THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1982. Public Service neutrality

Press, 1 September 1982, Page 20

THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1982. Public Service neutrality

Misuse of official information by public servants with an axe to grind seems to be on the increase. The State Services Commission has noted the trend and warned against it more than once. The warning has been repeated this week by the State Services Commissioner. Mr R. Kelly, in his address to a conference of the Institute of Public Administration. Such warnings should not have been necessary, but more and more public servants are alleged to be taking it upon themselves to divulge information for motives that can be seen only as .politically partisan. A spate of such leaks occurred during the General Election campaign last year. The timing of the leaks left no doubt that the sources of them hoped to achieve some influence over the election. At least one of the leaks was of Cabinet papers. The subject of those papers was an environmental issue, always contentious in today's political climate’ In the police investigation of that leak, fingerprints were taken of some civil servants. This was an otherwise needless embarrassment forced on several, probably blameless, public servants by the actions of one of their number.

Cabinet papers were at the centre of another leak this year when information on housing loans, still under consideration by the Cabinet, found its way to an Opposition member of Parliament. This leak could be described only as direct political interference; it could not masquerade, however misguidedly, under the mantle of ensuring the public’s right to information. Quite properly, the State Services Commission holds these leaks to be inexcusable. A point that is not as obvious, and that has not been referred to by the commission, is that such leaks can do the public a disservice. Because of the selective nature of the leaks, and the partisan motives that inspire them, they are rarely balanced and are quite likely to misinform the public. The information may well be on matters under consideration and about to be rejected. The importance, or unimportance, of the information is distorted by the very fact of its improper disclosure, by the enthusiasm with which the receiver , of the information presents it to the public, and by the transformation of what was merely “private” into something that is “secret.” Engineered leaks such as these are far removed from the day-to-day relationships between public servants and the politicians or journalists with whom they deal. The relationships are built on mutual trust pnd a direct question might result in a

forthright reply. Although some information, not generally available, might be obtained as a result of these relationships, or by diligent inquiry, no comparison is possible with the recent practice of photo-copied documents being circulated anonymously to all and sundry.

In some instances, the motives for leaks. may be other than political. The unauthorised or premature release of information might result from the genuine belief on the part of an official that the information should be made known to the public domain. This is anticipating the passage of the Official Information Bill. The ethical dilemmas entailed in leaks on the ground of conscience should be eased by the formal framework for greater access to official information that the legislation proposes. Public servants who are not satisfied that the proposed law will go far enough will serve the public better by working within the system for change than by risking dismissal by sporadically leaking information without authority. The integrity of the best reasons for leaking information is obscured by the necessarily underhand and secretive methods that must be adopted. Under the present circumstances, any Government is entitled to regard leaks as disloyal and probably malicious. Questionable loyalty is at the root of another concern of the State Services Commission: the number of public servants taking public positions against Government policies. When this occurs, the concept of political neutrality of the Public Service is abandoned. Neutrality of the service has been traditional since 1912, when political patronage ceased. In return, State employees obtained a careerstructured service with job security and a promotion system envied by many Outside it.

The loyalty and political neutrality required of public servants in such a system can be undermined by the actions of a few. One consequence of this could be increasing pressure for political appointments, at least to the most sensitive positions. This would be to the detriment of government generally and to the Public Service in particular. However undesirable, it would be an understandable response from any Government that wanted to govern effedtively without looking over its shoulder constantly for acts of betrayal. A politically neutral Public Service can have no place for employees who wish to promote their personal political views. They were not elected or appointed for this purpose.