contrarian says "we would very soon not have a public service in the best sense of the concept." "The public service does not belong to the public."
The above is disingenuous and the reactionary view of politicians. The thrust of the argurement is the public servants belong to the politicians and they have uncontrolled might and right, must toe the line and shutup: No longer any system of checks and balances. No longer a service to the public. The politicians and their appologists fraudulently claim the public servants cannot be principled and report in the interest of society the every day opportunist acts with criminal overtones of parliamentary practise.
2. The latest attacks on the public rail service explain so clearly what the governments are about whilst putting the prices up on behalf of the petrol companies they reduce trains, cut maintenance and lengthen running times. After 25 years of cuts to rail services and safety, as if the service was not bad enough. According to the reactionaries proper safety and an excellent railservice is a luxury the public can well do without. The railway service is very deliberately kept crude, backward and crippled.
3. If anyone is trying to cripple the public service along with the social infrastructure it is the government who have destroyed one job in three. A part of the government's plan is to hamstring and whip the public servants into line, teach them their place, and create an atmosphere of everlasting instability. Now the Rudd Budget seeks to destroy another 4100 jobs, many in essential services.
None of the respondants mention how 'big money', the media moguls and the petrol oil cartels dictate government policy. Why should the public servants be hostage to the whims and dealings of 'big money'? Nor is the politics of the rightwing mentioned "you voted for us and now we are going to make you pay"

I am horrified by the concept that to some the PS belongs to the government of the day. Under our democratic system the PS takes direction from the government of the day within the PS Acts but answers to the parliament and that belongs to the people. Ergo it serves the people by facilitating the directions of the current government as an expression of the public will. This may be a pedantic point but it is none the less an important one. It is part of the Checks and Balances of democratic government.
The PS is charted to be unbiased, fearless (?) and independent in its advice to the Government. The PS DOESN'T Dictate/filter or alter policy that is the province of the parliament and then the Government of the day.
If this weren’t the case one wonders why dept heads have to report to various Parliamentary oversight committees.
Legal action against leakers would be on behalf of the Liberal or Labor parties as the injured party not the Commonwealth (unless charged under the crimes act eg theft). In the case of leaking of government material the C.o A is the plaintiff not the government of the day.
I’m sure political party devotees might wish it otherwise.
I am not advocating Leaking as it is a breach of the will of the people. On the other hand I acknowleged that people have the right (under our democracy) to challenge authority if they wish but for every right there is a consequence/responsibility. I suggested that “whistle blowing" should be the last option and then only if the person is resolved to accept full responsibility and consequences.
I also alluded to a need to strengthen the laws against taming the PS. The clear flip side of this is tightened against malicious undermining of the government while allowing for the exception for REAL whistle blowing. The latter could/should be handled by the appropriate level of the judiciary again another linking check and balance. However I am open to references that show my understanding inaccurate or flawed.

Remember all, when referring to the series "Yes Minister", that it was fallaciously referred to as a comedy. It is, in fact, a documentary.

I just wish they had leaked useful documents instead of that drivel.

It should be acknowledged that whistleblowing does not only involve spilling the secrets of the government of the day which in my view would be only considered where there is great public interest. Fuelwatch was not in the public interest as most of the public think that focussing on petrol prices and fuelwatch is just a distaction from the real issues. Who cares if Ferguson was against fuelwatch? Most reasonable adults would be aware that Cabinet won't all agree on every issue all the time. This type of leaking would indeed appear to be political or sour grapes on someone's part.

However, whistleblowing more often involves the management of some PS agencies. Sometimes the politicians can be quite oblivious to the workings and goings on in their own departments. Their failure sometimes comes when becoming aware of a situation, in sweeping it under the carpet lest they might be tainted with it.

Whistleblowing on other public servants for mismanagement, issues of confidentiality/privacy, fraud, misrepresenations to Senate Estimates - just to name a few - is equally fraught with danger.

There are oversight agencies to deal with complaints 'from within' and even protection via whistleblower legislation but that only applies when complaints or revelations are kept in-house, usually recommended to be channelled via the relevant Secretary of a department. These oversight agencies are sometimes restricted by problems of jurisdictional relevance and on occasions there is a tendency to be suspicious of the whistleblower first until a full investigation is made.

To be fair, whistleblowers are not always saints, and can often have their own agendas but it is a shame that the 'revealer' is often viewed as the guilty party in the first instance.

The challenge for these oversight agencies is to see through the veneers to get to the truth while not being tempted to whitewash the findings in lieu of other perceived interests or when seeking to protect the reputation of the APS. The APS reputation is better served when corruption is acknowledged and removed - to think otherwise is a danger to democracy.

Pelican,

When it comes to whistleblowing, everything you say can be boiled down to one issue: the relative size of the complainant compared with what he's complaining against. As long as you are one individual (or even one lobby group), you will (almost) never make a difference when taking on the bureaucracy. As you say, they have procedures so long as the problem is kept in-house. Unfortunately, the procedures also ensure that the problem never leaves the house and sees the light of day (I think we could call this the Fritzl syndrome).

On the other hand, if you go public - I wouldn't recommend this to any APS worker as it is so dangerous to one's career - the management will call in the AFP to do an investigation. So, whistleblowing is really in name only. In the end, the only way things get fixed is when someone with more power than those being complained about does something about the situation. Not ideal I know, but pretty much the way things have worked up till now.

You are right though that the APS will be better served when its problems are "acknowledged and removed"; it is better that APS agencies voluntarily front up to their errors and shortcomings. This is better than a forced reform because of a scandal (eg Immigration) or possibly even abolition because of irrelevance (eg the former Department of Administrative Services). Eventually, one of these 3 things will happen to an ill-functioning APS agency or department.