‘High price’ public servants pay for giving frank advice: Coaldrake

Professor Peter Coaldrake’s review says Queensland bureaucrats need “entirely fresh training” in codes of conduct and “ethical decision-making”. Here’s what he uncovered.

Peter Coaldrake has spoken about the “high price” paid by public servants who offer frank advice, warning the benefits of being frank can be outweighed by “potential risks” – such as being isolated.

In his landmark report on Tuesday, Professor Coaldrake laid bare the challenges facing the public service, which he described as being too tolerant of bullying and dominated by short-term political thinking.

Speaking on ABC radio on Wednesday, Prof Coaldrake said a “general message” that came through with the people he spoke with was the “high price” that could be paid for offering frank advice.

“And the benefits of that frankness are outweighed by the potential risks that are associated with people not being happy or taking action against you or isolating you – and all those sorts of things,” he said.

“So behavioural issues are certainly important.

“But they are important in all organisations and there are unhealthy things that are clearly prevalent and I hope some of the recommendations will address some of those.”

In his report, Prof Coaldrake alleged public servants were subjected to personal interactions with some ministers and their staff that were disrespectful, belittling, or bullying.

He suggested some officials felt pressured to moderate advice, or to avoid giving advice on difficult issues in writing.

As part of his recommendations, Prof Coaldrake called for a rejuvenation of the public sector and declared “the tone set at the top is essential”.

He also recommended top bureaucrats be appointed to fixed-term, five-year contracts that did not align with the electoral cycle in a bid to strengthen the performance of the public service.

Professor Peter Coaldrake.

The review recommends bureaucrats undergo “entirely fresh training” in codes of conduct and “ethical decision-making”.

At least once a year, ministerial staff and senior officers who interact with ministerial offices will undergo joint training to clarify demands and limits on both sets of roles.

Prof Coaldrake said relevant ministers should be invited to contribute to the sessions.

He noted the drive of many bureaucrats was to serve their community with integrity and impartiality – an ideal particularly exemplified by teachers, nurses, and police and emergency services.

However, he noted the complexity of systems was taking a toll.

“Concerns to the Review reported from across the service demonstrate how readily this ideal can be tarnished, and replaced by behaviours designed to be more self-protective than service-oriented,” he noted.

Prof Coaldrake’s review also notes public servants can be “so focused on abiding by the rules that they become unable to address simple mistakes, solve problems, or lose sight of the policy or delivery outcomes they need to achieve”.

Managers would also be trained in developing skills and confidence to carry out their roles.

He has recommended a system-wide understanding of the difference between workplace behaviour that needs effective management and workplace behaviour that is potentially corrupt.

Public servants are also expected to enjoy greater stability with agency CEOs, including directors-general, recruited on a fixed five-year contract “unaligned to the electoral cycle”.

The report also calls for the Public Service Commission to establish a major graduate intake program which would attract “a high performing cohort” to inject new blood into the sector each year.

Public servants must also publish “a more detailed account” of their use of contractors and consultants and the benefits.

The Public Service Commission will also be tasked with operating as a key leadership and oversight body of the public sector.