The Impact of Political Interference on Public Servants: A Case Study

Public servants caught in political crossfire over policy costing

In a recent Senate estimates hearing, Treasury secretary Steven Kennedy found himself in the hot seat as Coalition senator Jane Hume questioned whether his department had been politicized. The issue at hand was the costing of a policy related to simplifying taxation for small businesses, requested by Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ office.

Kennedy defended his department’s actions, stating that Treasury would only cost a policy if the government provided specific parameters, not simply a request to cost an opposition policy. This stance echoes that of former departmental secretary Phil Gaetjens, who emphasized the importance of following lawful requests from the government.

Despite Treasury’s adherence to the government’s request, the controversy arose when Chalmers chose to selectively use the costing figures provided. Instead of citing the full range of costings, the Treasurer focused on the higher end of the spectrum in his public statements, linking the costings to Coalition policy.

The decision to present only partial information raised questions about the politicization of the costings and the integrity of the process. While it is reasonable for the Coalition to scrutinize the underlying assumptions of the costings, the ultimate responsibility lies with the recipient of the information in the Treasurer’s office.

The incident highlights the challenges faced by public servants when government policies become entangled in political battles. It underscores the importance of understanding the distinction between lawful requests and the subsequent use of information by political stakeholders. As the debate continues, the role of public servants in providing impartial and accurate advice remains crucial in navigating the complexities of policy development and implementation.