At the heart of the Barilaro scandal is a fundamental democratic issue: should politicians, or “independent” experts, make decisions about public resources?
It drives the whole scandal — the decision to change the trade commissioner role from a public service appointment to a political appointment; Amy Brown’s complaint she was left in a limbo between the two; Stuart Ayres’ insistence the selection of Barilaro was at “arm’s length” from him when he repeatedly intervened, including the elimination of a rival candidate to Barilaro after a 12-minute Zoom meeting with him; Barilaro’s professed belief that the role being a public service appointment was sufficient “cover” (his word) for it to be OK.
What no one will acknowledge is that in modern public services, the idea of independent decision-making is nonsensical. From the moment Barilaro applied, and the moment Stuart Ayres commended Barilaro to Brown, there was never any chance Barilaro wouldn’t succeed. Even if a public service is not as egregiously politicised as, say, the Commonwealth public service under Morrison, or the NSW public service under Labor, “responsive” bureaucrats, especially senior bureaucrats with regular exposure to ministers and their staff, will absorb and implement ministerial desires without thinking.
It’s even possible Ayres genuinely thinks he did nothing wrong, that he was merely doing his job of being kept “informed” of the process, oblivious, or indifferent, to the Heisenbergian fact that any interest a minister displays in such a process will influence the outcome.
Public services are not independent, or not nearly as much as they used to be. Genuinely independent public policy bodies have to be formally and explicitly protected from political interference. The courts. The Reserve Bank. Regulators. The Director of Public Prosecutions. And even then, political appointees can exercise influence.
This underpins Barilaro’s claim that because he was pursuing the job through what he claimed was an ordinary public service appointment process, it was all legit, whereas if it had been a political appointment by the NSW cabinet, the claim of “jobs for the boys” would have been correct. That’s an admission — unsurprising from a man who was proud to be called a pork-barreller — that political decisions come with a fundamental illegitimacy in the eyes of voters.
As Crikey has observed more than once, politicians are now being caught out by a shift in the electorate away from tolerating traditional political behaviour like pork-barrelling and jobs for mates — both of which are all about this tension between political decision-making and decision-making made independently and in accordance with the public interest.
The tension is one of the biggest issues in politics, but receives little attention until it erupts in various individual scandals — a dodgy appointment here, a fake investigation there, some rorted grants over there.
And it plays out in every metropolitan community in the country, where residents object to development proposals, and local councils — made up of elected figures — decide on them. Property developers have long made bribing local councillors and local government officials a key tactic to secure approvals. On the other hand, councillors can also be vehicles for flagrant NIMBYism.
The NSW government’s solution to that — apart from banning donations from property developers — was to strip Sydney councils of their approval powers and hand them to independent planning panels, which assess development applications based on established planning laws. No bribes, no NIMBYism, just — theoretically — the public interest.
Plenty of aggrieved residents, whose objections have been overruled, will say that planning panels don’t take into account local factors, residential amenity, special circumstances, etc — the sort of things a local councillor might see as their job to take into account.
Barilaro, pork-barrelling, development approvals — they’re all variations on the theme of whether politicians can be trusted to make decisions, or whether we’re better off with independent decision-makers with expertise pursuing the public interest.
Experts get it wrong, too. Spectacularly so. Just ask the Reserve Bank.
Politicians insist that in a democracy they must be left to make decisions and be accountable for them, not a “public autocracy” as Scott Morrison called independent experts. And it’s true that politicians are more accountable than, say, the governor of the Reserve Bank.
But they aren’t that much more accountable — they’re elected every three or four years, and voters have to weigh up a whole bunch of factors for that once-in-three-years vote. What if a blatantly corrupt government has an important policy you agree with? What if it’s corrupt in some areas but good in others? Democratic accountability doesn’t cut it for the vast majority of decisions that show up how little politicians can be trusted to always pursue the public interest.
And the answer is not necessarily to kick a government out and replace it with its opponents. Today’s forensic, integrity-obsessed opposition supporter of high standards in public life can be tomorrow’s rorting minister — remember how quickly John Howard ditched his commitment to better standards after he lost a slew of ministers?
Properly independent appointment processes, of the kind advocated by groups like the Grattan Institute, which curb the capacity of politicians to interfere, are the only effective solution. And the same applies across government. But so far the debate is confined to the micro level. It needs to be broadened out to the tension between political decision-makers and people we can actually trust.
