Without fear or favour

admin —  September 21, 2013 — 3 Comments

By Kellie Tranter

The Abbott Government’s recent sacking – without proper reasons being given – of three departmental secretaries, with others to follow, doesn’t just send a message to the Australian Public Service. It should also serve as a reminder to the general public that the public service is not operating as independently of government as it should.

Over a decade ago, Richard Mulgan, former professor at the Crawford School of Economics and Government at the ANU, wrote:

‘Politicisation of the APS, in the sense of appointments to suit the preferences of the government of the day, has been gradually increasing over recent decades. The process has been given added impetus by the growing insecurity of tenure among secretaries and by the sometimes uncritical adoption of private sector management model.’

Political appointments to senior public service positions, and the removal of senior public servants by incoming governments, unfortunately is nothing new at both State and Federal levels. But the effect of the sackings doesn’t just affect other senior bureaucrats who want to hold onto their jobs: it immediately filters down through all levels of the public service. So your average public servant is then constrained and gagged not only by broad reaching guidelines but also – and perhaps more effectively – by a fear of personal consequences.

While Tony Abbott said in response to the sackings “I’m not going to get into the whys and wherefores of individual decisions”,  most public servants recognise the all too familiar dog whistle that the newly elected government wants them to give it what it wants. In other words, for all the officially prescribed “Values” and “Codes of Conduct” in Christendom, if you’re a public servant with a family and bills to pay you toe the line: you don’t make career limiting moves, you don’t probe too deeply and you don’t expose embarrassing matters. Any thought of facilitating integrity or accountability through fearlessly exposing facts is shelved.

The end result is a top-down culture of self-preservation and self-interest, built on security if not comfort, with blind obedience to the dictates of government.

As anti-corruption fighter John Hatton AO recently pointed out,  “Corruption can’t occur if government departments are truly independent, open, accountable, efficient facilitators of the flow of information acting in the public interest. It just can’t happen…Corruption flows from government to government and from department to department irrespective of the political colour.”

Hatton points out that the “public service is the oil that greases corruption”. Why? Because corruption, or any government wrong doing for that matter, can’t take place over long lunches alone:  it requires execution, and execution requires a team of participants, willing or not. It involves the taking of calls and typing of notes, the drafting and delivery of documents, informal conversations within earshot, advice being sought and given, people coming and going from offices and activities cloaked in secrecy.

It does not auger well for the independence of the public service if department heads are sacked without reason by newly elected governments.

In fact in order to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the public service and to help stamp out cronyism, Heads of Departments should be appointed on a bi-partisan basis or by Parliament, and they should have the right to an independent judicial review if their contract is not to be renewed so that their performance can be independently assessed against the relevant guidelines. This should prevent the dismissal of senior bureaucrats who disagree with a position taken by a government or who have expressed views contrary to some official line.

We need a truly independent public service with departments led by competent managers appointed on merit who can perform their duties without fear of political interference. We also need public servants who are able to speak out without fear of retribution when they see government waste, corruption or wrong doing. After all, it is our money and the integrity of our institutions that they should be protecting.

Why should public servants not be able to speak out if a government demands improper actions or unethical behaviour in relation to its citizens, or requires acts to be taken in breach of international laws or conventions? In many cases the public servants are the only people with the information and expertise who can identify such transgressions.

A truly independent public service is a cornerstone of the Westminster system. Depriving public servants of that independence means that they become servants of incumbent governments rather than servants of the public.

admin

Posts Google+

3 responses to Without fear or favour

  1. BTW it’s worth describing the environment in which these sackings (more accurately resignations?) have taken place: I’m told there is a great deal of mistrust between the APS and the government, that Labor lost control of the APS, and that the Libs are determined not to make the same mistake.

    A few examples I’m aware of:

    1) Staff in the Attorney-General’s Department who ignored orders from then Attorney-General Robert McClelland to investigate breaches of the Model Litigant Policy.

    2) Take Labor Minister of Defence Stephen Smith. He might have been PM one day had he played his cards right, but public officials in his department undermined him. Victims of Defence abuse are still waiting for justice.

    3) Take Labor Pubic Service Minister Gary Gray claiming the APSC has all the power they need to stop corruption, but the APSC privately contradicts him: http://victimsofdsto.com/doc/2013-04-27%20Comparison%20of%20statements%20by%20Public%20Service%20Commissioner%20and%20Public%20Service%20Minister%20regarding%20PSA%20Accountability.pdf

  2. A fantastic piece Kellie.

    The Australian Public Service Commission conflates discussion about the actions and management of the public service by public servants with criticism of the elected government. There is a huge degree of over-reach and the result, as you say, is that the notion and practice of serving the public gets lost.

    The other related claim the Australian Public Service makes is, in effect, that government and the public service will come crashing down if public servants make critical comments in the media. Especially, via social media.

    This claim is, in my view, rubbish. Are we really supposed to believe that such comments will bring robust institutions crashing down? I think not.

    The public sector is, and has to be, very different from the private sector in this regard. The relationship between government, the public service and community needs to be rebalanced and the starting point needs to be transparency and accountability from the ground up.

    The great promise of open government was enhanced democracy driven, in no small part, by social media technologies. It is no longer viable to hang onto practices that undermine and corrupt that agenda.

    In its policy for e-government and the digital economy the Coalition states that it wants to,

    accelerate Government 2.0 efforts to engage online, make agencies transparent and provide expanded access to useful public sector data.

    Taking this policy at face value rebalancing the Australian Public Service is clearly a major key to accelerating these efforts. As per the espoused policy of the current government.

    You are right. A truly independent public service is needed.

  3. > As anti-corruption fighter John Hatton AO recently pointed out, “Corruption can’t occur if government departments are truly independent, open, accountable, efficient facilitators of the flow of information acting in the public interest. It just can’t happen…Corruption flows from government to government and from department to department irrespective of the political colour.”

    Not sure I agree. They need to be “open, accountable, efficient facilitators of the flow of information”, but why do they need to be independent? If they’re not accountable to elected politicians, then who are they accountable to?

    I say that because I’ve seen far too many senior public servants flagrantly breach the Code of Conduct, Criminal Code and Crimes Act because they know they are accountable to no one. Their peers and superiors don’t pull them into line. The AFP won’t touch them. They are a law unto themselves. http://victimsofdsto.com/psc

    Let’s be very clear here: If you are a senior public servant, you can commit criminal acts without any risk of the AFP ever charging you. And if you know your subordinates are committing crimes and you do nothing to stop them, you are completely safe in your job.

    I agree with Andrew Hooley (Victims of CSIRO) who said: “My belief is that one of the fundamental causes of this dystopic public service is that a generation of senior bureaucrats believes that they have no accountability to the parliament and to date the parliament has enforced this lack of accountability by failing to discipline those who willfully mislead or disobey the directions of their cabinet bosses.” http://ozloop.org/profiles/blogs/do-we-need-a-public-service-defence-league

    I’ve worked in the private sector my entire working life and we’re not “independent” of management. They’re in charge. If we don’t do what we’re told, we get sacked. I’ve never had a problem with that. If we weren’t accountable to management, the company would become dysfunctional.

Leave a Reply

Text formatting is available via select HTML.

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> 

*