Given that 1998 has all the appearance of being an election year, those who run the Australian Public Service would be wise to err on the side of caution when dealing with suggestions for change. A too enthusiastic embracing of the Government’s political philosophy might see them in an embarrassing position should there be a change of government.
It is one thing for a top public servant to implement government policy with effectiveness and even enthusiasm; it is another to abandon the essential role of a neutral public service to side with a government’s political philosophy and to abandon critical roles of providing fearless advice and warning of potential pitfalls in a government’s plans.
As the Commonwealth bureaucracy and the Government emerge from the relative torpor of the Christmas-New Year period at least half a dozen departments and agencies will find themselves adjusting to new bosses.
Not only are departments such as Defence, Social Security, Primary Industries, and Attorney-Generals now settling into the reality of new bosses, they are also settling into the reality of new industrial relations and personnel relations arrangements which will have long-term implications for the broader APS.
Leaving aside the question of whether changes in personnel at the top of the Public Service can be seen as greater politicisation, other changes are afoot, particularly in the industrial-relations area of the service that could have that effect.
The Opposition spokesman on Public Administration, Senator John Faulkner, has expressed concern that some elements of Government policy have the capacity to undermine the tradition of neutrality in the APS.
His concerns come after the Government’s continued refusal to accept Senate amendments to its Public Service Bill and the Government’s determination to pursue its desired changes in the public service by way of the Workplace Relations Act, regulation and delegations from the Public Service Commissioner if it cannot get its way in a new Public Service Act.
Given the scope of the Workplace Relations Act, it is possible that substantial changes are achievable in the service by way of regulation that could change conditions for public servants considerably and could change aspects of existing grievance and appeals mechanisms. It may mean that public servants could lose some of the protections they have hitherto enjoyed. And the removal of those protections means that public servants are less likely to proffer fearless advice; less likely to blow the whistle on shortcomings; and more likely to behave as “”yes men” or “”yes women”. When job security is at stake, employees are less likely to be fearless.
Among the most important personnel changes is the transfer of Dr Peter Shergold from his statutory office as Public Service Commissioner to become secretary of the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business. Dr Shergold, a substantial author of the Public Service Bill and its regulatory structure, will now have responsibility for administering the Workplace Relations Act — the central vehicle for the Government’s intended on-going changes to the APS.
Senator Faulkner said he was not arguing with the Government’s right to hire and fire its most senior public service managers or the professionalism of the men and women involved in the latest administrative reshuffle, but he warned that the Opposition would be “”vigilant” in monitoring the political neutrality of the latest Government appointments.
Some of that might be mere puffery. After all, some of the appointees in the shuffle have served under governments of both complexions. Nonetheless, given the essential Westminster system of Australia’s government, it would not be in Australia’s interest for an evolution by stealth to the US system where the whole upper echelon of the Public Service becomes subject to political appointment.
In such a system, continuity suffers upon a change of government. The loss of corporate memory can be detrimental to public administration. Further, political affiliation is not as good basis for appointment than merit.
To date the Australian Public Service has been reasonably free of overt political appointments. However, since the election of the Howard Government, some previous heads of department have moved out, ostensibly to go to other jobs or to retire, but who probably would not have gone had there not been a change of government.
Sometimes changes at the top occur more because of personality differences with new ministers rather than political ones.
Nevertheless, Senator Faulkner, is right to sound alarm bells and to watch the performance of new heads of departments and to watch the effect of new employment conditions in the public service to see if there is any erosion of the essential principle that the public service should be politically neutral.