Which decisions should be taken out of politicians’ hands, and who should pick up the slack? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
“ Even if a public service is not as egregiously politicised as…the NSW public service under Labor”
There it is. BK’s legendary hatred of NSW Labor. Are we honestly to conclude things are better under the Berejiklian/Perrottet Coalition government.
“Experts get it wrong, too. Spectacularly so. Just ask the Reserve Bank.”
What experts? One trained economist and a board comprised of vested interests from the private sector without economics training and all sworn to secrecy does not equate to expertise. We have the worst run central bank in the OECD because it lacks experts and it shows, repeatedly. Wrong forecasts. Wrong fixes. Over and over again. And no transparency whatsoever.
If you want journalism that always supports your team, well there’s 70% of metro papers you can look at.
And BK was having a go at the Reserve Bank. So at least you agree on that much.
Hell of an assumption that the metros represent my views, SC, on a par with your assumption that I disagree with BK so often I need to go somewhere else. Hell of an assumption to think I have a “team”, too, especially if you’re talking the LibLabs. I dislike both of them, to be frank, Labor more than the Liberals because Labor still pretend to be a progressive party working for workers. At least the Liberals have always been the party of business. I don’t vote for either of them.
I’m not sure how long you’ve been a Crikey subscriber, but I’ve been around for a decade or so and BK’s hatred of NSW Labor is well known. There’s nothing new about it.
And BK did call the RBA experts. The RBA is not run by experts, unfortunately. It’s at odds with every central bank in the OECD that way. That’s why there have been calls from actual economic experts to review and even disband its board and start over for decades.
My goodness, former Labor politicians are in jail as a result of their behaviour.
It would seem to me, from what has been reported on the Barilaro inquiry and elsewhere, that the NSW public service is just as politicised as it ever has been since the Public Service Board was abolished in 1988 under Nick Greiner.
Rarely comment these days, but can’t resist on this issue.
There will always be elected politicians and councillors who swear to act in the public interest when they are elected. And then don’t. And, I want to recognise that many do act properly as required.
There will always be, and needs to be, ways to scrutinise politician’s actions and decisions through independent processes, ombudspeople, IBAC, ICAC, etc, all the way up to the courts.
The media have a role to play too, but they are too focused on reporting conflict, don’t seem to care so much about raising awareness and informing the public.
We, the people, need to demand better candidates than the party processes put forward.
The independents lead the way in this regard.
I think parties will continue to lose primary votes to independents whilst they continue to put forward poor candidates.
I think that these decisions have to be made by elected representatives, but should be cross-checked by an independent integrity commission who should have veto powers when they identify something way out of step. This would include political appointments, but also grant allocations like the carpark and sports rorts. There should then be a third level of appeal, where the two groups would have to argue it out in a public arena, all out in the open. Aired on ABC and any other broadcaster that would like to.
Interesting suggestion I’ll follow the comments you generate JackyD.
An interesting idea. I’m not so sure about politicians deciding on recruitment of their colleagues to lucrative positions. Similarly with grant allocations which already have qualified independent Committees set up but which have been notoriously overridden. However any institution can become corrupted including integrity commissions. Transparency of processes and I agree that double checking from an external independent authority would be the way to go, with penalties for anyone who liaises between the two bodies regarding and using power to push for the appointment of a favoured person. Seeing Nicholas Minchin pop up on 7.30 ABC last night as Consul General in New York was quite a shock, and I had no idea he was there or how he was appointed. Such positions should come through an independent body and politicians should wait at least ten years before they can be considered. Unfortunately the way of the world today is jobs for the boys and girls rather than on true merit and qualifications, lowering standards across the board. Solid legislation must be in place to close loopholes and support regulations which cannot be easily changed by a corrupt government
“Seeing Nicholas Minchin pop up on 7.30 ABC last night as Consul General in New York was quite a shock, and I had no idea he was there or how he was appointed.”
Minchin is a former CG in New York; the current GC in New York is Nick Greiner.
That position is an interesting case study of political appointments – which have been a feature of Australian overseas government representation for years, with virtually no more than a shrug of a shoulder by commentators in the past. Which is why I can’t get too fussed about the (now cancelled) Barilaro appointment.
Minchin was appointed by the Abbott Government who sacked Steve Bracks from the position (Bracks had his bags packed ready to fly out) as soon as Abbott was elected. But by the time Minchin’s first three-year term was up, Turnbull was PM. We can assume Turnbull was no fan of Minchin following Minchin’s role in the demise of the ETS so it was unlikely Minchin’s term would be extended. The Turnbull Government then appointed Alastair Walton – who had most recently been CG in Houston but also previously had been a high flyer in Goldman Sacks, so presumably well known to Turnbull.
