In the research around sclerosis and barriers to innovation in the federal government, almost universally, when you ask public servants why this is something that the federal government complains about a lot.... It's pretty common. You can find quotes, through the clerk, going back decades, commenting on this specific issue: that we have a federal public service that is riddled with risk aversion and that undercuts innovation.
Where I think it plays into the consulting piece is, as I said earlier, when you're stuck in that environment, it's hard to be responsive and innovative and to encourage and enable your team. That's sometimes why management consultants get turned to. It's this vicious cycle. Because as you rely on these management consultants, you don't do the hard work of investigating why our public service is not capable of delivering this.
On the point around risk aversion and explosions of accountability that actually undermine accountability, that's a key one to address. I think parliamentarians played a big role in that, because in many cases, public servants will say the reason they act this way and are so risk averse is that they don't have an enabling environment to try new things, make mistakes and learn along the way. It's impossible to be innovative in that context.
Media, academics, parliamentarians and all outside scrutineers of government have a role to play in being critical and investigating failure in government, but also maybe creating a bit more space for public servants to experiment. That's not something we really tolerate in our political culture. It's not true in other cases. I've spoken to public servants in other jurisdictions who do not feel the same way.