A Westminster-style Professional and Independent Public Service: Good Idea but Wishing Won't Make it So -
email sent 23/2/15
Hon Ms Annastacia Palaszczuk, MLA. Premier of Queensland
Re: Special Broadcast: A Message from the Premier of Queensland, Wednesday,
18 February 2015
I should like to endorse the goal (ie creating a
Westminster-style professional and independent public service) that was stated
in your recent message to Queensland public servants. However achieving this
will be anything but easy and will take many years.
“A MESSAGE FROM THE PREMIER
To our valued public servants:
With the swearing-in of the new Queensland Government, I am keen to provide
public servants with an update on our priorities for the public sector
workforce. From the outset, I want to assure you that the new government
has the highest regard for the professionalism and independence of the
Queensland public service. That is why I have committed to restoring
fairness for public servants and ensuring that the proper conditions exist for
them to provide frank and fearless advice to government. As part of this
commitment, we will return to a Westminster-style model that values and supports
a permanent public service. We will also reinstate those conditions for
public servants that were removed by the previous government, particularly in
relation to employment security, contracting-out and organisational change
provisions. Also, I want to acknowledge that previous
machinery-of-government changes have caused significant disruption and reassure
you that we will do everything we can to keep changes to a minimum. Thank
you for your patience over the past few weeks. I look forward to working
with and meeting you.
Yours sincerely
This email was sent by The Premier of Queensland, PO Box 15185, City East,
Queensland 4002 to csonline@premiers.qld.gov.au”
The need to restore professionalism and independence to
Queensland’s public service (and to those in other Australian administrations)
has been obvious for a long time (eg see The
Growing Case for a Professional Public Service, 2001+). The latter outlined how the professionalism and
independence of the public service had been lost in the early 1990s, suggested
why this had happened and identified evidence of the dysfunctional consequences
that Queensland subsequently endured.
To
overcome such problems it is not sufficient merely to endorse a
‘Westminster-style model’. A pre-election statement by the Goss Government
was ironically entitled Return to Westminster: Public Service Reform under
the Goss Government – and said
much the same as your recent email to Queensland public servants. However that
administration then inadvertently put in place a ruthless process of purging
professionalism and independence from the public service – because those that
government put in charge of ‘reform’ were unaware of what they didn’t know
about what was needed for effective government and for actually achieving the
Goss Government’s policy aspirations (see also
Towards
Good Government in Queensland, 1995 and
The
Decay of Australian Public Administration, 2002). Independent observers were not impressed by the
results (see Some
Comments on the Public Sector and on Reform, 1995).
More recent indications of the need to restore professionalism
and independence to the public service are listed in
Towards
a Professional Public Service.
For example:
In 2002 the then Queensland Public Sector Union argued that
workplace and ministerial bullying of public servants was a symptom of the
breakdown of the Westminster tradition (see Driven
to Distraction);
in 2004 it was publicly argued that there were no real checks on
the competence of Queensland’s’ most ‘senior’ public servants – and
that the latter hid behind elected officials (see Accountability
of Queensland’s Senior Public Servants). And, as the latter noted, the Queensland’s Council of
Professions had informally acknowledged the politicisation problem in 2001, but
not known what to do about it. Also Commerce Queensland suggested in 2004 that
there was a need for an independent review of Queensland’s public service (see
Auditing
the Queensland Public Service);
in 2005 Queensland’s government was embroiled in apologies and
costly cash injections in relations to problems that would arguably not have
arisen had the political system had access to competent professional support
(see Preventing,
not just fixing, Dysfunctional Public Administration). In that year also:
Poor decisions, bungled projects and financial waste were seen to
result from appointing incompetent public officials (see
Overcoming
Official Incompetence);
Efforts in the 1980s and 1990s to make public services
‘responsive’ were seen to have gone too far (see Crushed
Independence);
in 2006 concern was expressed that retribution seemed to have
been meted out to a well-intentioned official whose efforts were not appreciated
(The
Cost of Honest Effort);
in 2009 the head of the Crime and Misconduct Commission expressed
concern about the loss of public service independence and effectiveness (Transforming
Public Servants into 'Puppets');
in 2012 there was seen to be a need for substantial reform of
Queensland’s bureaucracy (see
Can
the Commander Do?);
and
in early 2013 it was noted that the Newman government had
responded to the need for reform by continuing the by-then long established
practice of itself making what were seen to be dubious appointments to
‘senior’ positions (see Dubious
Public Sector Appointments are Old News).
