Coronavirus: Truth losing out to new ‘yes minister’ mob. By Gary Banks.
Unlike the permanent heads, or “mandarins”, of Westminster tradition, public service leaders today are essentially there at the pleasure of the minister (and ultimately the prime minister or first minister). And many can really only keep their jobs as long as the minister keeps his or hers, and the government remains in power. The incentives this creates for our top public servants are obvious, and the results have been on display at Victoria’s quarantine inquiry …
These days, the most senior public servants have become a highly mobile group, with a number moving in and out of the public sector and following their side of politics (Labor or Liberal) around the country according to its political fortunes.
That government ministers would wish to exert control over senior appointments, particularly for policy departments, is not surprising in today’s hyper-political world. However, once started, the process acquires its own momentum, as such appointments are typically regarded by the opposition as compromised and needing to be replaced when regaining power. …
It is also inevitable that an appointments process conditioned by politics will involve some trade-off with merit, which is fundamental to the Westminster system. Anyone in a position to observe the public service at close quarters in recent years could not but wonder at the basis for certain senior appointments, nor fail to observe a decline in capabilities more generally. …
Without doubt, the most disturbing spectacle was the “three monkeys” performance by department heads at last week’s hearings in Victoria. That some public service leaders would risk subjecting themselves to ridicule and bringing their organisations into disrepute, rather than admit knowing something they should (or certainly could) have known, but that would be problematic politically, tells us all we need to know. …
In short, what is being revealed throughout this health crisis is a crisis in bureaucracy itself. Australia has effectively acquired by stealth a system of government that has become less Westminster and more Washington, but without the clarity of the former or the checks and balances of the latter. While the problems appear more acute in Victoria than elsewhere, the trends are all one way.
If this “Washminster” transformation is irreversible, as I believe it is, can the system at least be made to work better? Among other things, there needs to be greater transparency around senior appointments (and dismissals), and more incentive to balance the wishes of a minister with the interests of the public. However it looks like the present system suits too many as it is. If so, we must prepare ourselves for more of the same.
From the best-ever documentary on the Westminster system:
