Viewpoint

16 February 2006

Bureaucratic Politicisation & Governmental Self Interest - an Unholy Mix

On February 13 the ABC's current affairs program Four Corners put to air The Greenhouse Mafia which was based in major part on material provided to it by Dr Guy Pearse, Speechwriter for the Environment Minister from 1997-2000 Senator Robert Hill.

Dr Pearse told Four Corners "I’ve discovered why Australian... greenhouse policy is being driven by the mining and energy sectors."

In essence Dr Pearse's conclusion is that a powerful group of industry lobbyists calling themselves "The Greenhouse Mafia" not only had access to confidential cabinet documents, they were responsible for the formulation of a number of them through their access to the governmental department bureaucracy.

He tended to paint a picture that had distinct similarities to that of Britain's public service as depicted by Jonathan Lynn and Antony Jay in Yes Minister / Yes Prime Minister where it was the senior bureaucrats who were putting it across the parliamentarians to whom they were ostensibly responsible.
 

But is this really the situation that Dr Pearse had garnered evidence about.

Just over seven years ago in November 1998 Professor Richard Muligan, currently Director of the Australian National University's Policy and Governance program, published a seminal paper, Politicising the Australian Public Service? He introduced his subject with --

The issue of the potential politicisation of the Australian Public Service (APS) has received considerable attention in the last two years. In part, this has been a reaction to the immediate replacement of six department secretaries after the change of government in 1996. Proposed changes to the Public Service Act also raised questions about possible threats to the continuing viability of a professionally neutral public service. To what extent is the APS moving from a professional Westminster model towards a politicised one as found in the United States and some continental European democracies?

Professor Muligan then defines his use of politicisation.

[T]he term 'politicisation' should be understood as more than simply appointment on partisan grounds. It should properly imply any type of appointment which is contrary to the principles of a politically neutral or impartial public service. In this case, politicisation also covers the appointment of public servants known to be associated with a particular policy direction associated with the government of the day...

 

All such instances represent a breach of the principles of a politically neutral public service. As such, politicisation is certainly on the increase... [but d]oes politicisation matter?

 

 ...Defences of professional neutrality against politicisation tend to rely on the value of 'frank and fearless' advice and of the political independence of career public servants. However, such considerations, though not without weight, tend to neglect an equally important justification of a professional service, namely its superior collective experience in managing changing government policy and therefore its greater effectiveness in serving the government of the day.

After analysing the situation regarding the degree of politicisation in the Australian public service (APS) as he saw it in 1998 Muligan considered, "The extent of such politicisation within the APS should not be exaggerated. The APS, as a whole, is still much closer to the professional Westminster model than to a fully politicised system. Even at the secretary level, most secretaries are appointed on the basis of politically neutral, professional skills and most survive changes of minister and government."

But he also concluded --

Politicisation of the APS, in the sense of appointments to suit the preferences of the government of the day has been gradually increasing over recent decades. The process has been given added impetus by the growing insecurity of tenure among secretaries and by the sometimes uncritical adoption of private sector management models. Though the great majority of public servants, including secretaries, still see themselves as politically neutral professionals, capable of serving alternative governments with equal competence and loyalty, incoming governments may be increasingly tempted to appoint new management teams as a means of imposing new policy.

Now seven years and nine months on, ministers and departmental secretaries have come and gone, but there has been no change in government. During this period the inclination of the Federal Cabinet to micromanage at all levels has become increasingly evident which brings us back to Four Corners, Dr. Pearse and the self proclaimed "Greenhouse Mafia" and the political manipulation of CSIRO scientists' public utterances.

It is unlikely that Federal Cabinet ministers were so naive as to be unaware of the extent of the input and influence of the mining and energy movers and shakers on the formulation of cabinet documents. The progressive politicisation of the APS and the insatiable penchant of  Prime Minister Howard to micromanage argues against it.

