Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

In recent times we have seen considerable discussion especially in the media about the behaviour of public servants. The discussion, as we know, centres on their behaviour in the provision of information directly into the political forum of the parliament. This subject, as we will shortly come to understand, is quite important as it goes to the heart of public sector ethics and the values within the Westminster system of government.

There are, as we all know, a wide range of difficulties of policy posed in this particular area. Those difficulties range from the most trivial matters to matters of consequence and of national security. At the lower end, whereby I refer to more trivial matters, we will recall the pointless prosecution of a public servant some three or four years ago. His crime was divulging the draft contents of a ministerial media campaign on veterans benefits, the contents of which of course were already on the public record.

At the other end of the scale there is what appears to be access to very confidential security information. It led to a media scoop some two weeks ago on the alleged plans of an alleged Islamic terrorist for attacks on Australian defence installations. Of course, none of us can imagine anything more serious. In this instance investigative journalism led to revelations which could have jeopardised a long-planned security operation. But, having said that, I concede that is the very essence and the very nature of journalism. The point is the means by which such sensitive information came into the particular newspaper’s hands.

Close to this in seriousness were allegations, also to a newspaper, concerning past associations of a former Minister for Defence. The association was alleged to have been with a member of the Chinese community within New South Wales. The minister, of course, has resigned, but the fact remains that the source of the information was said by the newspaper to have come from within the Australian Public Service. This may not have yet been proven, but it remains highly probable given the nature of the information and the newspaper’s own revelations. The investigation revealed nothing. Investigations of this kind within the bureaucracy rarely do, especially within the Department of Defence. We will simply never know the truth of the matter.

The need for secrecy in times of war seems to have no boundary. In between there is a medley of leaks and whistleblowing. These are designed to reveal previously unknown information with, it must be said, a mix of motivation to right a perceived wrong, expose a perceived injustice or just be mischievous—all, of course, in the public interest.

The most recent case, which has occupied so much media time since early June, was the Utegate affair. Ultimately it has brought humiliation to the opposition and its leader. This, however, was entirely self-inflicted. It was no ordinary leak but a calculated and deliberate attempt by a public servant with confessed political affiliations. It was a fraudulent and deliberate misleading of his political brethren opposite for the purposes of political gain. This was not an exercise of righteous indignation over a perceived shortcoming in government nor was it idle gossip. It was a direct engagement of a public servant in the heart of the political process. It was a partisan and juvenile attempt to embarrass the Prime Minister and Treasurer of this country.

We are not so naive in this place that we do not understand the nature of all this. It is a feature of democracy which we are bound to tolerate. In fact, it is a reminder for all those in public office that they should consider themselves living in a fishbowl. Public servants ought to be equally aware, despite the pressures of management and political protection to the contrary. We know that risk management is a very important element within public administration. Often both sides of politics encourage the can-do approach, so risks are taken. However, the end never justifies the means. As we know from Senate estimates, accountability must always be covered off. The facts often have a way of revealing themselves to the embarrassment of ministers and public servants alike. The occasional leak is always a risk to be balanced against other commitments to open government and freedom of information legislation, the purpose of which is to counter political and bureaucratic secrecy.

If people consider confidentiality and these freedoms as contradictions, they may be right. At best it is an ambiguity, but some sensible balance needs to be found. Ministers and public servants need to weigh these risks carefully. The pity is that the motives to conceal and to cover up are, at their heart, protective mechanisms. They may be intended to eliminate trouble more than anything more sinister. Accountability and transparency are often onerous and time-consuming responsibilities.

I will address the motives of whistleblowers and leakers in a moment, but first I say that, now that the facts of the Utegate affair have been revealed, they are another pertinent reminder of the risks within an open democracy where our public sector values and traditions require constant apolitical behaviour. Just as the deliberate destruction of a minister’s reputation is despicable, so is direct partisan political engagement. In both cases I believe these behaviours are disciplinary offences of a most serious nature. In our democratic system, public servants will have philosophical leanings. Indeed, I expect that in any government agency those leanings are detectable, known and tolerated, all within the traditional bounds of apolitical advising and administration. However, the public interest must always come first. Nevertheless, throughout our history of government we have managed to manage these differences. However, the bottom line is always one of trust, as well as individual and organisational integrity.

In the Utegate affair there was a failure on all three counts at a very high level. The engagement of officials directly in the political process, as in Utegate, is absolutely unforgivable. The real concern, though, is whether this is a new behaviour flowing from the previous deceit of the Howard government. If it is, then I think we are all duty bound to do our utmost to stamp it out. It is something for which government is as accountable as the administration of the Public Service itself.

Behaviour such as leaking and whistleblowing, as unprofessional as they may be, are lesser sins. Whistleblowing, of course, is publicly endorsed, even at the risk that the person might be wrong. The tragedy here is that great harm might be done to the innocent who have little protection. Therefore, the difference between whistleblowing and leaking is very fine. While whistleblowing is presumably open, leaking by nature is covert and mostly anonymous. The motivation, however, is very similar. It is nothing more than the manipulation of information for the purposes of publicity and profile. Governments around the world do it all the time. Any sense of contrived exclusiveness makes it even more attractive. We all play the game, but, once again, some understanding of the dynamics of the game needs to be retained.

Freedom of information and open government are real democratic values standing in contrast to the Orwellian world that some would prefer. We should never assume that confidentiality or secrecy can always prevail. At best it is a dilemma; at worst there is a risk, as we have seen in recent times, that sinister, naive or simply stupid motives will sometimes prevail.