The decline of good government has not been an accident. Those in public service are probably of much the same calibre, idealism and intellectual capacity as ever. What they are not getting is leadership – by words or by deeds.
When prime ministers and Cabinet ministers deride standards or ignore obvious breaches, why should we expect that junior ministers or junior officials would strive for the highest standards? When those who proffer advice that is unwanted seem to be punished, why should we worry about whether frank and independent advice is at a premium? When secretaries of some agencies provide political cover for ministers engaged in dubious behaviour, and will not defend good administration, who can be surprised when junior officials will not stick their necks out?
Though leadership of a moral sort has been one of the most preached attributes, the public service is seriously short of senior officials who talk the talk, let alone seen as walking the walk. The model departmental secretary is generally, these days, fairly colourless, without much in the way of a public profile. A few counter cases exist – Mike Pezzullo in Home Affairs for example. No doubt some are of the highest rectitude. But not many people, even in their own agencies, could point to examples of where they have said or done anything likely to upset anyone above them.
I have always argued that crime or misconduct among the middle classes, including in public administration, is entirely different in nature from crime among the underclasses. Underclass crime is usually opportunistic and without much consideration of consequences. High penalties do not deter; they merely increase the number of people in institutions.
A member of the middle class contemplating a fraud or theft or some other misconduct does think about consequences. They think about the chance of being caught. That is a good reason why there should be systems in place to catch people who do the wrong thing. The more likely these systems work, the more likely people will think it not worth the risk. That’s also why the systems should be independent. We know from experience that police will act against corrupt, dishonest or brutal colleagues only in the most egregious circumstances. Otherwise, they will cover up.
White-collar workers also think of the consequences of being caught — even of being suspected. For white-collar people, the consequence most feared is not jail or a heavy fine. It is of public exposure and public disgrace. Only rarely will the disgrace go away. Only rarely can such a person be rehabilitated.
There will always be some who are so venal, so easily tempted or so desperate that they will do something corrupt, or dishonest or wrong, usually for personal aggrandisement. In that sense, we want the integrity systems to catch the baddies — those who take bribes, those who award contracts to their friends or act for improper purposes. But the set-up will also be performing well if it deters others. The absence of a large case list does not prove there was no need for an integrity system.
The public service has codes of conduct and an operating ethos. But the style of government by ministerial discretion has strangled the system. It’s time the general principles were applied to ministers and politicians, and to ministerial staff as well. The best such code — for being short and straightforward — are the seven principles of public life described by Britain’s Nolan committee. These apply to anyone elected or appointed to public office, including public servants, police, teachers, doctors and nurses and people in the private sector or the “voluntary” sector who are delivering public services.
All public office holders are both servants of the public and stewards of public resources, the principles say.
- Selflessness: Holders of public office should act solely in terms of public interest.
- Integrity: Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.
- Objectivity: Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.
- Accountability: Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.
- Openness: Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.
- Honesty: Holders of public office should be truthful.
- Leadership: Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and be willing to challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.
It’s a good measure of the crisis in Australian government that one can readily think of a breach of every one of these principles, by ministers or by public servants, over recent years.
What I cannot think of are cases where such conduct — or plain misconduct — has been reproved by the prime minister or led to adverse consequences for ministers, minders, officials or cronies of the government. Indeed it is almost impossible to remember an occasion where the blowtorch was seriously applied to Scott Morrison, scoffer-in-chief on matters of duty, integrity or the need for accountability and transparency.
He is continually allowed to dismiss complaints with waffle, dissembling, spin or the pretence that his mind is on higher things, and the future rather than the past. The biggest fraud of this corrupted government is the idea that Morrison is some lovable bungler, just doing the best he can.
John Waterford AM, better known as Jack Waterford, is an Australian journalist and commentator.
Comments
10 responses to “Unaccountable leaders set the tone for all in public service”
It’s all about dumbing down.
Keep them “informed” but make sure it’s trivial. Make them feel good.
“You don’t need to know about that”. or “That’s way to complicated. Let us just do it.. Hey, look over here!”
The LNP legitimised corruption through Gladys. Now the catch cry from the media (and so, the voters) is “They all do it. At least Scotty is doing it in our interest”…
Why isn’t the mainstream media standing up to expose it? Because they are all sheep.