The goal espoused in your recent email to public servants is
highly desirable. A chronic lack of competent support to Australia’s political
system is arguably a significant factor in in the political instabilities that
Australia and Queensland currently suffer (eg see
Ending
Australia's Political Paralysis).
However it is not possible now to recover public service
professionalism and independence merely by saying that it already exists. And
inhibiting the emergence of a professional / independent public service is easy,
eg:
The search for public service ‘responsiveness’ (which was
emphasised the last time Queensland’s public service was ‘reformed’) is
likely to result in senior positions being filled by cronies and ‘yes men’.
Moreover:
When elected governments are surrounded by cronies and ‘yes
men’ they will be told what they want to hear, and be at risk of losing touch
with the broader community and of failing to see problems in their policy
agendas that could easily be corrected if they had access to a professional and
independent public service;
Politicisation in the public service does not necessarily involve
endorsing a partisan position supported by a current government. A public
service dominated by ‘yes men’ (ie those who don’t express an informed
opinion about any policy proposal no matter how risky) is also
‘politicised’;
where ‘senior’ staff lack professional credibility, there is
no basis for ensuring the professional competence of those they in turn appoint,
and considerable risk of ‘bullying’ of competent subordinates who would be
able to expose the professional inadequacies of the ‘senior’ staff; and
reliance on selection criteria written by human resource staffs
favours those with experiencing in politically-correct form-filling over those
with knowledge and experience relevant to whatever job needs to be done.
Arguably success in achieving the Westminster-style professional
and independent public service that your government seems to be seeking
requires:
Appointments to senior positions being made by those with the
professional competence to do so – not by political advisers who believe that
their perception of the public interest is flawless;
That professional merit be a required consideration in making
senior appointments;
Repeal of the legislation introduced by the Goss Government that
prevents appeals against senior executive service appointments;
Protection for the careers of those who provide policy advice (ie
help government ‘govern’) where the advice they give is politically
unpalatable;
something like an independent Public Service Board;
clarifying a distinction between the public and private sectors.
Private ownership and control of functions subject to significant market
failures can create problems. And when combined with ready career shifts between
the public and private sectors, the scope for conflicts of interest in relation
to government decisions that affect private profit needs to be minimized;
resolving the incompatibility of trying to adopt a competitive /
‘business-like’ approach to improve efficiency in the production of public
goods and services and the requirement for undertaking government’s core role
(ie governing);
perhaps different provisions for public servants involved in
general government functions (ie helping governments govern) and those involved
in the operational provision of public goods and services;
taking account of current changes in the international
environment (eg the emerging influence of
East Asia’s ‘bureaucratic
non-capitalist’ systems of socio-political-economy in an international
environment previously dominated by Western-style ‘democratic capitalist’
systems). In the latter environment power is primarily
associated with access to the best strategic intelligence (rather than
with democratic endorsement) - so the politicization of public
services renders Queensland / Australia increasingly weak and
vulnerable;
undertaking reform as just one amongst many government priorities
– rather than as a pre-requisite to doing anything else. Arrangements such as
those suggested here would need to be in place for many years to develop true
professionalism and independence before the competent support that governments
can potentially get from a Westminster-style public service is likely to be
available;
Starting by asking the existing public service what is the best
way to achieve the desired outcome – so that: (a) existing programs as well as
accumulated knowledge and experience can be redirected towards the desired goal;
and (b) incompatibilities do not arise between a public service reform agenda
and governments other significant challenges. The issues governments deal
with are very complex. Stimulating public sector evolution in constructive
directions through a strategic
management process is
likely to be more effective than external attempts to impose overly-simplistic
changes on only-partly-understood systems.
Real progress won’t be achieved by political ‘tinkering’
with public service appointments, eg by: (a) by making public servants
appointments in what is (politically perceived to be) the ‘public interest’ as
the Goss
administration’s advisers presumably tried to
do - and as was reportedly recently suggested to be
intended by Queensland’s new administration (eg Houghton
D., ‘Palaszczuk
letter spells out Labor’s none-too-palatable policy plans for the state”,Courier
Mail, 14/2/15); or (b)
politically appointing new heads of government departments (eg see
DPC
Head goes as Premier Takes Charge,
PSNewsOnline, 19/2/15).
