| Business |
Kalinoe speaks out
CHIEF Secretary Joshua Kalinoe could
hardly be better positioned to observe the wheeling and dealing
that takes place at senior levels of our political and public
service sectors.
And yesterday, Mr Kalinoe chose to speak out about political
interference and the widespread refusal to recognise the powers
and authority of the law.
The Chief Secretary did not beat around the bush. He accused
politicians of creating instability in the public service and he
detailed his grounds for making that claim.
Mr Kalinoe pointed to the legion of temporary appointments that
has been obvious to all during the past 12 months, and he pointed
out the inherent instability in those appointments.
He noted that the entrenched practice of simpy ignoring many of
the provisions of the Public Services Management Act continued to
blight the operations of Government departments.
Mr Kalinoe was speaking to a meeting of some 50 provincial
administrators and department heads. His obvious intention was to
underline the need for productive dialogue between key public
service figures and serving politicians.
The Chief Secretary’s own experiences in recent months would have
left him in little doubt of the need for such dialogue. In company
with a brace of other senior and distinguished public servants and
constitutional office holders, Mr Kalinoe found himself removed
from his position.
And again in keeping with others similarly affected, he turned to
the courts and was re-instated.
The Moti affair has become a mirror that reflects many issues
outside the immediate rights or wrongs of a convoluted and
much-delayed case.
For in the process of apparently getting to the bottom of a tawdry
morals charge, the public has been stunned by a series of
questionable decisions that have impacted upon many of our most
senior office holders.
Only those directly involved in the selection of a new department
head for Health can reveal exactly what happened with the recent
decision to appoint Dr Clement Malau to replace incumbent Dr
Nicholas Mann.
But it seems the approved system of determining the most talented
and experienced person for the job was not employed.
We cannot say whether the outcome that allegedly saw Dr Mann
leading the assessment was appropriate.
Three distinguished doctors were apparently in the final
selection, and the media has been told that Dr Malau was in fact
the third choice.
What concerns us is whether or not the final outcome was the
result of the merit and recommendation system. That’s the argument
that most senior public servants and others have with the present
situation.
Theoretically these most senior appointments can only be made in
the manner we have indicated, yet observers suspect that many
recent appointments have been contrived with an eye to this year’s
election rather than as an accurate reflection of the merit,
skills and experience of candidates.
Mr Kalinoe’s comments are not simply those of a victim of the
present situation.
The present consultative conference, bringing together the most
powerful provincial administrative figures and their national
department counterparts, provides the perfect forum to air these
concerns.
Long serving seniors still in the mainstream will know that these
problems date back to independence. It is the separation of public
servants from their political counterparts that lies at the core
of this issue.
The system we have adopted establishes a division between public
servants and their political colleagues. Theoretically, PNG public
servants should be untouched by the outcome of election,
continuing to perform their roles through any number of political
administrations.
Following independence, that division was recognised and respected
for some years; gradually it eroded and politicians began to
manipulate the public service and their portfolios to meet and
match their needs.
Our present Government has been vocal about the need to keep
politics out of the public service, yet the events of the past few
months would suggest that desirable division is fading fast.
If PNG continues to follow the Westminster system of government,
then the division between public and political service must be
observed, and indeed, reinforced and entrenched.
Aside from the vagaries of the Moti affair, the Chief Secretary’s
remarks should be taken on board by public servants and
politicians alike.
 
|
