Wall St was down 94 overnight, its biggest fall in a month, while the local market is down 66.
Grech the model of a Howard-era bureaucrat
|
A measure of how far the Opposition handling of the OzCar affair has gone off the rails was a statement late last week by Public Service Commissioner Lynelle Briggs that in effect rebuts elements of the Opposition’s defence of its conduct. The statement is highly unusual in its strength and directness:
This is not a good sign for the Opposition. The Westminster system as practiced in Australia assumes that the opposition is a government in waiting. If the opposition has to be corrected on basics of public sector practice, that assumption is doubtful. Godwin Grech continues to attract letters to the editor from people proffering excuses for his actions. That would be wrong. Although he deserves sympathy for his health and support for his personal wellbeing, providing information to the Opposition is not something any senior public servant should do. Compassion for him does not require excusing his conduct. It does though suggest a huge blind spot on the part of the Opposition. How could they have thought his behaviour was normal? Why did they protest that this was just standard for a public servant? The answer is that for much of the coalition period in government, political behaviour by senior public servants was normal. We saw it in Max Moore-Wilton’s attendance at a Howard victory celebration on election night, famously captured on camera berating one of the Chaser boys. It was not uncommon for senior public servants to be asked to join Ministers in discussions about marginal seat tactics, or how to win votes with grants. Some backed off and avoided those discussions, but others participated willingly, sometimes enthusiastically. Howard was said to have a network of people who reported directly back to the PMO (Canberra-speak for the Prime Minister’s Office). Some were staff in other Ministers’ offices, some were senior people in key departments. It was part of the currency of information. In that climate, the Coalition expected that many senior public servants would behave like politicians, albeit with more job security and lower profile. Under Howard, many public servants prospered by expressly aligning themselves with the Coalition in thought and deed. Kevin Rudd has been criticised for leaving such people in place. In retrospect, it seems to have served him well. Moreover, the Coalition is now facing a public service it no longer understands as well as it thought it did. It has a lot of catching up to do in its understanding of the new public sector governance. Former Ministers or Ministerial staffers from the Howard time will have to accept that political behaviour by public servants is not normal any more. The rules have changed. It is not exactly a return to pre-Howard days, you can’t step into the same river twice. Other aspects of the public sector have changed since. But we have seen a reaffirmation of the principle that overt political affiliation is not appropriate for the public service. |
|
|
13 Comments
“It is not part of our role as APS employees to serve the Opposition” - Lynelle Briggs
That statement of the obvious ought to made into a sign and nailed up all over the APS’s offices.
I will make two comments. Why on the 7-30 report tonight did Turnbull refuse to answer the question, “How long has GG been a Liberal party mole in Treasury?”. and
“Will you ‘volunterally’ appear before the Senate priveledges Committee?” The anwers or lack of, are now history.
This is a man who still refuses to apologise for his demands to the PM and the Treasurer to resign after calling them liars, plus other now proven to be wrong accusations. Despite Abetz publically doing so. To save his own skin maybe, at best he apologised.
This man Turnbull, would be Prime Minister. This disgrace to the proud tradition of political life in Australia.
All true but let’s remember that Hawke/Keating abolished the concept of ‘office’ and got rid of permanent heads of departments by placing secretaries on 5 year terms. It could be argued that this deliberate strategy to bring the APS under control was at the root of what Howard was later able to achieve. Senior public servants have always been enmeshed with politics but placing them on contracts at the whim of the minister made them much less likely to provide apolitical honest advice.
SBH: I reckon that the introduction of contracts at the senior levels of the APS was a great way to rid us of the ‘Yes Minister’ situation that preceded it, and I would get rid of permanency all the way down the line if I had my way. Being rusted-onto any organization for life is a very old world concept.
And now thrice has Malcolm dodged the questions about his Grech, with the latest excuse that Australians want him to get onto the serious issues like climate change and that oh, so massive debt of 15% of GDP (in the future, maybe).
It just might occur to the average viewer of the 7.30 Report that the whole silly saga was the result of Turnbull playing the most childish game of ‘gotcha’ politics over what would have been, had it in fact occurred, a fairly minor bit of assistance to someone fully entitled to apply for it.