When you hit the exalted ranks of the Senior Executive Service you go on lots of management training junkets in the southern highlands. There you are taught that all human attributes can be reduced to the 16 variables of the Myers Briggs test (forget Shakespeare, Montaigne, the great religions etc) and a lot of other trite pop psychology which you are encouraged to swallow whole. One of the departmental secretaries was a real evangelist for all that, and it all seemed a bit like hands in the air religious revival at times. But it’s very reductive and pretty brainless. I remember thinking ‘if these are the best and brightest, we’re stuffed’.
I once had the lovely task of reviewing an FOI decision with hundreds of documents relating to something a department had handled over a three or four decade period. The minutes from the 1980s were intelligent, crisp and concise. The file notes from that period were witty and descriptive. They exuded scepticism and intelligence. Fast forward to the 2000s and certain prolix sameness set. No one seemed to be able to write and think. Given writing and thinking are the operating system of any bureaucracy this was a worry.
Is this a wide problem or was my sample of one department (back in the private sector now) just a bad sample? I know, nostalgia ain’t what it used to be, but something seemed to have gone wrong over that period. Maybe we need to bring back permanent secretaries, I don’t know.
Lack of grounded and responsible ‘leadership’ when minimal personal financial risk and how it has become exemplified by PR or media constructs, versus doing anything substantive? (PLus I recall the penchant in ’80s for ‘Post it notes’ or pencil on files…..
Interesting and related, I used to deal with senior university, TAFE etc. personnel in international management and related e.g. Austrade. One noticed the discomfort or avoidance of words by all, versus claiming they are ‘managers’ and everything covered by established systems hence no need to change anything, let alone discuss….
Exemplified by demands for face to face communication via chats and ‘sound bites’ precluding any deep analysis (refusal to read one A4 page of SWOT analysis or use Skype….) and (effective) market development (vs demanding and gaining approval for lots of VIP international travel…) with a focus upon short term ‘recruitment and sales’ (while offshore agents complained of fatigue due to ‘fly in fly out’ university manager visits, and demands for hosting).
A contemporary battle was endeavouring to explain digital marketing (from mid noughties) and how it can be both effective and economic for any niche international marketing, communications and now teaching/learning; significant savings in travel, events, hospitality and carbon emissions.
The reality, ‘digital’ (disruption) was avoided by international and/or faculty management, except for marginal budget outlays to domestic web teams to post paid ads, as digital was viewed as technical and too difficult to understand…. ?
One of the most egregious examples of avoiding innovation and disruption in preference to maintaining out of date job roles or duties….. like the old 1980s sales rep who just needed to be a ‘good bloke’ and able to chit chat…..
See nothing, hear nothing, say nothing……
We should start by measuring the Robodebt saga against these principles.
It was a salient reminder of how badly things are in this country when recently the entire Dutch government resigned over far less than robodebt, yet similarly comparable actions. They weren’t even directly responsible, but took ‘political responsibility’ for the mess created by others. Here, not one person has been reprimanded for robodebt, and the man who instigated it, Scott Morrison, has not even had any criticism directed at his actions.
When people like Barilaro in NSW can stand up and say that ‘pork barrelling is what elections for’ and MS media has a memory loss the day after, there are no limits left for politicians who are corrupt and could not care less about democracy.
What example are they to anyone else?
I agree.
It is arguable that politicians get away with this behaviour because this is how the general public expect them to act. If people think that politicians will act corruptly or from self-interest as a matter of course, then they often wash their hands of political behaviour. This is an abrogation of personal responsibility, but it also leads to the kind of insularity into which Australia has increasingly declined over the past few decades. The attitude is that “I can’t control politicians, so I will only look after what I can control, myself and my family.” This is a truism but it means that people simply turn off on the big picture issues, of which political corruption bring out of venality and donations is one.
The problem is always is how to turn this around as it has all the qualities of a universal trait in Anglophone countries.
Interesting. I had Thought the loss of capacity in the public service was due to neo liberal ideals, That government be reduced to a rump and easily extinguished. Fortunately that message can today seen to be toxic . The more neoliberal the government, the bigger the culpability of current western governments where the response to CoVid 19 has been dire. It is ,or seems, to be that deskilling of the public service is a deliberate policy option for today’s politicians, of all stripes. Well, we urgently need to go into reverse on that.
US writer Thomas Franks has delved into this ideological dynamic in his book ‘The Wrecking Crew’:
‘…Frank summarized the message of his book: “Bad government is the natural product of rule by those who believe government is bad.”…. Frank argues that certain elements of the Republican party intentionally dismantled the government by many means, including turning public policy into a private-sector feeding frenzy.‘
Sound familiar?