Flood Levy Poll

[Azza]

Interestingly it was the Hawke/ Keating government who made most of these 'reforms' because the Labor Party felt they had no control over the bureaucrats; and from inside the public service itself in the 80's. It came after advise from a proffessor I have at the moment in politics Jeffrey Hawker who wrote 'Who's Servant Who's Master' and the earlier Coombes Report commissioned by Whitlam.

I don't agree with you that it's "all care no responsibility". In the end if a project ferks up it is the minister and the relevant public service department chief executive that still have to take it in the neck -Brumby for Mycki, or Garret for the Pink batts stuff ups for recent examples.

The public service (Bureaucracy if you like) is THE area of expertise for governance in any Department. These are people who have spent their lives familiarising themselves with the issues and legislation. Politicians are political game players who have managed to wrangle their way into power. They usually have minimal expertise in the portfolios they control. Good governance comes from politicians working with advice from the public service to develop policies that suit the philosophies and election promises of governing party.

In these days of instant polls and the 24 hour news cycle however, politicians have reverted to their media advisers and pollsters to develop policy on the run. The expertise of the public service is sidelined.

Who could possibly say we have better governance as a result?

 

[evo]

The public service (Bureaucracy if you like) is THE area of expertise for governance in any Department. These are people who have spent their lives familiarising themselves with the issues and legislation. Politicians are political game players who have managed to wrangle their way into power. They usually have minimal expertise in the portfolios they control. Good governance comes from politicians working with advice from the public service to develop policies that suit the philosophies and election promises of governing party.

Yeah, I tend to agree. But it has always been the case that the department head had more expertise than the minister. What has changed the last decade or so is the department heads are now held a lot more personally responsible than they once were. Whereas ptreviosuly you used to have career bureaucrats that were impossible to sack, now they have 3 and 5 year performance based contracts like any private enterprise CEO.

I imagine you've watched Yes Minister before. Bureaucrats used to measure 'success' by how much money they could spend, how many people they could command, and so forth. Now the public service is more corporatised with the accompanying accountability measures people in the private world experience everyday.

It's swings and roundabouts.

In these days of instant polls and the 24 hour news cycle however, politicians have reverted to their media advisers and pollsters to develop policy on the run. The expertise of the public service is sidelined.

Who could possibly say we have better governance as a result?

I think the reason for policy by 24 hour news cycles is at least partly a result of post modernist acadamia.

About 20 years ago "ideology"became a dirty word. As a result there is no meta-plan and meta-theories. Consequently there is very little substance to anything either party do. In fact it is hard to tell them apart.

 

[Azza]

Yeah, I tend to agree. But it has always been the case that the department head had more expertise than the minister. What has changed the last decade or so is the department heads are now held a lot more personally responsible than they once were. Whereas ptreviosuly you used to have career bureaucrats that were impossible to sack, now they have 3 and 5 year performance based contracts like any private enterprise CEO.

I imagine you've watched Yes Minister before. Bureaucrats used to measure 'success' by how much money they could spend, how many people they could command, and so forth. Now the public service is more corporatised with the accompanying accountability measures people in the private world experience everyday.

It's swings and roundabouts.

I'm not sure which is worse, an 'impossible to sack' department head, or a politicised public service. I tend to think the latter is more damaging.

 

[RemoteTiger]

I'm not sure which is worse, an 'impossible to sack' department head, or a politicised public service. I tend to think the latter is more damaging.

What has made the Public Service move from being apolitical to being very much politically savvy?

The introduction of Ministers Aides!

Departmental Heads rarely talk directly to the Minister these days - they talk to the Minsiters Aides who decide if the Minister needs to be involved in that issue or this issue.

Thus the Minister can stand up in the House and say I was not informed of this by my Department. He is not lying for he was not - but his Aides were. The results of this is that Departmental Heads are then used as scapegoats for not doing their job and advising the Minister. Have a look at the Department of Immigration and how many Department Heads have been changed due to politics in the last decade. I use to do a great deal of IT business with that department and I asked a First Assistant Secretary if he would apply for the vacant Department Head role - he said I am a career Public Servant with a family and a mortgage I cannot afford to be a scapegoat. Both sides of politics have become very good at this.

Department Heads then have to get smart and present the issues to the Aides in such a manner they have to tell the Minister. All of a sudden they are in the political game and the party game.

Malcom Fraser said of the Whitlam and later of the Howard Governments "Ministerial responsibility is the cornerstone of the Westminster System of Government. Once Ministerial responsibility is removed the system falls down!"

And that is exactly what is happening right now

 

[Azza]

I think the reason for policy by 24 hour news cycles is at least partly a result of post modernist acadamia.

