Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

0Hk tiCanbfrra (times
Thursday, July 5, 1990
L.
Public servants'
right to speak
THE Prime Minister, Bob
Hawke, might have been able
to justify sacking his former
principal industry adviser, Dr David
Charles, after he criticised Govern
ment policy in a recent newspaper
interview. But he was unlikely to go
that far, even in the absence of the
"compelling personal reasons"
which he says stayed his hand on this
occasion. Technically, Dr Charles
breached an important tradition
whereby public servants refrain from
criticising government policies. But
Dr Charles's breach was scarcely a
vicious, front-on assault. It was a
gentlemanly discourse, more a cri
tique than an attack. And it would be
unfortunate if this episode had the
effect of making senior public ser
vants reluctant to give interviews in
their areas of expertise.
Ministers are a better-educated
and better-informed lot than they
once were, but they are firstly politic
ians and only secondly experts in
industry, education or agriculture.
The truly knowledgable policy peo
ple are the senior bureaucrats who
brief the ministers. Just as senior
bureaucrats can legitimately com
ment on management and adminis
tration, so they should surely be
available to explain to the public the
ways in which governments apply
their policies, to spell out how poli
cies work. There is a fine line be
tween doing that and explaining,
almost inadvertently, why certain
other policies, or even aspects of pol
icies, do not work.
It is a delicate position to be in.
There are sound reasons why senior
bureaucrats should refrain from pub
licly attacking government policy.
No minister could feel confident in
making decisions if he or she feared
headlines each time they went
against the advice of a public ser
vant. It would also be unfair for bu
reaucrats to use confidential
information to undermine a govern
ment. In some parts of the world
public servants equivalent to Austra
lia's Senior Executive Service offi
cers change with a change in
government. Australian SES officers
have tenure, but with that security
comes an obligation to serve govern
ments impartially.
Obviously, public servants should
be free to comment publicly on sub
jects outside their field of work.
There is nothing to stop an ASO 6
from Primary Industry becoming a
spokesman for the Parents and Citi
zens Association and criticising
Commonwealth education policies
in the strongest terms. There is noth
ing wrong with a steno-secretary
from Defence writing a letter to the
editor complaining about immigra
tion policies. But the more senior the
bureaucrat becomes, the more care
ful he or she should be. There is no
technical reason why the secretary of
one department should not com
ment publicly on government poli
cies concerning another department,
although by that stage a well-devel
oped sense of mutual circumspection
would probably silence both depart
ment heads.
Technically, Dr Charles was no
longer Secretary of the Department
of Industry, Technology and Com
merce when he gave his near-fatal
interview, and the Minister for For
eign Affairs, Senator Gareth Evans,
took a sensible approach when he
said that Dr Charles's criticism of
Government policy should not cost
him his new job as Consul-General
to Berlin. The Prime Minister did
not agree, but at least he stopped
short of over-reacting and sacking Dr
Charles. The Australian public must
just hope that the slap on the wrist
Dr Charles received does not deter
other senior bureaucrats from mak
ing valuable contributions to public
debate next time they are asked.
$