By time Walton’s term of appointment was up, Morrison was PM – and Greiner was appointed as Walton’s New York replacement.
Political background is the obvious commonality in these appointments. But each of the appointees also had very relevant experience. Ex politicians (who aren’t idiots, is this what you might be concerned about in the current furore?) are often good in these positions. They know how to ‘sell’ Australia/their State (ie are ‘good at the gab’), they can schmooze with overseas business leaders and politicians, they have the access to pick up the phone and speak to people with influence back in Australia. Barilaro might have actually done this role quite well.
Other ex pollies currently heading overseas posts are Barry O’Farrell (India), Gary Gray (Ireland), Bill Hodgman (Singapore), Mitch Fifield (UN, New York), Arthur Sinodinous (USA). I don’t recall much indignation over these appointments.
I’d prefer outrage to focus on political appointments which often seem to be comfortable sinecures without merit where the appointees have power over decisions that influence ordinary people’s lives, eg to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Fair Work Commission etc. (see https://www.smh.com.au/national/mates-getting-plum-government-jobs-there-must-be-an-election-coming-up-20210430-p57nv6.html)
Ps: I think all State goverment overseas positions are a waste of taxpayers’ money when Australia has large Commonwealth government overseas representation. Overseas companies play the States against each other, so the States often compete by throwing ridiculous ‘incentives’ to win investment which was coming to Australia anyway. This is one of the many duplications/ inefficiencies/extravaganzas of our federal system.
Nick Minchin is not the current Consul General for New York. He was appointed by Tony Abbott in 2014 to replace Steve Bracks, who was unceremoniously yanked from the position before he even had the time to take up his position in NY. The current CG for New York is Nick ‘Kermit’ Greiner (ex-Premier NSW who resigned after being embroiled in an ICAC investigation), another LNP Government appointee.
Good proposal but you don’t need the independent body to have veto powers, the shining of light will do the job in most cases.
That’s wishful thinking!
For the most part so-called independent bodies are at increasingly significant risk over time from stacking with sycophantic fellow travellers by the politicians of the day who seek to reward enablers, buy favour, undermine and pervert democratic institutions and processes, the rule of law, good governance, honest financial management et al for symbiotic personal and party gain.
One only has to consider Governments’ proclivities around the nation to reach such devastating and appalling conclusions. I believe that for many, possibly a significant majority, of our politicians this is what political power is all about – closely held private conversations and agreements behind closed doors and hardly ever, probably never, in the public pantomime of affected community concern and service acted out in in the chambers of our Parliaments around the nation.
We, the electors and tax payers, are responsible for the constant maintenance and replenishment of the significant number and diversity of troughs which attract those content to graze undisturbed off the public purse. I have ever decreasing faith in the efficacy of increased layering of watchdog bodies, their design, their tasking, their tightly defined operational spheres and resourcing all of which are in the gift of their recalcitrant and often self serving creators, those most open to the very abuses in public office we are all concerned about.
The old adage – “Where there is a will, there is a way.” – illustrates our dilemma. Our politicians have the thick hides, obviously have “the will”, they define “the way”, and they command the control gates and resources. Our unending task, in the colloquial words of Don Chipp, is to “Keep the Bastards Honest”, a task more enervating than meeting the annual tax bill and enduring the stream of platitudes showering us from day, to day, to day…..
ABC24 would have plenty of empty air time when Parliament is not sitting – ie most of the working year! – not to mention the many hours when it replicates ABC2.
If the ICAC enquiries were broadcast it would be must-watch TV – like Hayne’s banking enquiry.
BTW, whatever happened to the dozens of recommendations from that?
Perhaps Labor can’t find the keys to the archives where they were interred?
While senior public servants are not tenured, but on short term contracts, they will continue to do the minister’s bidding rather than act for the benefit of the public at large!
Just how the Government likes it.
Has Rip van Bernard been asleep “a public service is not as egregiously politicised as, say, the Commonwealth public service under Morrison, or the NSW public service under Labor…” for the last 11yrs?
I suppose it is a skill, being able to turn the Porkbarilaro story into a dig at Labor, but is it a necessary one?
Here? Over at SAD or Holt Street perhaps but we pay for this!
But NSW Labor corruption is why the NSW Libs are in instead, isn’t it?
Or is BK supposed to ignore the awfulness of the Vic Libs when questioning the Andrews Govt?
What about LNP corruption?
It’s too difficult to see through all the pork?