Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Defying Empire commemorates the 50th anniversary of 1967 Referendum

Abbott and the public service: where now on department heads?

By johnboy - 23 September 2013 8

public service memorial

By Andrew Podger

Prime minister Tony Abbott’s decision to sack three departmental secretaries within hours of his swearing-in earlier this week has not attracted the same shock John Howard’s decision to sack six secretaries caused in 1996.

At that time, Paul Keating’s removal of secretaries’ tenure in 1994 was yet to be exercised. However, 17 years later, secretaries are painfully aware that tenure has gone and, while dismissals are not common, failure to re-appoint is certainly a frequent occurrence.

Perhaps Abbott’s move was not a “night of the long knives”, then, but sadly it was a failure to respond positively to Kevin Rudd’s attempt in 2007 to restore the concept of a public service with a significant degree of independence from political pressures. It has also (again, sadly) clarified that the Public Service Amendment Act (2013) does not provide any serious constraint on prime ministerial discretion over secretary appointments and terminations, despite the rhetoric of the Second Reading Speech and the unanimous support in parliament for the legislation.

Rudd’s decision to retain all the secretaries he inherited – including several with histories of close association with the conservative side of politics or records that gave reason for Labor to query their non-partisanship – gave hope to the Australian Public Service (APS) leadership that a corner had been turned which future governments of either persuasion would follow. That is, that new governments would not act unexpectedly on suspicion of partisanship or lack of professional integrity, but would allow a period to test the loyalty and competence of the secretaries they inherit.

Rudd followed up his approach by other measures pressed by Senator John Faulkner to strengthen the professional non-partisanship of the APS. These included: involving the Public Service Commissioner in appointments and terminations, removing performance pay, setting five years as the standard contract period (rather than the increasing use of three year contracts) and the introduction of a code of conduct for ministerial staff.

Several of these are now reflected in the Public Service Act after amendments agreed unanimously earlier this year. The amended act also now requires appointments and terminations by the governor-general, a presentational change but one I and others had hoped conveyed an important principle about the status of the APS as an institution.

It is true nonetheless that Rudd and Julia Gillard and their ministers did not always demonstrate Faulkner’s appreciation of the proper role of the public service. The manner in which Rudd and Wayne Swan used Treasury to shield their own accountability for economic and budgetary policy was hardly consistent with the distinctions between politics and administration, or with the lines of accountability that Faulkner had been trying to clarify.

This was also true in other policy areas, including immigration and climate change, exposing and using public service advice – selectively of course – for political ends. Perhaps some officials allowed themselves to be used too much, but most fault surely lies with ministers and the then-government. To the extent that fault lies with officials, I personally had hoped Abbott would show the same magnanimity Rudd demonstrated in 2007 and allow the relevant secretaries to prove (or otherwise) their ability to serve his government before acting to terminate appointments.

Most commentators have not been critical of the decision to terminate the contract of industry department head Don Russell. Certainly, he demonstrated partisanship when on prime minister Keating’s staff and Abbott has good reason to be uncertain of his capacity to serve the conservative government loyally. But Rudd might equally have had doubts about some secretaries he inherited, such as Michael l’Estrange, who had played a prominent role on John Howard’s staff as Cabinet secretary.

In my view, l’Estrange was a highly competent and professional secretary who never – in that role – showed partisanship, serving Rudd and Gillard well. Could Russell have done so for Abbott? My guess is that he could have had he wished to stay on, given his long APS experience and his sharp intelligence.

The other two (agriculture department head Andrew Metcalfe and Resources, Energy and Tourism’s Blair Comley) should definitely have been kept on. Both are proven career public servants who were asked to take on jobs in amongst the most politically sensitive fields imaginable.

Perhaps they allowed themselves to be used to promote the then-government’s policies. But arguably that was true of some secretaries Rudd inherited, such as Peter Boxall and Jane Halton. Halton, for example, attracted concern on the Labor side because of the manner of her defence of the Children Overboard case.

The issue is whether these apparent, excessively responsive behaviours justify dismissals by a new government despite the overall competence of the individuals concerned. In Metcalfe’s case, the new government had first-hand knowledge, after he criticised their asylum seeker policies while in his former role as head of the immigration department in 2011.

The case of treasury secretary Martin Parkinson is not yet clear after it was announced that he would leave his post midway through next year. I do not know the extent to which he is being pushed out rather than willingly contemplating another role, but if he too is being pressured to go without Abbott having yet tested his competence and loyalty, that is most unfortunate.

The one good element of the Abbott announcement was the appointment of two career public servants to fill the vacancies. That at least does show some respect for the APS.

What messages is Abbott giving secretaries and the APS? It is just possible there is one positive message: to be very careful about the fine line between explaining and marketing government policies. As the late Canadian academic Peter Aucoin opined, we have seen too much “promiscuous non-partisanship” in recent years: public servants willing to serve whichever side of politics is in power, but to do so with excessive responsiveness giving the public reason to doubt the impartial professionalism of their advice and administration.

In my view, this was becoming a major problem under the Howard government, and did not diminish appreciably under the Rudd and Gillard governments.

