It hardly gets more proverbial than to say that Australian governments from colonial times unto the present have fitted on most points in the spectrum from good to bad, many tinctured with generous doses of eccentricity, lack of principle and what is known to the contemporary world as an "unethical culture", a euphemism able to disguise multitudes of foibles.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The names of many the dramatis personae speak for themselves - governors Bligh, Arthur and Davey, prime ministers Hughes, Abbott and Morrison and state premiers Askin, Bolte and Bjelke-Petersen, a trio of trios that is indicative not comprehensive. And it's a little unfair to lump these characters together because their vices and virtues have different shades. Still many fair minded persons would probably be able to raise an eyebrow or two at any one of them for different reasons.
In a practical sense, raised eyebrows about government and public administration shortcomings have often been responded to by the use of public inquiries, reviews and the like, independent ones generally being better. There have been hundreds of them over the years, the latest being from Professor Peter Coaldrake on the Queensland public sector.
Earlier this year, the Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk, asked Coaldrake to conduct a review in order to "refresh its focus on culture and accountability" so that it can meet contemporary desires - "fit for purpose ... future focused ... effective in supporting an ethical culture ... public trust" and so on.
Coaldrake is unusually well qualified for the task. He has conducted other public reviews and was the chair of the Queensland Public Sector Management Commission under the Goss government which in the late 1980s effectively brought the Bjelke-Petersen era, as it were, to an end
Coaldrake provided his report about a month ago. It was immediately released and the government seems to have bought the lot of it. For Queensland the report was, appropriately enough, titled Let the sunshine in. It is measured, clearly expressed and it carefully explains and assesses relevant history both near and far. The 19th century Northcote-Trevelyan report in Britain, a response to burgeoning nepotism and corruption in its public service, even gets a run.
In the broad, Coaldrake recommends:
- Greater independence for the auditor-general and that financial and management arrangements be amended for example by having the speaker of the Parliament and parliamentary committees involved in setting budgets and making of the most senior appointments for all integrity" agencies.
- A stronger role for the Public Service Commission in improving public service capacity and performance.
- A "clearing house" for all complaints about corruption, administrative decisions and customer complaints that would direct them to the appropriate authority.
- Stronger rules for lobbyists.
- Clearer specification of appropriate relations between ministers, their staff and senior public servants - the importance of the "tone at the top" being stressed.
- Power for the ombudsman to cover contracted providers of government services.
Coaldrake is especially sound on the use of consultants and contractors. He says their collective long-term effect has been "circular" and that "the more work is outsourced, the less capacity is developed within the ranks of the public service, and the more public service roles default to contract management rather than the hard but rewarding graft of policy analysis, testing and costing of options, making and defending recommendations or the challenges of on-time on budget project management." On this it seems the chickens are coming home to roost around the country.
All of these matters are relevant in varying degrees to the Commonwealth government and its administration, especially the need to bolster the role of the Public Service Commission. It now is too powerless and there is a consequent inability at the centre of the administration to press improvements across the public service that is in no way made up by the inbuilt ineptitude of the Secretaries Board. If the Albanese government is to improve its governance and administrative grip, it would do well to take some leaves out of the Coaldrake review rather than relying wholly on the Thodey Report, a not so impressive document.
There are, however, two aspects of Coaldrake's report the Commonwealth should raise an eyebrow at.
First, he recommends that "stability of government and performance of [the] public service be strengthened by the appointment of agency heads CEOs (including directors-general) on fixed-term five-year contracts unaligned to the electoral cycle". What is it about so much public service employment, including the Commonwealth, that has allowed itself to be attracted to fixed period contracts? It sometimes is hinted as a mimicking of private sector habits but few sensible private employers are so silly. Except for coaches of football teams, they typically make appointments open-ended and continuing on the basis of performance and rectitude. They realise that the limited commitment inherent in fixed period contracts is likely to be reciprocated by those put on them and that as the contracts approach their end points individuals spend too much time looking for new jobs rather than concentrating on their existing ones. Moreover, fixed period contracts can end up being minima so partings of the ways short of their periods can be awkward and involve expensive pay outs in lieu of any unserved time.
It's one thing to have period contracts for appointees to independent statutory office holder positions because for many their tenure often is protected by the need for a vote in the parliament to remove them. For heads of departments and other positions, however, fixed period appointments make no such sense and the Commonwealth would do well to abandon them for secretaries of departments as they effectively provide no greater security or any other obvious benefit. The horse may have bolted on fixed period appointment nonsense but its inadequacy and damage remains.
However that may be, the Coaldrake recommendation for a policy "requiring all cabinet submissions, agendas and decision papers (and appendices) to be proactively released and published online within 30 days of a final decision by cabinet subject only to a number of reasonable exceptions..." should be avoided by other jurisdictions like the plague. This is nuts and Coaldrake provides no convincing justification for it. Letting the sunshine in? As Marcia Hines could tell anyone prepared to listen, the Age of Aquarius fizzled out in the 1970s.
Sure, the opening up of government to proper accountability is critically important and some documents that go to cabinet are routinely disclosed - the annual budget for example. However documents containing internal advice to cabinet, including contesting opinions in coordination comments from relevant departments, have long been protected for good and sound reasons critical to the proper operation of government and politics.
The awkward and ironic fact is that a sound democracy needs to provide a degree of privacy to governments and all political parties so that their internal deliberations can be frank, forthright and productive allowing broad strategy, policy options and tactics to be fully explored. Letting the sun shine on them in the immediate aftermath of decisions is a recipe for the further trivialisation of a polity whose business has been trivialised more than enough. As happens now when they are "leaked", divulged cabinet documents would not essentially be scrutinised as a means of enforcing due accountability but for the making of political mischief, to prey upon divisions between advice provided and final decisions taken, ministers getting "rolled" in cabinet, the advice of officials not accepted etc etc. So the collective responsibility of cabinet would be damaged, its advisory documents would be reduced to levels anodyne enough to avoid political flak while in consequence denying ministers the advantages of full written expositions of what they need to know and the effective working of the key coordinating agency in Australian governments, the cabinet, would be imperiled.
The important point is for governments and other political parties to fully justify and account for the decisions they take and how well they implement them. That can include being open about the processes involved but without that overflowing into early release of all advisory documentation. On this front, the Coaldrake line needs to be resisted.
- Paddy Gourley is a former senior public servant. pdg@home.netspeed.com.au