Navigating the politics of public administration continues to challenge public servants of all levels. In this piece, Isabelle Patterson, a student in the Masters of Regulation and Governance at the ANU, reflects on the duality of her experiences as a regulator and how her academic research supports her in navigating this.

Images shows purple light and shadows inside a modern-looking building.

The concept of the purple zone [1] gave me the language to understand and explore this dichotomy. In public administration literature, the purple zone describes the interface of politics (red) and administration (blue). In practice, this is the space that administrators occupy when they balance the demands of implementing legislation against amending legislation. In my practice as a regulator, I know I have entered the purple zone when I need to examine whether the ‘rules’ are right before deciding how to implement a program of regulation.

My earlier work at the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) was clearly blue – dark blue, midnight even! I was so exceptionally removed from the influence of the Parliament (and the relevant standing committees), Ministerial expectations and the public. My role was to apply a mature audit framework against pre-selected material. My scope of influence was narrow and largely limited to the continuous (minor) improvement of the audit framework year on year. I was supported by a highly experienced and qualified team to moderate and temper any singular suggestion, with the benefit of deep leadership to test and validate that proposed changes would have the expected effect.

Moving to the ACT Government and a regulatory team shifted my day-to-day work closer to the purple zone. I needed to navigate the public’s expectations, Ministerial expectations and a more visible election and policy cycle. I helped develop regulatory priorities and frameworks that considered both the evidence base and Ministerial commitments and witnessed my branch navigate the balance of national priorities, public desires, and financial constraints.

“The question I find myself considering most days is how to weigh the public value of an outcome when the public tells you they don’t like a particular outcome. ”

The rise and rise of social media gives constituents a direct line to Ministers, and ACT Legislative Assembly members use and utilise this. More and more, I find myself grappling with the dichotomy of the purple zone with the addition of the public voice as a third player, creating a purple triangle. A more complex dichotomy has emerged as I have developed, too, which is how to weigh and respond to public criticism: is something still ‘public value’ or ‘public good’ if the public is telling you they want something else?

The Government’s response to, and in, the COVID-19 pandemic gave some good examples of this: mask mandates and social distancing policies were effective if unpopular with some. But what about situations where the stakes are lower? Is a regulatory program that focuses on individual (personal) noncompliance the right outcome if it is deeply unpopular? Or does the legislation need reform to align with public expectations? How do you decide if you are going to focus on implementing the current rules or campaigning to change the rules?

My answer is, slowly. Changing legislation is a more purple activity than administering it, but there is scope to adjust the margins in developing regulatory priorities. Introducing the concept of formal regulatory supports, as well as sanctions (Braithwaite 2011[2]), provides space for regulators to engage and reward positive behaviours and engage the public on lower stakes matters. Defining regulatory priorities that recognise the evidence base and respect public demand is more difficult, but not impossible: the AER, for example, recently released their 2024-25 priorities that account for customer experience and business compliance. These two strategies have given me, as the lead of a small team, a level of autonomy and space to engage in the purple zone without taking on ‘too much’ risk of the politics of administration

[1] Yates S. 2016 Where does politics stop and administration begin? Power to Persuade.

[2] Braithwaite J. The essence of responsive regulation. UBC Law Rev. 2011;44(3):475–520 https://johnbraithwaite.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/essence_responsive_regulation.pdf

Content moderator: Dr Lisa Wheildon

Revisiting the purple zone in regulatory public service