From children overboard to AWB and all
stops between, John Howard and his
ministers have been accused of perfecting the art of not being told what they
don’t want to know. Now a former insider has spilled the beans on how it
happens.

In New Matilda, we’re told how it’s been
done by Paul Barratt AO, former
Deputy-Secretary or Special Trade Representative in DFAT or the Department of
Trade 1977-91, Business Council executive director 1991-96, Secretary of the
Department of Primary Industries and Energy 1996-98 and Secretary of the
Department of Defence 1998-99.

Says Barratt: “The Cole Inquiry into the AWB is
partly about who knew what when and who should have known. If the Inquiry
manages to shed some light on the passage of information through Ministers’
offices then it will be more fortunate than the Parliament, because there is a
key group of players – Ministerial advisers – who are not examinable by
parliament. “

Space and copyright prevent a detailed
report on how ministers no longer hear what they don’t want to here, but the
concluding paragraphs of Barratt’s piece provide a clear example of why the
phrase “Westminster system” has become meaningless here. And it leaves one wondering
where and if the rot might ever stop:

In late 1998 I was directed by
the then Defence Minister to give him a comprehensive report on the history of
the Collins Class submarine and the matters that remained to be dealt with in
order to bring the submarines into naval service. It was appropriate for advice
on this subject to be signed by both the Secretary of the Department and the
Chief of the Defence Force (CDF).

The CDF and I prepared and signed
our joint advice and in early December I rang the Minister’s Chief of Staff to
say that I was sending it to the Minister in that morning’s deliveries. I was
asked not to. “Why not?” I asked.

“Because it mightn’t be what we
wanted, and if it got out that we had received it and sent it back to be
changed, that could be embarrassing for everyone. Just send it over
‘informally’, we’ll have a look at it, and if we need any changes we will get
back to you”.

I informed the CDF of this turn
of events and said that I was not prepared to play this sort of game. As the
Minister was visiting the Department in two days’ time, I decided to hand it to
him in person then.

The day came and I did just that – handed the advice to the Minister in the
presence of the CDF and the Minister’s Chief of Staff. This was 16 December
1998. It is a
sign of the world now occupied by some Ministers that, weeks later, on 21
January 1999, the Minister told Max Moore-Wilton that he was still waiting for
the report, and an article in The Age on 7 February 1999 referred to it
as something “soon due to be delivered”.

The rationalisation
for this position can only be that the advice was not sent through the
Department’s Ministerial Correspondence Unit, and was therefore provided
“informally”. So signed written advice handed from Secretary to Minister
in the presence of the CDF can still leave the Minister able to say that he has
not been told.