When a story by Jack Waterford, former editor of The Canberra Times, headed, “We need a public service adapted for 2025, rather than one designed for 1985”, was followed by the best economics editor in the nation, The SMH’s Ross Gittins, suggesting, “a bigger better public sector will secure our future”, it was time to investigate.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
As readers will know, the column has long championed the merits of an effective, competent public service; and, we were not alone in that regard. Former Liberal MPs for Farrer, David Fairbairn and Wal Fife, told me early in my journalism days such a requirement was necessary for “good government”.
Indeed, as Waterford said: “Prime ministers of all stripes, and ministers, get all sorts of good advice from professional public servants,” which is as it should be.
Gittins wrote: “There are important lessons to be learnt from the latest news about where our strong growth in employment is coming from (The Bureau of Statistics in December reported 370,000 or 3.1 per cent more jobs in 2017 to November, 80 per cent of them full-time).”
However, the interesting bit is: “The strong growth has not been spread evenly across the economy, but is heavily concentrated in the health care and social assistance industry and construction”.
The point here is, as Gittins notes, “since governments tend to outsource both their construction projects and their disability care packages, most of the new jobs would actually be classed as in the private sector.
Gittins again: “Of course the notion that the private sector is productive but the public sector is not is sheer economic illiteracy”. As he pointed out for good reason, services, particularly, are produced (or at least, funded) by the public sector.
Where does this lead us to? Waterford, the doyen of Canberra’s political writers, reminded us that more than 40 years ago, the Whitlam Government began and the Fraser Government continued with, the Coombs Royal Commission into public administration.
Whitlam felt the PS had become complacent, conservative (hardly surprising, it had been serving coalition regimes for 21 years), and needed to be more responsive, outcome-oriented and, wrote Waterford, “it (the royal commission) looked closely at co-operation between state and federal PSs”.
Waterford suggested it was time there was another such wide-ranging inquiry; as he pointed out, when the Coombs Commission reported, there was not a single personal computer or mobile telephone in the nation.
Such an inquiry, Waterford wrote, should not be about “exposing the government for some mishap or malfeasance” – rather, amongst other things, about “how leadership is fostered and boldness and openness to new ideas fostered; how we adapt the public service for 2025 (and perhaps well beyond, the column suggests), rather than continue with one designed for 1985”.
“It may be good to wonder whether there is any mood for better government …”, Waterford pondered; indeed, a start might be made by federalising the vital areas of health, education, transport, water resources, agriculture and energy, amongst others, as the Coombs commission alluded to. Get them all under one federal control.
There’s a strong case for the arguments by Waterford and Gittins to re-build a proficient and productive public service. There is little doubt our governments and politicians need help and it’s not being provided by outrageously overpaid consultants as recently revealed; but that’s another story.