By way of background it is noted that (on the basis of experience
and study of at-the-time-successful change management in Queensland’s public
service in the 1970s) the present writer informally pointed out internally
in the early 1990s that the across-the-board process of restructuring and
re-staffing the Goss administration was using to ‘reform’ the public service
could damage government effectiveness – because it involved over-riding rather
than building on existing knowledge and experience (see
Outline
of Changing the Queensland Public Sector, 1990). He was then exposed to an abuse of power by the Department
of Premier and Cabinet (ie a refusal to allow professional merit to be
considered) in relation to the filling of a senior policy R&D position (eg
see Autocratic
Ignorance Purges the Public Service,
1999 and Seeking
Natural Justice,
2004). What happened was described by one observer as a test of the Westminster
tradition (McDermott P., `Tenure of Senior Queensland Public Servants', Australian
Journal of Public Administration, March 1993) – a test that the Department
of Premier and Cabinet failed in the present writer’s opinion.
John
Craig
A Cynical
Response
Show: Cynical email response received from 'Anonymous'
Cynical Email Response
Received (24/2/15) from 'Anonymous' - in Response to Copy of the
"A Westminster-style Professional and Independent Public Service: Good
Idea but Wishing Won't Make it So" (and reproduced with permission)
"The purging in 1990 onwards was not
inadvertent. It was a deliberate policy led by Griffith University, Rudd,
and all the labor hangers on. They viewed the Public Service as an
employment agency for Labor Party supporters. So an easy and highly paid,
at no expense to Labor, reward. Griffith Uni had a theoretical concept
about a public service with no experience at all in the real world. Labor
trusted no one. The reasons for this is that to get a job under Labor you
had to be a party member or supporter, so they thought anyone in a
position of influence must have belonged to the National Party. Anyone
from a failed Labor State was a front runner, never mind fact their Govt
had failed. I could give you countless examples of Labor's naivety on the
policy and decision making front from my own experience. Do not think that
anything has changed. It will just be done over time, to disguise it.
Premier has a number of issues. They intend to repay over three years,
$150m of the $80billion debt. So this could go on forever. Their
expenditure will rise as they can never help themselves. So I will stick
out my neck and go with $90 billion in debt by 2018. They will be opposed
to a lot of resource development but won't know how to diversify the
economy or build capability in other areas to compensate. Coal is dying,
it might take 20 years but it will happen. Agriculture could go many ways
with climate change. So what's left?. Maybe the South Australian solution,
for every private enterprise job lost make a public service position
available and expect the rest of Australia to pick up the tab. Then wonder
why it all goes bust. .... I now seriously doubt I will retire in
this place. "
Anonymous "... The sad thing is its both sides of
politics. The Public Service is an employment agency for whichever party
is in power. Mates, friends, relatives ( esp. wives using their maiden
names to try to cover it up), apparatchiks who seem to move from one
friendly Govt. to the next on a rotational basis. Then we wonder why there
is no vision or long term plan. Three years ago China announced end of
urbanisation policy, development of a huge coal mine in Mongolia to come
on stream this year, and no one here thought what all that might do to
coal and iron ore exports. Really sad thing is our politicians are not
intelligent enough to realize their own weaknesses and employ the best,
independent advisers they can find. Would rather have sycophants to boost
their egos. Here endeth the Lesson. "
Show: Letter Received from Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk MP
Letter Received from Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk
MP - 1/4/15 .
"Thank you for your email of 23 February 2015 regarding
a Westminster-style professional and independent Queensland public service.
As expressed in my message to
Queensland public servants, I agree that there is a need to reinstate
professionalism and independence in our public service and to have public
servants who feel secure in providing frank and fearless advice to Government.
These changes will help build a better and stronger public service, and I agree
that while my Government has commenced these changes, this will not happen
overnight.
Restoring independence to Queensland's Crime and
Corruption Commission (CCC) is a necessary safeguard for a Westminster-style
democracy. With this aim in mind, the position of Chair of the CCC has now been
advertised.
Also in progress is the merit-based recruitment of
Directors-General for all Queensland Government departments, including
advertising nationally for the roles and having a recruitment panel consisting
of members who are independent of the Government. This merit-based-system will
ensure that regardless of political affiliation, the most qualified and capable
applicants are appointed to senior government positions.
I appreciate
the time you have taken to provide such detailed and well-researched information
about the Queensland public service, and for your suggestions on how we can
avoid repeating the errors of the past. As you mentioned, achieving our goal
will no doubts be a long-term process. However, it is well worth the time and
effort required to see a professional and independent public service restored in
Queensland.
