Some might argue the appointment of Michele Bullock as RBA Governor renders irrelevant the slandering of two of our most senior public servants as “tainted”. Peter Dutton should not be let off the hook so lightly.
Perhaps a product of the Fadden bye-election, Peter Dutton’s slur was misguided and mischievous. Two distinguished public servants, particularly Treasury Secretary Steven Kennedy, were traduced merely for serving governments of varying persuasions with great ability and expertise.
For his sake, theirs, and ours, Dutton should retract. Employment as a departmental secretary and providing expert advice to governments of the day has never been a disqualification for leading the RBA. Nor should it be.
If there is a furore here, it is Peter Dutton’s creation. As a child, I was told if you make a mess try your hardest to clean it up yourself. I don’t know if Peter Dutton was taught that too. Let me help him make amends. I might have been the enabler who laid the ground for his egregious misstep.
I must declare my biases. I am a repeat offending political partisan, tainted by service under several Federal Labor Leaders, currently heading the ALP-aligned Chifley Research Centre. Moreover, I am guilty of being the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff who selected Steven Kennedy, from a slate of three candidates provided on request by the then Secretary of Treasury, for secondment as Senior Economic Adviser in the Prime Minister’s Office.
This is presumably what allegedly “taints” Kennedy. It should not be, and has never occurred before – even under Coalition Governments not renowned for their partisan equanimity. Scott Morrison’s Treasurer, Josh Frydenburg, called Kennedy an “outstanding public servant”. Many of us share that view.
Steven Kennedy was not recruited to be Kevin Rudd’s Senior Economic Adviser because he was seen as politically sympathetic or even likely to be. No rational observer would contend Kennedy even became so. Nor was Kennedy recruited at Rudd’s request or the advice of any Labor politician.
I had to put some work into persuading Rudd we should second Kennedy, borrowing a senior Treasury official rather than recruiting externally for another, likely partisan, ministerial staffer. The appointment also supplanted a raft of talented policy staff brought into the office from Opposition, some with good public service experience.
In addition, there was initial scepticism from then Treasurer Wayne Swan that I might be creating a path for competing macro-economic advice within the Government.
Truth be told, Swan was easier to persuade than the Prime Minister, though Rudd did not take long to concede recruiting a skilled public servant was a good idea -particularly for new government emerging from over a decade in opposition.
Swan had seen me wrestle with the newly-minted PM against thwarting careers and institutional appointments for several talented individuals merely because they worked diligently under Coalition governments or for office-holders, from all sides, that Rudd disliked.
They are people who have proved their mettle and contributed to the national good across five federal governments, spanning two Labor and three Coalition PMs. Like Kennedy, all now hold leadership positions in the Australian Government and national institutions. None of the public servants among them could reasonably be regarded as “tainted”, either by their APS roles or providing expert advice to ministers.
These people have provided much benefit to the nation, professionally, under governments of all persuasions and varied levels of competence. That should be grounds enough for Dutton to withdraw his slurs. The appointment of Michelle Bullock should make it easier.
If none of this is enough, Peter Dutton should reflect on the quality of advice and adherence to good process APS secondees bring to executive government. So should others who have strange notions that senior public servants should never spend any time working with elected governments in ministerial offices.
Nearly forty years on, it is worth remembering the 1984 Members of Parliament Staff Act. It was designed in part to facilitate using non-partisan public servants and academics to improve the expertise of ministerial offices. It allowed those secondees merit-based re-entry into the APS without fear of retribution, removed pressure to become partisan and, until used badly in the past decade, contributed significantly to the quality of advice to Federal Cabinet.
More of this outlook might reduce pressures for officials to serve political interests of the day at the expense of national interests and institutional integrity. If Peter Dutton regards RoboDebt as a headache in the shadow of the Fadden by-election he might ponder a step back from pushing public servants into the political play.
David Epstein is Executive Director of the Chifley Research Centre. A sometime business executive and political apparatchik, he served as Chief of Staff and Principal Adviser to a Prime Minister and two Opposition Leaders.
Contributions to Pearls and Irritations
Your contribution will fund quality independent comment and analysis in Pearls and Irritations
Contribute