My fear, however, is that that is not the main message intended, nor the main one received. More likely is the message that public servants must indeed be even more careful in their advice – whether in public or private – and not do anything that might provoke retribution. They should also be wary of taking on politically sensitive tasks.

If the message was for a genuine return to professionalism, impartiality and non-partisanship, then that would have best been imparted by retaining the secretaries Abbott inherited and advising them all clearly what the Government expects in terms of loyalty. The APS leadership – particularly the APS Commissioner and the Secretary of Prime Minister and Cabinet (both of whom are thankfully strong traditionalists) – would then have responsibility to clarify that this does not permit “promiscuous non-partisanship” and that it does require “frank and fearless” advice.

Given the decisions taken, however, the APS Commissioner and PM&C secretary just have to do their best to encourage the APS not to be even more risk averse and to meet their responsibilities for frank and fearless advice.

Andrew Podger was Public Service Commissioner from 2002-2004 and has held other senior positions in the public service.

The Conversation

This article was originally published at The Conversation.
Read the original article.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
8 Responses to
Abbott and the public service: where now on department heads?
p1 3:11 pm 23 Sep 13

I can certainly understand how it would be hard to imagine working for a government that specifically says it thinks all the scientists in a chosen field are lying. I am understanding it right now.

PantsMan 2:13 pm 23 Sep 13

WillowJim said :

PantsMan said :

Parkinson advised a Senate committee that he may have to consider his position if Abbott was elected and sought the removal of the Carbon Tax.

Source, please?

Here:

The Treasury head, appearing in a Senate hearing yesterday, said he and his colleagues might have to “make a choice with their feet” should the Coalition win the next election and order the dismantling of Labor’s scheme.

Dr Parkinson has worked on three versions of the carbon pricing scheme for three prime ministers – John Howard, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard.

Asked whether he would assist a government elected on a policy of rescinding the carbon tax he had helped build, he said that as a public servant he would serve the Australian people through the government of the day. “Everybody has a choice in front of them,” he said.

“If they are not prepared to implement the policies the government chooses to pursue, and that government has been democratically elected, then they essentially have to make a choice with their feet.”

Dr Parkinson said the choice might not be his. “Whether I was secretary of the Treasury would be a matter for the prime minister of the day,” he said.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/coalition-lashes-carbon-critics-20111020-1madf.html#ixzz2fgZswY00

Worse than walking would be having him stay.

HiddenDragon 1:56 pm 23 Sep 13

“Promiscuous non-partisanship” – a rather clever description for a phenomenon increasingly to be expected in a world where areas of policy which were once bipartisan are now contested ground. Whatever the academic niceties of the situation, I agree with those who feel that the recent quantum leap(s) in remuneration for people at this level is sufficient compensation for loss of tenure.

WillowJim 1:35 pm 23 Sep 13

PantsMan said :

Parkinson advised a Senate committee that he may have to consider his position if Abbott was elected and sought the removal of the Carbon Tax.

Source, please?

PantsMan 11:56 am 23 Sep 13

Blair Comley and Martin Parkinson are climate change evangelists. Parkinson advised a Senate committee that he may have to consider his position if Abbott was elected and sought the removal of the Carbon Tax. Last time I checked, Parkinson was not an elected politician who got to set the policy agenda. Is he unwilling to apolitically serve the government of the day, or was he running anti-Abbott interference before the election, but now wants to be exalted and a holier than thou bureaucrat?

It is just too much of a risk for Abbott that they would just wreak his policy agenda from the inside by just deliberately botching the implementation of things, running dead on things so nothing ever happened, or backgrounding the media to wreak anything the government sought to do.

Also, Treasury has been turned into a climate cult full of central economic planners and socialists, incapable of providing basic economic policy advice. The fish rots from the top, and Parkinson has to go.

The alternative would be for partisan ideological bureaucrats to have life tenure, overriding the democratically elected government’s mandate.

thebrownstreak69 11:51 am 23 Sep 13

Pubes at this level are on contracts anyway, and are fully aware of the risks of taking on their positions when they do so. They get paid a lot to do these jobs and take these risks.

Most of them either retire (very comfortably) or find other jobs to go to. It’s not like they aren’t well qualified and well networked.

breda 11:35 am 23 Sep 13

Shrug. These people have been paid many multiples of the average worker’s salary for many years, and have very generous superannuation arrangements. They are not going to be chugging in Garema Place to pay the rent.

Despite Podge’s pompous declamations, the truth is that there have been quite a few duds heading up Departments and agencies over the years. They are good at something, certainly – but what is another question. And, if Secretaries choose to live by the sword, the inevitable will happen one day.

Nobody disputes the PM’s right to have his/her choice as Secretary of their Department – so why all the preciousness about the others?

54-11 11:20 am 23 Sep 13

It is interesting that Podger raised the issue of Jane Halton’s unstinting support for Howard during the children overboard fiasco. Yet Labor chose to keep her on, despite her obvious partisanship, presumably because she had some administrative skills as well (I don’t know but just guessing). Yet Abbott sacked long-serving people like Metcalf who served under Howard, and was an assistant to Max “The Axe” Wilton at PM&C during the conservative years.

This is all very unseemly – Labor showed a lot of bi-partisanship, yet Abbott is incapable of doing the same. Just shows the true nature and character of the man.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site