Another important plus for Parkinson's elevation to the Australian Public Service's most senior position was its likely effect on morale in the bureaucracy. On this view, Parkinson, along with three other secretaries, had been unfairly dismissed by the previous prime minister, Tony Abbott. Parkinson's restoration marked a symbolic repudiation of the Coalition's policy of politicising secretarial appointments and a return to the principle of merit appointment.

Both of these reasons for welcoming Parkinson's appointment carry considerable weight. He is undoubtedly highly qualified. His experience as secretary, first in Climate Change and then at the Treasury, provides an excellent basis for coordinating the APS's operations. His views on many aspects of economic policy fit well with Turnbull's. Moreover, the manner of his previous dismissal from the Treasury, particularly when the then treasurer, Joe Hockey, wanted him to be retained, smacked of petty vindictiveness on the part of Abbott and his chief of staff, Peta Credlin. The righting of this wrong is indeed welcome.

But Parkinson's appointment also raises interesting issues of public service professionalism, which are in danger of being submerged in the almost universal clamour of approval. To begin with, should policy affinity with the prime minister and the government be a relevant criterion of selection as PM&C secretary? Turnbull certainly thinks so, at least with reference to Parkinson, and others generally agree. Certainly, there would be little sense in a prime minister appointing someone who was known to be at odds with the government's policy direction. But Parkinson is untypical in that his views on economic policy are well-known and a matter of public record. In most cases, public servants appointed to the position of secretary, including that of PM&C secretary, come with no identifiable policy attachments. Indeed, the basic assumption of a professional, career public service is that public servants take their policy directions from the government of the day. Because they are required to serve alternative elected governments with equal loyalty and efficiency, they are generally wary of becoming publicly identified with any policy that could become politically controversial.

Admittedly, the position of PM&C secretary is untypical because it has become partially politicised. Each prime minister now expects to appoint his or her own person to the position. Incumbent secretaries, we may assume, feel obliged to offer their resignation along with their initial briefings. Even so, most recent PM&C secretaries have been career public servants capable of managing government business for different prime ministers.

An outstanding example is Ian Watt, who was appointed by Julia Gillard and then served not only Kevin Rudd in his brief comeback but also Abbott for more than a year. When Abbott dismissed four secretaries as a sign of the Coalition's determination to put its stamp on the APS, Watt was not on the list of those proscribed. Instead, Abbott was happy to rely on him to help run the first year of his government. Liberal Party prejudices demanded that Watt eventually be replaced by someone more politically congenial and with more private sector experience. But Abbott himself appeared to be in no hurry. Watt's capacity to secure the trust of both sides of politics was helped by his not being publicly identified with any particular policy direction, other than uncontroversial managerial values such as improved efficiency and effectiveness.

Parkinson's known commitment to Turnbull's chosen policy agenda is far from typical, even for PM&C secretaries. It is due partly to his previous service as Treasury secretary, a position with a higher public profile and a tradition of public comment on economic policy. But even among Treasury secretaries, Parkinson was given to more extensive and more politically controversial commentary on economic issues. Moreover, in his first secretarial appointment, in the Department of Climate Change, he had shown a similar willingness to enter into public debate, on the respective merits of different approaches to climate change.

Whether Parkinson intends to adopt a high public profile in his new position remains to be seen. He may well prefer to remain more in the background, like his predecessors. The man he replaces, Michael Thawley, though seen as an outsider, was quick to see the virtues of traditional self-effacement. In a talk to the Institute of Public Administration Australia's ACT division, he said he came from that school of public servants, somewhat out of date, "that firmly believes that your power and influence are inversely proportional to the amount you appear in the media".

Parkinson, however, may choose a more visible role. Only days before the formal announcement of his new appointment, which had already been widely foreshadowed, he publicly canvassed a number of policy directions that the new government should be taking. He not only endorsed the general value of innovation and improved productivity but also commented on the right approach to handling Australia's relationships with China and the United States. He regretted that the Australia in the Asia Century white paper had disappeared from debate (a clear criticism of the Abbott government). He also emphasised the importance of capable political leadership, singling out NSW Premier Mike Baird and New Zealand Prime Minister John Key as leaders who paid attention to taking the voters with them, another swipe at Abbott. Such comments will find favour with Turnbull and his followers, who will welcome public backing for their policies from the government's leading official adviser. But they do mark a degree of open policy alignment and political endorsement that is unusual among senior public servants. If such speeches become regular, Parkinson will fail the basic test of public service impartiality, which requires public servants to refrain from behaviour that would compromise their capacity to serve different ministers with different policies.

Parkinson's willingness to speak publicly, though unusual, is not without support. A number of respected former public servants, including Terry Moran and Andrew Podger, have urged senior public servants to engage more freely in public debate on policy matters. A strong case can be made in favour of greater openness of policy discussion, based on the increased plurality of policy discussion and the readiness of politicians to go beyond the public service for advice. If public servants are to bring their unique expertise to bear on policy debate, they need to come out of the closet more often (for example, by taking a less negative approach to freedom of information disclosure).

On the other hand, if secretaries were to become routinely associated with particular policy directions, this could undermine the principles of a professional career service. A new minister wanting to introduce a new policy direction would need to begin by appointing a new secretary. The dismissal of incumbent secretaries on a change of government, which is now rightly deplored as a product of anti-public service prejudice, could become the norm.

For this reason, praise for Parkinson's appointment to PM&C on the ground that it marks a return to traditional principles of a professional public service is somewhat misplaced. Parkinson is a highly capable and experienced career professional. But by breaking with convention in speaking out on politically controversial issues, he is hardly a traditionalist.

The contrast with his predecessor but one, Watt, is illuminating. Last December, a year after leaving PM&C and coinciding with Parkinson's appointment, Watt agreed to talk about his experiences to the Financial Review. In one of those irritating, over-lunch interviews, where we have to learn what each person chose from the menu, Watt obviously bemused his interviewer by his reluctance to open up on controversial issues. He patiently explained that reticence on policy matters derived from his view of the proper role of senior public servants. "You are there," he said, "to respond, as well as you can, to the genuine needs and requirements of government of the day. If the prime minister changes, you respond."

These remarks recall Watt's speech to the IPAA two years earlier, in the early months of the Abbott government. Addressing the challenge of a change of government, he argued that public servants should not only strive to implement the specific policies of a new government. They should also take up the language and values that animated these policies. Professionalism was to be measured by the extent to which the public service placed its expertise at the disposal of a new regime with new priorities.

Watt, whose latest task is to lead the new policy delivery unit within the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, provides a classic exemplar of traditional public service values. Parkinson, on the other hand, offers a subtly different model. His priorities appear to lie in commitment to a particular policy program and he seems willing to adopt a relatively high profile in support of this program. For APS staff watching on, will he prove to be the way of the future or a fascinating outlier?

Richard Mulgan is an emeritus professor at the Australian National University's Crawford School of Public Policy. richard.mulgan@anu.edu.au