We learned on Monday morning that former investment NSW boss Amy Brown has now been sacked following the 13 recommendations Graeme Head made in his report into John Barilaro’s appointment to a lucrative overseas role.
Graeme Head found that Amy Brown failed to act in accordance with the Code of Ethics and Conduct for government sector employees. I don’t doubt that. But I think she has been made a scapegoat to cover up what has become widespread misconduct in public office by ministers and their advisers.
I base my assessment on 40 years’ experience, including 20 years in middle management, within the Australian and Victorian Public Services (APS and VPS). I have also worked as an economic consultant for multinational companies such as Ernst & Young (EY) and AECOM.
I believe the ALP never really recovered from what they perceived was deliberate bias against the Whitlam government by the Permanent Public Sector Heads, popularly known as mandarins, who ran the public service at the time of his government.
Consequently, subsequent Labor governments set about replacing those bureaucrats’ positions with departmental secretaries who were appointed by the government for fixed five-year terms. These changes were brought in alongside other administrative and financial improvements that were long overdue. In time, all of these changes have permeated every jurisdiction in Australia.
We have even seen this sort of shift occurring in Western-style governments overseas. It has generally gone hand-in-hand with the transition from a bureaucratic to a market-style public service culture, especially among delivery agencies.
While it is probably a good thing the mandarins of old are a thing of the past, their replacement by fixed-term appointees who serve at the beck and call of ministers has brought with it a whole new set of problems. No modern departmental secretary would dare provide ‘frank and fearless’ advice.
Ministers come into office with already formed ideas in their heads (some okay, but most cockamamie), and all they want from their senior public servants is rapid implementation and unwavering obedience. And, while the changes have generally been brought about by Labor governments, they have been maintained or even exacerbated by Liberal governments.
Take the East-West Link (EWL) road project that was approved by a Coalition Victorian government just weeks out from an election and then immediately scrapped by the in-coming Labor government at a cost to the taxpayer of $1 billion.
In his damning report on that incident, the Victorian auditor-general found the public service had failed to provide “frank and fearless” advice. Frank and fearless advice is the bedrock of our Westminster style of government and a key requirement of the codes of conduct for the public sectors of most if not all states and territories in Australia and the commonwealth. There is an explicit exception in the case of ministerial staff.
The Victorian auditor-general found that public servants had failed to act appropriately in relation to the EWL road project because they were in fear of their jobs. He found that, “From its inception to its termination, the EWL project was not managed effectively and it will become an important marker in the history of public administration in this state. This audit points out important and sobering lessons for government, the public officials who advise and serve it, and for taxpayers.”
That call was made in 2015 but was not been heeded. The auditor-general’s report lay on the table at parliament for the obligatory amount of time, attracted one comment in The Age newspaper, and disappeared from the public consciousness as fast it takes two neurons in the average person’s brain to fire.
We are now facing a considerably bigger project in the $30 billion Suburban Rail Loop (SRL) project, the projected costs of which have already doubled according to the independent Parliamentary Accounting Office.
By several measures, this project should be cancelled immediately but it was the brainchild of a now deputy premier and heir apparent (who, apparently, can do no wrong), supported by a so-called ‘independent’ consultants’ report, and which the Victorian Department of Transport rubber-stamped. Ironically, the same premier who cancelled the EWL road project is championing the SRL project, even though its benefit-cost ratio (BCR) is even lower.
The current Victorian Opposition has promised to scrap this project if it wins the upcoming election. While this is unlikely to happen, since the Liberal Opposition has a snowflake’s chance in Hades of winning this election, it would be truly ironic if it did!
This is truly what political ‘snafus’ are made of. You know, the likes of, ‘Weapons of Mass Deception’, ‘Children (not) Overboard’, ‘Pink (electrocuting) Batts’, and ‘Hotel (unapproved) Quarantine’.
I have ideas for replacing the current department secretaries who are appointed by the government with parliamentary officers who are appointed on a bipartisan basis. Not dissimilar to the way in which judges are appointed, except with a fixed-term appointment period of five years (renewable except in extenuating circumstances). But that is the stuff of another letter.
Finally, I note that Graeme Head joined EY’s strategy arm, Port Jackson Partners, as a partner in late July 2021, after having held a range of public sector leadership roles at the state and federal levels. You’ve got to love his commitment to upholding public sector values.
Most multinational consulting firms are not above hiring former high-ranking public officials precisely for the insider information they possess and/or their contacts among ministers and senior public servants.
While I am not saying that Graeme Head is compromised in this way, it is my opinion that someone at his level should be precluded from taking work that might potentially bring them into conflict with their old roles for at least five years (or more than one political cycle).
It is also my view that someone like Mr Head should not have been appointed to undertake this type of review.
Who knows what types of connections he might have made in his previous roles, and how this might have influenced his report? How do know that they were not quietly encouraged to effectively hang one high-level crony out to dry for the cause (only for them to be quietly resurrected down the track) than to expose the role of ministers and their advisers in the supposedly nefarious activities?
And where’s the natural justice? If someone at Ms Brown’s level can be dumped unceremoniously on the basis of a report that she has been unable to challenge in anything resembling a court of law, then what hope is there for the rest of us?
Amy Brown may have been sycophantic, she may also be a scapegoat whose fall from grace has been designed to obscure far greater travesties.
:
Any feedback or news tips? Here’s where to contact the relevant team.