I would be the last to be critical of clumsy typing.
Several examples of major problems spring to mind.
1. Secrecy in Government circles. Most politicians and some senior APS officials believe secrecy and dare I say it "commercial in confidence" are perfectly legitimate ways to run Government and bureaucracies.
They conveniently forget they are there to serve the long suffering public. The "secret" information belongs to us. Too often reports and inquiries are suppressed and hidden from view. Pathetic.
2. Quality of politicians. Too often candidates progress from school/University, active in party politics, move on to a staffer position and then vie for pre-selection. With this career trajectory they will be better than useless. My sense is there should be the following criteria to be met before standing for pre-selection. Some tertiary qualification - plumber or PhD in astro-physics. Five years work experience in any field except politics. At least one year working and living overseas. With these criteria they will be about 30yo when entering politics and not wet and naive behind the ears. On exiting Parliament ex-members should be prohibited from working in any area associated with any portfolio which they have held. This is not harsh. If they are any good they can get a good position anywhere. Might help sort out the lobby contingent.
3. Related to secrecy. Ministers' diaries should be open book. Who are they talking to.
4. Again related to secrecy. The LNP agreement is confidential. Not good enough.
5. The sooner the national ICAC gets cracking the better. Otherwise as Paul Keating opined we will be entrenched as a "Banana Republic".
I think we should rekindle the old partnership between the state and the public university, as in von Humboldt and the German university. But it would require some changes from universities too.
And I will be developing a thought in later posts that we are in a "mixed system" (like a mixed economy) of democracy, post-democracy, and earlier political traditions. Stay tuned for that one!
I have always been profoundly baffled by the idea that any government business can be classified 'commercial in confidence' and thereby hidden from scrutiny. If you take the collective dollar, then you must submit to public inspection. Simples.
I tend to agree commercial in confidence rules tend to be driven by the private sector contractors. The 'cabinet-in-confidence' rules tend to be driven by political leaders. They have the benefit of protecting sensitive internal debates, which makes sense when the decision is being made; but I think those arguments should be able to withstand public scrutiny sooner than 20 years later.
Your question, whether we need a national conversation or inquiry into the public service and the state of democarcy (sic) in Australia today, is surely rhetorical.
We most certainly do need an urgent examination of the emasculation of the APS. Thank you John Howard. There are many fine and talented people in the APS and for 30 years their voices have been closed down.
Morrison said it all when he declared it was not the place of the APS to advise - it was their place to put in place political ideology.
As with war, which is too important an area to be left in the hands of generals, running a country is too important to be left to politicians who are generally ill-equipped to deal with such complex matters
Hello Jeff
I would be the last to be critical of clumsy typing.
Several examples of major problems spring to mind.
1. Secrecy in Government circles. Most politicians and some senior APS officials believe secrecy and dare I say it "commercial in confidence" are perfectly legitimate ways to run Government and bureaucracies.
They conveniently forget they are there to serve the long suffering public. The "secret" information belongs to us. Too often reports and inquiries are suppressed and hidden from view. Pathetic.
2. Quality of politicians. Too often candidates progress from school/University, active in party politics, move on to a staffer position and then vie for pre-selection. With this career trajectory they will be better than useless. My sense is there should be the following criteria to be met before standing for pre-selection. Some tertiary qualification - plumber or PhD in astro-physics. Five years work experience in any field except politics. At least one year working and living overseas. With these criteria they will be about 30yo when entering politics and not wet and naive behind the ears. On exiting Parliament ex-members should be prohibited from working in any area associated with any portfolio which they have held. This is not harsh. If they are any good they can get a good position anywhere. Might help sort out the lobby contingent.
3. Related to secrecy. Ministers' diaries should be open book. Who are they talking to.
4. Again related to secrecy. The LNP agreement is confidential. Not good enough.
5. The sooner the national ICAC gets cracking the better. Otherwise as Paul Keating opined we will be entrenched as a "Banana Republic".
I could go on but that is enough for now.
Erik
17 Yaluma Drive
Port Macquarie 2444
0417 337 995
You PWc article was spot on. Keep up the good work.
It occurred to me that Australia already spends billions employing some of the world's leading experts in almost every field: our academics.
Ministers should offer all consulting contracts to Australian universities first and/or hire them to oversee outside consultants.
As to democracy, we're not one. We just vote for leaders.
Mongol warriors rode for thousands of miles to vote for their leaders but none, to my knowledge, ever imagined that he lived in a democracy.
Nor should we.
Thank you and great points.
I think we should rekindle the old partnership between the state and the public university, as in von Humboldt and the German university. But it would require some changes from universities too.
And I will be developing a thought in later posts that we are in a "mixed system" (like a mixed economy) of democracy, post-democracy, and earlier political traditions. Stay tuned for that one!
Excellent response Godfree.
We do have a huge pool of talent and expertise in not only Universities but also the APS. We should take advantage of this valuable resource.
Erik
I have always been profoundly baffled by the idea that any government business can be classified 'commercial in confidence' and thereby hidden from scrutiny. If you take the collective dollar, then you must submit to public inspection. Simples.
I tend to agree commercial in confidence rules tend to be driven by the private sector contractors. The 'cabinet-in-confidence' rules tend to be driven by political leaders. They have the benefit of protecting sensitive internal debates, which makes sense when the decision is being made; but I think those arguments should be able to withstand public scrutiny sooner than 20 years later.
Good Afternoon Jeff
Your question, whether we need a national conversation or inquiry into the public service and the state of democarcy (sic) in Australia today, is surely rhetorical.
We most certainly do need an urgent examination of the emasculation of the APS. Thank you John Howard. There are many fine and talented people in the APS and for 30 years their voices have been closed down.
Morrison said it all when he declared it was not the place of the APS to advise - it was their place to put in place political ideology.
As with war, which is too important an area to be left in the hands of generals, running a country is too important to be left to politicians who are generally ill-equipped to deal with such complex matters
Erik
0417 337 995
Thanks. Apologies for the clumsy typing of democracy. What do you think are the top problems and ways to set a better course?