Senator Andrew Bartlett
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
 
Whitlam, the Loans Affair and the Public Service
Because of the understandable focus on the tsunami coverage, there has been much less than there usually is at this time of year on the release of the Cabinet papers from 30 years ago. This has probably been beneficial for those who see a need to maintain the mythology of Gough Whitlam's greatness, as it has meant less focus on probably his worst Budget and also on the extraordinary loans affair. I've written a bit on this before (see my entry on 10th Nov, 2004) which I won't repeat.

I've also written before about my views on crikey.com.au - I never thought I'd find myself recommending this site due to its obsessive gossip-mongering. However, it does seem to have mended its ways a great deal and does also provide some good insights and information sometimes not available elsewhere. I saw a good piece (I think from their email bulletin rather than their website) about Whitlam, the loans affair and the public service. It makes its point so well that I can't do much better than just reproduce a chunk of it here. It is written by someone calling themselves Charles Richardson:

"This year they (the Cabinet papers) are more than usually interesting, dating as they do from the heart of the Whitlam government in 1974.

Especially interesting is the hypocrisy that they have exposed in certain quarters of the left. For some years now, we have been warned that John Howard is destroying the independence of the public service; that its capacity to give fearless advice and resist imprudent or illegal activity by ministers has been fatally compromised.

But in 1974 we had a fearless and independent public service on the traditional model, and, as the cabinet papers confirm, it did all it could to obstruct the government's mad overseas loans scheme. So do its actions meet with praise from the left?

Quite the contrary. Treasury in 1974, we are told, were "traitors", defying the will of the people by undermining the policies of the democratically elected government.

As is often the case, however, one side's hypocrisy is a mirror image of the other's. On the right, the treasury officials who subverted the Whitlam government are heroes. But under the Howard government, the same people have done all they can to ensure that no such disobedience will ever happen again.

There should be a middle way here. It should be possible to structure the system to provide adequate checks and balances without defeating the goals of democratic government. But the sad truth is that every party wants a public service that will be subservient to it but resistant to its opponents.

We are supposed to just choose our side, and then stick to it as it pursues its cause by fair means or foul."

I acknowledge the double standard here when in recent times public servants who speak out against some of John Howard failings are lauded, however, the reverse double standard is also worth noting. People like Mike Scrafton are widely vilified by Conservatives for speaking out about what the Prime Minster was told on the children overboard incident, yet there is no condemnation about the leaking that occurred in 1974 from public servants in Treasury.

I actually have read very little in the media on the loans affair in the last few days that wasn't covered at length in Alan Reid's book "The Whitlam Venture" which came out over 25 years ago, so obviously Mr Reid (a former press gallery journo) had access to lots of information from quite a few sources and didn't need to wait 30 years for it be released (which is just as well seeing he died some years ago).

The other aspect which I'm surprised hasn't received much comment relates to the debate about why Treasury advice not to go ahead with the overseas loans was ignored. Frankly, I'm amazed advice needed to be sought from anyone as to whether it was a good idea for the Australian Government to use a little known financier to borrow $4 billion dollars from unknown sources in the Middle East.

A bit like needing advice as to whether to send any money to that Nigerian guy who keeps sending emails saying he'll share some of his hidden millions with you.

UPDATE: The piece from Crikey.com.au which I quote from above has generated a bit of debate on that website which is worth reading. I don't believe Whitlam was totally appalling, but I don't believe he's the mega-magnificent figure many who share my sorts of views tend to believe. In terms of his legacy, I think he was lucky in a sense to have been so unjustly forced from office, as that obscured some of his more significant errors, especially the dodgy loans dealings. As the original writer says, what we need is a middle way for our public servants in times of Government malfeasance.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Wednesday, January 05, 2005
|


<< Home