1976 and all that

 

 

It will doubtless surprise some to recall that, after trying to persuade the Whitlam Government to adopt responsible economic policies, Treasury had to make similar persuasive attempts with its successor - and experienced not dissimilar reactions. On the occasion of the release by National Archives on 5 December 2006 to selected journalists of official 1976 documents, Dr David Kemp, then principal political adviser to the Prime Minister, outlined some of the concerns felt in the latter's office about Treasury advice and some of the actions taken to obtain alternative more politically acceptable advice. This outline, available on the National Archives web site from 1 January, is attached in full together with an assessment by the then Treasury Deputy Secretary (Economic), John Stone, published in slightly amended form in The Australian on 1 January.

 

Following are two letters by me, published in The Australian and the Australian Financial Review, relevant to the 1976 experience and to the proper role of the public service. It will be interesting to see whether any media commentators pursue the latter issue.

 

 

 

He spent more than Gough

 

Letter to the Editor,

The Australian,

3rd January 2007

 

As the head of Treasury's overseas division in 1976, I was rather surprised to learn that David Kemp considered the government's official advisers to have essentially gone on strike over the prime minister's decision to devalue the $A by 17.5 per cent ("Bureaucrats 'on strike' over dollar",1/1).

 

Does Dr Kemp really think professional public servants should tailor their advice to suit political views rather than what they judge to be the national interest? Perhaps he allowed his position in Malcolm Fraser's office to override his own distinguished professional academic record as a political scientist.

 

A complete reading of his 5 December address at the National Archives suggests he has certainly over-stated the achievements of the Fraser Government.

 

After correctly identifying the threat to the private sector from the extraordinary increases in government spending under the Whitlam government, Dr Kemp then defends Mr Fraser's refusal to adopt Treasury advice to cut such spending. Thus, while noting "Fraserism was a critique of big government", Dr Kemp seemingly forgets that general government spending increased in real terms in every year of the Fraser government and ended in 1982-83 1.5 percentage points of GDP higher than in the last year of Whitlam.

 

 

 

Kemp overstates Fraser deeds

 

Letter to the Editor,

Australian Financial Review,

3rd January 2007

 

As the head of Treasury's overseas division in 1976, I was rather surprised to learn that [former Malcolm Fraser adviser and now retired Howard government minister] David Kemp considered the government's official advisers to have essentially gone on strike over the prime minister's decision to devalue the $A by 17.5 per cent ("Triumph through intellectual strongmanship", Features, January 2).

 

Does he really think professional public servants should tailor their advice to suit political views rather than what they judge to be the national interest? Perhaps Kemp allowed his position in the prime minister's office to override his own distinguished professional academic record as a political scientist.

 

A complete reading of his December 5 address at the National Archives suggests he has certainly overstated the achievements of the Fraser Government. After correctly identifying the threat to the private sector from the extraordinary increases in government spending under the Whitlam government, Kemp then defends Fraser's refusal to adopt Treasury advice to cut such spending.

 

Thus, while noting "Fraserism was a critique of big government", Kemp seemingly forgets that general government spending increased in real terms in every year of the Fraser government and ended in 1982-83 1.5 percentage points of GDP higher than in the last year of Whitlam.