Again, than you for taking the time to write to me".
Show: Queensland's Need for Stronger Institutions
Queensland's Need for Stronger Institutions - email sent 7/4/15
Hon
Ms Annastacia Palaszczuk, MLA,
Premier of Queensland
Thank
you very much for your positive response to my
comments of 23/2/15
on the need for, and difficulty of, genuinely creating a
competent, professional and independent public service in Queensland. I have
taken the liberty of reproducing your
letter
on my web-site.
However,
as noted in my
earlier email,
your goals will not be easy to achieve even given your Government’s ambition
to adopt truly ‘merit-based’ selection processes. It very difficult for any
politically-established process to identify the nature of the quite-different
‘professional’ merit that is needed to complement ‘political’
understandings of what merit might involve (for reasons outlined in
State
may be Rudderless ... Full Stop).
Moreover
‘the time …. required to see a professional and independent public
service restored in Queensland’ that your letter referred to may simply not be
available.
Queensland
(like Australia as a whole) does not at present enjoy stable parliamentary
government. There is no strong public support for the strategies that have been proposed so far for dealing with difficult fiscal, economic and governance
challenges. Available options seem largely to involve a zero-sum-game (ie a
‘game’ in which ‘winners’ mainly gain at the expense of ‘losers’).
And there is unfortunately a real risk that current challenges (which have no
obvious non-zero-sum solution) could worsen - for reasons like those mentioned
in the context of current tax reform debates in
A
Broader Approach to Tax Reform.
Some
suggestions about the nature and origin of Queensland’s challenges and of the
institutional weaknesses that help explain why public understanding of those
challenges and of positive-sum Queensland-controlled solutions is chronically
weak were suggested in 2011 in What
is the Problem?
(and earlier in
Queensland's
Weak Parliament,
1999 and The
Upper House Solution: A Commentary,
2006). As was argued in 2011, it is not only public services whose
professionalism and orientation to the public interest could usefully be raised
to ensure prosperity and progress at times when Queensland’s / Australia’s
economic ‘luck’ proves unreliable (as
seems
to be the case at present).
Methods
of discovering and implementing positive-sum solutions to Queensland’s
challenges (which should reduce the constraint on effective government that
results from parliamentary instability) might involve:
Adopting
something like the methods used in the 1970s for adapting the public sector to
new public priorities (see
Outline
of Changing the Queensland Public Sector,
1990). This would require identification of a number of ‘areas of critical
concern’ and enabling whole of government options for achieving these to be
found (without disrupting the normal ‘business’ of government) through a
centrally coordinated (by not centrally dictated) process. In the 1970s such an
approach resulted, over several years, in the creation of a purposeful and
cohesive public service that was perceived while those
methods continued to be used to be the easiest in Australia for
outsiders to deal with;
Putting
a ‘strategic intelligence’ front end on the planning processes used by state
agencies (and hopefully also those of major civil institutions). Queensland’s
international environment is complex, rapidly changing and increasingly locally
significant. Systematic efforts to acquire, distribute and share relevant
strategic intelligence need not be costly, but should improve Queenslander’s
ability to plan for the future rather than for the past;
Encouraging
collaboration between different types of civil institutions (eg universities,
associations, research bodies, business, unions) so that emerging issues and
constructive options can be widely and better understood within the informed
community (and thus ultimately by the electorate). Each type of institution has
strengths in some area, but weaknesses in others (eg consider the valuable
theoretical knowledge of universities that tends not to be complemented by
knowledge of practical requirements);
Facilitating
the development of apolitical methods to accelerate market-oriented
‘learning’ within existing or potential industry clusters to increase the
support available to individuals / enterprises in competing successfully in high
productivity economic activities (eg as suggested in
Probable
Breakthrough in Understanding Economic Development,
2004 and Beyond
Competition Policy,
2015). Potential benefits include: the creation of jobs and competitive
advantages; a stronger tax base to increase public revenues; and accelerated
regional development.
And,
as for changes to the public service, broader initiatives like those suggested
above need to be viewed as means to an end (ie enhancing the way current
priority issues are addressed) not as an end in themselves. One of the many
reasons that the attempt at public service reform in the early 1990s was
widely
perceived to be a disaster
was that realistic capabilities could not result from restructuring and
restaffing the public service merely
to ‘reform’ it in accordance with a theoretical ideal.
Queensland’s institutions need to be strengthened in the course of addressing
real challenges and opportunities – not as an alternative to doing so.