The smouldering allegations by former and some current CSIRO scientists of pressure not only from senior CSIRO management but in at least one case directly from a junior minister is thought hardly surprising in the current political atmosphere. That in itself  is very disquieting.

Rosslyn Beeby reports in the February 14 Canberra Times --

Former federal science minister Peter McGauran pressured three senior CSIRO scientists to leave the outspoken environmental science think-tank, the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, according to group sources.

 

CSIRO environment executive Dr Steve Morton, who was CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems division chief when the group formed in November, 2002, said Mr McGauran warned him "to think carefully" about his membership of the Wentworth Group.

 

These further claims of political interference in CSIRO follow a succession of news reports in The Canberra Times over the past six months in which scientists claimed government interference was undermining CSIRO’s independence and integrity and creating a fear-driven culture of compliance.

Dr Morton under incessant questioning by Senator Penny Wong during Senate Estimates on February 15 agreed that Rosslyn Beeby had reported his statements to her regarding the meeting with Mr McGauran accurately.

Mr. McGauran has a different recollection of the meeting telling The Age on February 15, "In response to inquiries from individual farmers and the water industry, I was keen to clarify the status and views of the Wentworth Group as distinct from the views of CSIRO and the Government. These were appropriate inquiries for the minister for science to make and were not intended in any way to influence the participation of CSIRO individuals in an outside organisation. It was in the Wentworth Group's interest, as well as CSIRO's, that it was regarded as independent of Government."

While Australia's coal industry in conjunction with the federal government has obstructed worthwhile advancement of renewable energy production having the aims of reducing the nation's reliance on fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions, two major oil producers are laying each way bets.

Royal Dutch Shell announced last week that it has invested over US$1 billion in alternative energies  including bio-fuels, wind power, solar energy and hydrogen. Shell CEO, Jeroen van der Veer told the media "In Shell, we aim to develop at least one alternative energy such as wind, hydrogen or advanced solar technology, into a substantial business. In addition, we continue our efforts to further expand our position as the largest marketer of Biofuels. The actions announced today are consistent with this long-term vision."

British Petroleum is also pushing its alternative energy credentials, and while the percentage of the two companies' revenues allotted to renewable energy R&D is small, it amounts to billions of dollars. So for example BP claims "Our experience and understanding of wind technology and economics lead us to believe that now is the time to increase our presence in wind power. We aim to grow our business from 30 MW today to over 450 MW in the next three years. Our aspiration is to become one of the leading wind developers worldwide by 2015.

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

Since neither Shell nor BP are card carrying charities we can assume that they are investing an increasing amount of R&D to allow them to jump in future profitable directions.

Meanwhile, Australia's CSIRO administration has determined that it will focus on developing low-emission projects such as capturing carbon and burying it underground in a process known as sequestration and it is to significantly reduce the resources it places into renewable energy research which appears to be in contradiction to the advice and views of a number of its current and immediate past senior research scientists.

It will close down four or five renewable energy projects over the next couple of years in areas such as solar power, biological hydrogen and photo-catalytic water-splitting. However, it said it would be proceeding with major new R&D in areas such as solar-thermal technology and was not abandoning renewable energy altogether.

What is troubling is that the organisation is conforming to a government policy, which argues that the solution to fighting greenhouse gas lies with developing new technologies designed to capture and store carbon emissions from fossil fuel combustion while reducing an already small commitment to reducing their production per se.

The suspicion hasn't been allayed that the government's decision is driven by its close association with Australia's coal producers and which it sees to be to its mmediate political advantage.

And with all of this, Senate Estimates yesterday was treated to what seems to be once again a farcical obbligato from the CSIRO administration, this time from Deputy CEO Dr Ron Sandland in a remarkable display of explanatory obfuscation regarding the distinction between deductions based on scientific research and policy suggestions by CSIRO personnel -- strictly forbidden territory.

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that to the CSIRO executive, the line is placed wherever they or the minister choose to draw it.

Alex Reisner

The Funneled Web