that is objective, evidence-based, and honest, and when their decisions are implemented professionally, lawfully, and effectively.

Frank and fearless advice

This lies at the heart of what we call “frank and fearless advice”. (Note: Section 10(1) (f) of the Public Service Act 1999 (Cth) requires that “the APS is responsive to the government in providing frank, honest, comprehensive, accurate, and timely advice and in implementing the government’s policies and programs”).

Frank advice means honestly identifying risks, implementation challenges, and unintended consequences. Fearless advice means doing so regardless of whether the advice is likely to be welcomed. It is not about confrontation. It is about ensuring decision-makers receive the best possible professional assessment before decisions are taken.

History repeatedly shows the consequences when institutions reward affirmation over analysis or become reluctant to test assumptions and challenge preferred courses of action. Poor decisions are rarely the result of insufficient agreement. More often, they arise because risks were not adequately explored, alternative perspectives were not heard, or concerns were not pursued with sufficient rigour.

Some of the most significant failures examined by major inquiries and royal commissions have not stemmed from a lack of rules or formal accountability mechanisms. Rather, they have revealed cultures in which concerns were not sufficiently challenged, risks were not adequately escalated, or assumptions were accepted too readily. These experiences reinforce the continuing importance of professional courage and independent judgement within the public service.

The robodebt royal commission provides a contemporary reminder of these risks. Its findings revealed what can occur when legality, evidence, and professional scepticism are not tested with sufficient rigour, and when concerns that should have prompted greater scrutiny are not adequately pursued.

As commissioner Catherine Holmes observed, it was “remarkable” how little attention was given to ensuring legality and how far public servants were prepared to go “to oblige ministers on a quest for savings”. That observation serves as a powerful reminder that political responsiveness must never come at the expense of professional integrity, legality, and service to the public interest.

The robodebt lesson extends well beyond any single program or government. Public administration is at its strongest when advice is subjected to challenge, evidence is tested rigorously, and public servants remain willing to voice concerns when risks become apparent.

The responsibility of public servants is not to tell decision-makers what they wish to hear. It is to provide the most accurate, objective, and professional assessment available, particularly when the advice may be uncomfortable.

Throughout my career, I worked for governments of different political persuasions. Those experiences reinforced my belief that impartiality is one of the Australian Public Service’s greatest strengths.

Public servants should be energetic and committed in helping governments lawfully achieve their objectives while ensuring their advice remains objective and free from partisan influence. Their role is very distinct from that of political advisers and staffers.

Politically impartial, not ethically neutral

The classic British television satire Yes Minister captured this issue memorably. In the episode The Whisky Priest, Sir Humphrey Appleby is challenged on whether a career spent serving governments of different persuasions risks creating a “moral vacuum”.

While written as comedy, the episode highlights an important truth. Public servants should not become moral vacuums. Political impartiality does not require the abandonment of values. On the contrary, it depends upon a deep commitment to integrity, professionalism, accountability, and service to the public interest.

Sir Warren Fisher, one of the great reformers of the British Civil Service, observed in 1930 that “the civil servant must be impartial in politics and wholehearted in service”.

More than a century later, that principle remains highly relevant.

So let me repeat my key message: public servants must be politically impartial, but never ethically neutral.

The second part of this article — “When values are tested” — appears tomorrow.

‘Making a Better Public Servant’ is a collaboration between The Mandarin and IPAA ACT. You can find all of the articles in the series here.