Bashing "bureaucrats" is a popular sport. Low level public servants are lambasted as unfeeling bureaucrats when they follow normal anti-fraud procedures in cases that tug at the nation's heartstrings. On other occasions, they are accused of wasting taxpayers' money if they approve a handout in accordance with laws passed by parliament.
The difference between a good bureaucrat and a bad bureaucrat seems to depend on who gets the money. If it’s someone most members of the public approve of, that’s fine. If it’s someone they don’t like, such as a "dole bludger" or a teenager becoming pregnant "to get the baby bonus", then it's a shocking example of bureaucrats not being tough enough.
In the latest example, public servants helping bushfire victims copped ferocious abuse for asking for identification before handing over cash to anyone who walked in off the street. The minister in charge of Centrelink Joe Ludwig immediately apologised for what the media branded a "bureaucratic bungle" and said that a signature would be enough. While many people would have grabbed their wallet containing a drivers licence before escaping the fires, others did not.
There was clearly case for relaxing the normal anti-fraud rules in these circumstances. Even so, it would seem reasonable if Centrelink staff asked local volunteers to identify recipients where feasible. But it should not have been left to front line staff to ignore rules designed to protect the public purse. Ludwig, or senior departmental officials, should have authorised a temporary relaxation of the rules before any cash was handed out.
Public servants also took hammering over the failure of the Howard and Rudd governments to fund a new system of bush fire alerts. This failure was widely attributed to “bureaucratic wrangling”, although it was really senior ministers — not bureaucrats bogged down in “red tape” — who failed to take the necessary policy decision. In our system of government, politicians often seek advice but take the final policy decisions themselves— usually with a keen ear for what’s popular. If things go wrong, they should take the blame.
The Treasurer Wayne Swan is expected to announce a $35 a week increase in the age pension in the May budget. There is a good case for reducing the cost of $7 billion a year by tightening the way the means test works. The current test will allow someone to get the full $35 rise, even if they are only on a part pension of 50 cents a week at present and enjoy investment income of over $40,000 a year.
A conscientious policy adviser in the public service might recommend that the means test be changed to protect the budget, but senior cabinet ministers in Kevin Rudd’s government will make the final decision. No bureaucrat, whatever their personal views, will refuse to pay the $35 to anyone who is eligible.
Ministers, not mean-minded bureaucratic bean counters, decided that there should be no cash bonus for the unemployed in the government’s stimulus packages totalling $52 billion. The Newstart Allowance is now $225 a week. Unless increased, it will soon be more than $80 below the anticipated rate for the age pension. If this gap is closed a little, it will be because key ministers decide that an increase in the allowance could now be more popular with mainstream voters who fear they could join the unemployment queue.
In future, policy advice on these sorts of issues is likely to come increasingly from consulting firms rather than public servants. This partly arises from the squeeze imposed by the Rudd government's decision to extract an annual two percent efficiency dividend from the public service. However, as revealed last week, the government has spent a record $500 million so far on outside consultants, despite previously attacking the Howard government’s lower rate of spending as too high. Joe Hockey pounced on this “broken promise” after being elevated to shadow Treasurer. Hockey said, "There's no use having an efficiency dividend across the public service and simply replacing those public servants with higher paid private contractors".
However, there are some public service departments where big cuts would make sense. There are 20,000 civilians in Defence — 4000 more than in 2001. There are over 800 military personnel with non-operational postings in embassies and similar positions overseas. The Foreign Affairs and Trade Department has less than 600.
It is easy to portray diplomats as doing little more than hob nob at cocktail parties. But Australia has generally been well served over many decades by the foreign policy advice proffered by talented members of its diplomatic service. Yet Rudd cut DFAT by $60 million in the May budget, then promptly spent over $1 million by appointing the former National Party leader Tim Fischer as full time ambassador to the Vatican. The job had being been well done on a part time basis by the Australian ambassador to Ireland.
In a TV interview, Fischer defended his appointment by saying Rome is the headquarters of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation. True, but that has nothing to do with his job description. But if you dislike the appointment, don’t sink the slipper into Fischer. Rudd made the appointment. Hold him responsible.