Strengthening Australian Public Service and Army relations in the Defence Enterprise
The presence of Australian Public Service (APS) staff in Army units constitutes a civil-military relationship within the Australian Defence bureaucracy that is seldom studied but arguably critical to Army’s professional identity and capability. Just as Australian scholars have remarked upon the existence of cultural barriers between various elements of the Australian Defence Force (ADF),[1] similar observations have been made about cultural differences between ADF and APS staff.[2] Given these perceptions, how do APS members conceptualise their role in support of the Army profession? And how do these roles align with the three conceptual pillars of the profession - expertise, jurisdiction, and self-regulation?[3]
Civil-military relations is generally studied as the relationship between an armed force and its society. Societal perceptions of the military can range from blind reverence to indifference, but such a binary model of ‘civil’ and ‘military’ is insufficient for the modern workplace.[4] The Australian Defence Enterprise represents a cross-sector workforce of public and private sector, part time and full time military personnel, and is characterised by the civil-military interfaces that exist within it. New data is needed to understand APS perspectives, and the interpretation of that data has the potential to add meaning to both the Defence Workforce Plan and ongoing research on the state of the Army profession.[5]
The New Study
A new AARC research study seeks to examine these perspectives. In May 2026, a survey was conducted of 275 APS members who are currently posted to Army Group. The purpose of the survey was to better understand the relationship between the APS and Army; how the APS contributes to capability, and how best to manage the partnership within a civil-military integrated workforce. Long form interviews were then conducted with 14 of these respondents. The interview sample was selected to represent all APS levels and a variety of demographic groups and geographical locations.
Initial reviews of the data reveal that APS members conceptualise their support of the Army mission through professional expertise in subject matter, and regulatory advice in policy. From a set list, most respondents selected ‘knowledge of government procedures’ as the most unique collective contribution of the APS to Army, and many provided an additional theme of ‘perspective’. This theme was qualified by language that broadly represents four types of perspectives:
- Organisational perspective (what APS staff contribute to the structure of the workplace) includes phrases such as: ‘consistency’, ‘continuity’, ‘stability’, ‘corporate knowledge’.
- Cognitive perspective (what APS staff contribute to the intellectual processes in the workplace) includes phrases such as: ‘alternate options’, ‘different views’, ‘flexible thinking’, un-institutionalised perspective, lateral problem solving or non-conformist thinking’.
- Occupational perspective (what professional experience APS staff bring to Army capability) includes phrases such as: ‘work experience and skills from previous civilian job’, ‘different skillsets’, ‘stakeholder alignment’, ‘business and project management’, ‘maintenance of systems’, ‘deep technical knowledge’, ‘private sector experience’, ‘industry skills and knowledge’.
- Social perspective (what APS staff contribute to interpersonal interactions and the social development of the workplace) includes phrases such as: ‘reminding members they are human’, ‘part of wider society’, ‘civilian outlook’, a connective tissue from uniform to government and the wider public’, ‘manners’, ‘ability to work across ranks’, ability to question leadership’.
The study also seeks to identify obstacles to effective civil-military integration. The data gathered to date reveals that 75% of respondents consider ‘language and communication’ and 46% consider ‘time management’ to be the biggest cultural differences between APS and Army. This data agrees with recent Canadian studies on ‘The Defence Team’ in finding that that the biggest barriers to an effective integrated workplace are the military posting cycle, different personal management systems and a perception that some military members do not view public servants as their ‘equals’.[6]
In addition to informing the research questions, the survey data has also given rise to several incidental findings. Particularly interesting is the finding that some APS members have a fascination with military culture. Such individuals allow themselves to become ‘militarised’ in some areas of language, communication style and behaviour in exchange for group membership. Notably, over 40% of these individuals are current or previous members of the ADF Reserves or have considered applying to join the Reserves at some point in their career. Such civilian personnel can evidently play an advocacy role for Army, helping government understand how military land power impacts different parts of the economy.
Initial conclusions and recommendations
Although analysis of the data is ongoing, two initial conclusions can be made. First, the way that APS members understand their contribution to Army appears to align strongly with the Army Profession pillar of ‘expertise.’ Expertise describes the professional body of knowledge maintained and taught by Army. To a lesser degree, there is some alignment with the pillar of self-regulation. This is. a conceptual term that refers to the virtue ethic of Army that requires Army to hold itself to the highest professional standard. For this project, ‘self’ is taken to mean Departmental, rather than just military. There is no evidence at this point of an alignment with the concept of ‘jurisdiction’ which is defined as ‘the service to society that society cannot provide for itself’. Second, there are critical gaps in APS knowledge of Army career paths, and Army knowledge of APS personnel management. In her recent article on civil-military relations, 2025 Keogh Visiting Chair Risa Brooks advises that:
…politicians must ensure that adequate resources are devoted to cultivating civilian expertise in military affairs; this provides capacity for their staffs, political appointees and bureaucracy to support civilian oversight…Supporting investments in educational opportunities—such as building distinctive professional development programs or tracks primarily for civil servants in the defence space’.[7]
In this manner, future recommendations from the data may relate to: improved induction packages for APS members placed in Army group; familiarisation with APS role earlier in Army careers; and training in the Defence Enterprise Collective Agreement (DECA) for Army members who supervise and/or have reporting responsibility for APS members.
This research is currently ongoing, and a full report and final findings will be available in coming months.
Endnotes
[1] See for example, Armstrong, M., (2024). Historical Legacy to National Asset: The Australian Army Reserve in the 21st Century, PhD Thesis, Deakin University; Carter, C., (2021). Cultural Characteristics of the Australian Civil-Military Relationship, PhD thesis, Deakin University; Davis, R., (2022). Death Iconography and Language in the ADF, Centre for Defence Leadership and Ethics; McComas, H., & West, B. (2024). Interoperability, Domestic Disaster Response and Organizational Culture. The New Australian Military Sociology: Antipodean perspectives, 2, 139.
[2] Brown, C. (2023). Working With Civvies – the Integrated Workplace, The Forge, 29 Mar; Dennett, H., (2016). Keep ex-Defence out of public service, bureaucrats plead, The Mandarin, 13 Jan; Higgins, L., (2023). To Uniform or Not to Uniform: APS and ADF Capability in the 21st Century, The Cove, 22 Mar.
[3] These ‘pillars’ of the profession have been articulated by former Chief of Army Lieutenant-General Simon Stuart in a series of public addresses. See, for example, Simon Stuart, ‘The Future of the Australian Army Profession’, Australian War Memorial, 20 May 2026, available at: https://www.army.gov.au/news-and-events/speeches-and-transcripts/2026-05-20/chief-army-address-future-australian-army-profession
[4] Fallows, J. (2015). The tragedy of the American military. The Atlantic, 315(1), 72-90; and Carter, C., (2024). Standing in the Picture, in Carter, C., & West, B. The New Australian Military Sociology: Antipodean Perspectives, p. 60.
[6] Goldenberg, I., Chamberland, J., & Skomorovsky, A. (2025), Military-civilian personnel integration: DND civilians’ perspectives, Journal of Military, Veteran and Family Health, 11(2), pp. 10-12; and Febbraro, A., Goldenberg, I., & Dean, W. Eds (2015) The Defence Team: Military and Civilian Partnership in the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence. Canadian Government Publishing, pp. 95-122.
[7] Brooks, R., Civil Military Relations in Democracy: The Mutual Obligations of the Public, Civilian Leaders and the Military, Australian Army Journal, Early Access Article,13 Jul 2026.