About 20 years ago "ideology"became a dirty word. As a result there is no meta-plan and meta-theories. Consequently there is very little substance to anything either party do. In fact it is hard to tell them apart.

Interesting poiunt evo. Post modernism in conjunction with the information revolution.

 

[Azza]

What has made the Public Service move from being apolitical to being very much politically savvy?

The introduction of Ministers Aides!

Departmental Heads rarely talk directly to the Minister these days - they talk to the Minsiters Aides who decide if the Minister needs to be involved in that issue or this issue.

Thus the Minister can stand up in the House and say I was not informed of this by my Department. He is not lying for he was not - but his Aides were. The results of this is that Departmental Heads are then used as scapegoats for not doing their job and advising the Minister. Have a look at the Department of Immigration and how many Department Heads have been changed due to politics in the last decade. I use to do a great deal of IT business with that department and I asked a First Assistant Secretary if he would apply for the vacant Department Head role - he said I am a career Public Servant with a family and a mortgage I cannot afford to be a scapegoat. Both sides of politics have become very good at this.

Department Heads then have to get smart and present the issues to the Aides in such a manner they have to tell the Minister. All of a sudden they are in the political game and the party game.

Malcom Fraser said of the Whitlam and later of the Howard Governments "Ministerial responsibility is the cornerstone of the Westminster System of Government. Once Ministerial responsibility is removed the system falls down!"

And that is exactly what is happening right now

Indeed, although I wonder if deniability is more the issue rather than real ministerial ignorance. My bet would be that ministers know very well what's going on. The position of aids as nominal filters however gives the minister the ability to claim lack of knowledge.

 

[Rosy]

My bet would be that ministers know very well what's going on.

You flatter some. For example Penny Wong was really on the ball but those involved crossed their fingers and hoped Peter Garrett would stick strictly to the script he was given.

 

[evo]

What has made the Public Service move from being apolitical to being very much politically savvy?

The introduction of Ministers Aides!

Departmental Heads rarely talk directly to the Minister these days - they talk to the Minsiters Aides who decide if the Minister needs to be involved in that issue or this issue.

Thus the Minister can stand up in the House and say I was not informed of this by my Department. He is not lying for he was not - but his Aides were. The results of this is that Departmental Heads are then used as scapegoats for not doing their job and advising the Minister. Have a look at the Department of Immigration and how many Department Heads have been changed due to politics in the last decade. I use to do a great deal of IT business with that department and I asked a First Assistant Secretary if he would apply for the vacant Department Head role - he said I am a career Public Servant with a family and a mortgage I cannot afford to be a scapegoat. Both sides of politics have become very good at this.

Department Heads then have to get smart and present the issues to the Aides in such a manner they have to tell the Minister. All of a sudden they are in the political game and the party game.

Malcom Fraser said of the Whitlam and later of the Howard Governments "Ministerial responsibility is the cornerstone of the Westminster System of Government. Once Ministerial responsibility is removed the system falls down!"

And that is exactly what is happening right now

Interesting post.

I hadn't thought much about that angle. Wish you had've made that post about 2 weeks ago, before I submitted my assignment.

 

[Moulded Souls]

Evo, forgive me for being presumptuous but your posts interest me. I have read through this thread and it would seem that you aren't a fan of the theory of the 'social contract' as proposed very early by Socrates and then later by Hobbes et al.

Would this be a fair comment?

 

[evo]

Evo, forgive me for being presumptuous but your posts interest me. I have read through this thread and it would seem that you aren't a fan of the theory of the 'social contract' as proposed very early by Socrates and then later by Hobbes et al.

Would this be a fair comment?

Yes and no.

Socrates is actually one of my favourite philosophers, but he and Plato did have very authoritarian views on how society should be run. Maybe you have read the Republic? I certainly wouldn't want to be a serf or a minority in that society. These days we'd call it a military dictatorship.

Hobbes had very a very dim view of human nature - in fact most of the age of reason thinkers thought that the hoi polloi shouldn't be trusted to rule themselves. Basically Hobbes felt that man was evil and that social interaction was 'war'. Life in the state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" is his most famous quote. As a result we need a 'leviathan' to watch over us. We must make a social contract with them to rule on our behalf.

This view formed the basis for most of fabianist and socialist theory that has followed since.

I'm with another guy from that era Jean-Jacques Roussea: he believed people are basically good and generally speaking should be trusted to rule themselves.

 

[Azza]

.... "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" ...

wasn't that applied to Baldrick at some point?

 

[evo]

:rofl I hope so. That's pretty funny.

Ben Elton in better times.

 

[mld]

Well, flood levy has been passed, after the accompanying proposed savings were reduced by the Greens and the independents. It is good that the money can finally go to helping people, it is still disappointing that the government was so economically lazy as to not pay for it by reducing spending.