Knowing what not to know: Unravelling the dynamics of selective knowledge in government policymaking

The Robodebt controversy in Australia has led to an investigation regarding bureaucratic practices, particularly concerning the dissemination of false or misleading information. While overt falsehoods may be relatively easy to spot, this paper delves into subtler forms of misleading discourse that often evade detection, perpetuating a culture of deliberate ambiguity within governmental institutions. By analysing bureaucratic manoeuvres like feigned ignorance, selective knowledge and silent silencing, this study elucidates how policymakers strategically incorporate uncertainty to shield themselves from blame. Drawing on empirical evidence from the handling of a 2016 state‐wide blackout and the subsequent bureaucratic discourse, the paper highlights how routine bureaucratic interactions contribute to maintaining politically convenient narratives at the expense of transparency and democratic accountability. It proposes three key areas for policy organisations to address: engaging with what is being ignored, redefining objectivity to include diverse perspectives, and leaning into the tension between political desires and necessities.Points for practitioners Practitioners should start identifying and addressing subtle forms of misinformation in their own bureaucratic practices. This includes strategies like feigned ignorance, selective knowledge, and silent silencing, which are used to avoid blame and perpetuate a culture of deliberate ambiguity. By understanding how they employ such strategies, practitioners may be better able to foster diverse perspectives and redefine objectivity in ways that expand upon their institutional expertise. In politically charged situations, policy advisers may prioritise short‐term expedience, but they do so at the cost of longer term integrity of the public service. Lean into the tension and acknowledge that policy advice is not about turning a blind eye.