Australia's top public servant, Martin Parkinson, offered a useful criticism of parliamentarians this week, that applies as much to the Coalition as to Labor. Senate estimates hearings were losing their important place in our democracy, he suggested, because senators tended to try to nock up trivial "gotcha!" victories rather than do their job: scrutinise policies and spending.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
"You understand why it's all about trying to embarrass the government of the day, but there are times when public servants sit there and think: 'We really don't need to be here, because we're simply bit players in this whole exercise and you're not actually interested in improving the quality of public administration,"' Dr Parkinson said.
One needn't look far for examples. Liberal senator Eric Abetz recently forced more than 80 senior bureaucrats to give him copies of their holiday wishes to staff. He said Australians had a right to know the extent of "the infiltration of a political-correctness agenda in the public service". (Incidentally, almost all the bureaucrats had wished their staff a "merry Christmas".)
Every few months, hundreds of public servants collect answers to other questions about how much money is spent on coffee machines, fruit, office plants and so on, in every government workplace in Australia.
Five years ago, when ex-Liberal MP Jamie Briggs found public servants using an expensive espresso machine, he announced triumphantly: "From overpriced school halls to gold-plated coffee machines, Labor's wasteful spending knows no bounds."
Yet Labor is just as attracted to nonsensical political theatrics: when in opposition, one of its MPs, Pat Conroy, said it was "a joke" that a government workplace had spent a tiny sum subsidising a yoga course for staff. "I know the government has shown an ability to hold multiple positions on policy, but yoga training is taking it a bit far."
Meanwhile, the difficult work of scrutinising whether billions of dollars of services are delivered effectively often goes undone. As Dr Parkinson says of these games: "Where it becomes problematic is when it moves from genuine efforts focused on improving public administration to simply trying to embarrass the government of the day."
He's right about missed opportunities. Yet senior bureaucrats aren't blameless; they, too, have undermined the effectiveness of parliamentary hearings. They could have ended "gotcha!" exposures of trivial expenses years ago by publishing far more details of routine spending online. They also regularly demur when asked about contentious programs, saying they are limited to discussing matters of administration rather than policy. In truth, they wield enormous power and are often the effective decision-makers in the matters they refuse to answer to.
Politics may well be overly focused on a hunt for embarrassing titbits, but some public servants stray too far in trying to avoid embarrassing the government. Perhaps the answer is simply to be more forthcoming. And to be content to let foolish politicians make fools of themselves.