As for Rudd’s attacks over the AWB scandal, well, that was actually about something of consequence, and it fully deserved investigation. So for Turnbull to compare the two is a bit of ‘coming the raw prawn’, as Kev might say.
The new Mark Latham of Australian politics will have a spectacular demise, it’s just a matter of when.
Christopher Dunne wrote: “The new Mark Latham of Australian politics will have a spectacular demise, it’s just a matter of when.”
Indeed, and in the meantime taxi drivers should be on their guard.
Yes Bullmore’s Ghost it is an old concept but we rely on many old condepts to ensure our system of government functions. The lack of permanence makes it very much easier for a minister to turn a department into a political tool and that’s bad for us all. When we look at the underlying principles we should look to what they achieve rather than how long they’ve been around. As for ‘Yes Minister’ I’m not sure what you mean, as funny and as accurate as it was it was not a detailed analysis of the Westminster System let alone of the system of Australian Government, which differs in many important respects.
As for lower levels, we never had the same type of tenure as heads of department’s and can be dismissed the same as any worker.
My reference to ‘Yes Minister’ was shorthand for entrenched public service mandarins trying to be the government by controlling their ministers, one way or another, and by not co-operating with incoming governments that don’t suit their particular political beliefs.
As for the lower levels, it’s news to me that public service permanency has been rescinded. I am aware that public servants can be dismissed for misconduct, but I wasn’t aware that they were performance reviewed for continuity year on year.
Yep every year since about 1991 (I just had mine). As I said they can be sacked like any other worker.
Bear in mind that the public service is part of the executive government and has a role in shaping and directing policy. My experience is that in most cases public servants political beliefs don’t interfere with the performance of their duties just as a catholic doctor would treat an atheist patient (jeez at least I hope so). We all have views but to let them rule our judgments would be grossly unprofessional as well as a breach of our statutory obligations to be impartial. It this normal professional behaviour that makes Grech all the more amazing and Briggs’ statement so necessary.
I’ve got to say that public servants seem to trip over themselves to accommodate incoming governments, probably because change is an opportunity and by the time a government is toss out the punters aren’t the only ones sick of it. That being said, a DIR secretary fought tooth and nail to stop the Hawke/Keating governments from advancing same sex partners superannuation rights.
Interesting to learn. So, if a public servant is seemed incompetent, ineffective, etc, they can be told their services are no longer required and dismissed? Does that happen often?
No, not often but it certainly happens. The cost of sacking and replacing staff is very high. A Fast food owner once costed each staff turnover for me at $11,000 and I reckon he was being optimistic. Other sources put the cost at about three times annual salary though Ithink this model gets more accurate in the middle ranks than at the end.
I know it sounds wet but you get better value by working through people’s performance problems than by sacking them. There’s a lot of money invested in people as a resource and you will almost always do better from a straight cost point of view to use another option. I got lots of options.
As an aside, it’s nice to have a difference of view that doesn’t descend into name calling as seems to happen so often in these comments.
Yes, I’m familiar with the concept of “performance managing” staff and it’s interesting to learn that it’s in place in the public service — be that state and/or commonwealth I’m not sure but I’m guessing that if it’s in one it’s probably in the other, too.
I suppose I’ve grown up with the popular notion that public servants can become inefficient/ineffective (read slack) and get away with it forever, especially if they are active within their particular union.
It’s sometimes said within management that if somebody quits and leaves that can be a good thing, but when they quit and stay you’ve got a real problem.
Am I on my own here…… Some knob forged some documents which lead to calls on the Prime Minister of our country (yes that bloke the majority elected), a knob certainly in cohort with the opposition party, and still yet nothing.
Godwin Creeppo should be in jail or on his way and I am not sure that a few in the liberal party should not be in the same queue.
We elect politicians to serve the people and public servants are emplyed to do exactly the same thing. I am not sure that the community is getting value for its money when politics, greed and power comes before public service. The system is there to serve the public not itself or those within it.