WHEN the Leader of the Opposition,
Simon Crean, announced the mini-
reshuffle of his front bench last week, few people noticed that he had changed Labor's arrangements for the Public Service.
He has appointed Victorian Left factional powerbroker Kim Carr spokesman for the Public Service.
The move will arouse some chortles and some dismay among those who watched the stand-off last year between Carr and then Education Secretary Peter Shergold, who is now of course head of Prime Minister and Cabinet.
More significantly, it will put Carr head-to-head with Tony Abbott (though not in the same chamber) on Abbott's role as Minister Assisting for the Public Service.
The two are chalk and cheese in every conceivable way but especially on the industrial-relations front. Carr, who adds the Public Service to his present role as spokesman on science and research, said on Tuesday that he was delighted with the extra role.
But any public servants who might be hoping the move means an escape from Estimates scrutiny by the heavyweight duo John Faulkner and Robert Ray will be disappointed.
Faulkner, who has gained other significant responsibilities, is still spokesman on public administration. Both his office and Carr himself said Estimates material would continue to be shared around.
Ironically, this will come as relief to some very senior public servants who have been known to mutter that they would far rather be put to an inquisition by Faulkner and Ray anyway, because they are so forensic (but what a way to get a thrill!).
However, Carr, known more for his bludgeoning approach, has begun targeting his questions far more effectively in recent Estimates rounds, particularly on the CSIRO. It will be interesting to see whether and how he develops.
There has of course been quite a lot of talk behind the scenes of pulling Faulkner - who has shown immense leadership in the Senate - down into the Reps should Crean fail to get enough traction to survive the year.
This talk is not from Faulkner himself, who dismisses it as coming from people ''who have been drinking too much green cordial''. Given the Labor machine and the difficulties of transition from the Senate to the Reps, it is a fairly unlikely scenario, despite his impressive performance in recent years. So, at the very least, there will be no escaping from him at Estimates in the near future.
In general, Labor's policies on public administration are straightforward, well understood in the Public Service and unlikely to change.
Carr, appointed to the Senate in 1993 after the resignation of John Button, is a former teacher and adviser to the Victorian Government. He has been a member of the Australian Labor Party since 1975, serving on the ALP national executive and as a delegate to the party's national and state conferences.
He said on Tuesday that issues of public policy and the health of public administration stood at the heart of effective national government. Under the current Government, the Public Service had become over-politicised.
''It has been used not just to implement the Government's agenda, but, improperly, to promote that agenda as well,'' he said. ''It is an
Opposition's obligation to identify this important difference.
''My priority will be to pursue the restoration of public-service values such as integrity, independent advice and public accountability.''
He also labelled the Government's industrial-relations policy the ''industrial-arsonist"
appro ach, saying it had failed in the private sector and would have disastrous results for the Public Service.
He added, ''The Government's obsession with contracting out and privatisation of services has also undermined the capacity of the Public Service to meet its obligations to all Australian people. We will continue to highlight the extent of the damage.''
SPEAKING of the Senate Additional Estimates, catch this classic exchange:
Faulkner (to Prime Minister and Cabinet deputy Andrew Metcalfe): Would you describe the current situation, budget-wise, with the counter-terrorism campaign as a 33 per cent blow-out, because it sounds like that to me? It was a $15 million campaign. We are now told it is $20 million. That sounds like a 33 per cent blow-out to me.
Metcalfe: I would not describe it as that. I would say it was a campaign that was developed quite quickly with an indicative budget. But, as the campaign developed, it was quite clear that the information provided in the booklet would be crucial. A lot of people were looking for information as to what they should do in certain circumstances, or how they could help, and so we did put a lot of work into the booklet. A lot of people were indicating to us that an ongoing reminder and access to the relevant telephone numbers would be very useful, and so the fridge magnet became an important component as well. The initial budget was indicative and the final bills will be somewhat greater than that. I would not regard that as a blow-out.
WHILE the estimates hearings were grinding on, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit quietly tabled another in its series of reviews of audit reports. Report 392 (for the fourth quarter of the 2001-02 financial year) contained some stinging comments on the ABC, the CSIRO and Immigration.
But the committee saved its most trenchant remarks for what must surely be the last chapter in the saga of the sale of DASFLEET (the Government car-leasing business). This is one of the more drawn-out of the Coalition's privatisation debacles which began early in its headlong rush to flog the family silver.
Now bipartisan agreement has been reached in this key committee on what, in hindsight, the blunders were.
Years of litigation, millions of dollars, two reports from the Auditor-General and the demise of the Office of Asset Sales and Information Technology Outsourcing later, Liberal chairman Bob Charles made this cutting observation in his tabling speech:
''The Commonwealth ended up with a poorly constructed and complex contract and a total misunderstanding of the nature of the arrangement it was entering into. This resulted in substantial costs to the Commonwealth in connection with the DASFLEET transaction which were not envisaged at the start of the sale process.''
In its report, the committee said it had taken several years for the Commonwealth to understand the sale contract, whereas Macquarie Bank had understood it from the start.
So, what did the stuff-up cost the taxpayer? Nobody really knows exactly, and there's the rub.
But there were certainly substantial costs that were not envisaged to begin with. The Commonwealth paid Macquarie Fleet $7.7 million as part of the final settlement. Other costs (external providers and DOFA staff cost for managing the tied contract and dispute) totalled $11.1 million; the department was unable to disaggregate them. The staff costs of OASITO's doomed successor, the Office of Asset Sales and Commercial Support were $720,000.
The committee took a dim view of the fact that the department's records did not distinguish between contract administration and dispute costs: ''The committee is of the view that effective record-keeping and administrative practices would allow for that differentiation to be made. The committee considers that in this regard DOFA's practices and procedures were inadequate.''
So it recommended that DOFA improve its record management. It also slammed DOFA for having made a request for a legal opinion orally and recommended that in future should do so in writing.
The committee went on to make eight points which summed up its concerns.
All in all, this report puts the sale of DASFLEET firmly into the annals of public-administration case studies on how not to do something.