John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of all the ways in which the Howard government has betrayed the better interests of this country, few are nastier than the corrupting nepotism with which it has manipulated senior appointments to the boards of Commonwealth statutory authorities. The Howard government has ruthlessly stacked many of these boards with political cronies and hacks. The main qualification is not merit; it is political empathy and a willingness to toe the government’s line. The public interest in the efficient and proper working of statutory authorities that have been specifically established to operate with significant degrees of independence from ministers has been subverted by this government’s determination to exercise direct or indirect control.

This is a program of jobs for the boys and girls that is unprecedented in the history of the Federation, and we are all the poorer for it. In few places has it been worse than the ABC, an organisation in which independence from political influence is critical. Here, the elevation of the self-proud, right-wing political warriors Janet Albrechtsen, Ron Brunton and Keith Windschuttle is particularly odious. But there is more to object to than mere political partisanship in the case of this unholy trinity. Prior to their appointments, they all distinguished themselves by anti-ABC campaigns that went well beyond mere criticism and betrayed a sourpuss dislike for the organisation, a dislike bordering on contempt. For example, last year Mr Windschuttle said that he thought the ABC should be commercialised in order to break what he thought was its ‘Marxist culture’—whatever that might mean. Such views sit ill with the responsibilities of members of the ABC board, as set out in the enabling legislation of the ABC. But, of course, there is more. Apart from their strong partisan politics and their extrovert antipathy towards the ABC, this trio has had no apparent previous experience in the administration of large organisations. So that is three strikes against them—an unfortunate trifecta in more ways than one.

But the ABC is just the tip of a dirty iceberg. The politicisation of statutory appointments under the Howard government has become widespread, and it stretches well beyond the ABC. Take, for example, Professor Flint’s time on the Australian Broadcasting Authority and the disastrous appointment of Mr Gerard to the board of the Reserve Bank. As Pamela Williams wrote in the Australian Financial Review in 2004: ‘This is Howard’s empire, and the men and women appointed to positions of power and influence across the country form a conservative river as deep as it is wide.’

Things have not improved in the last couple of years; they have got worse. Still, the government has largely got away with it. That is because the Howard government has cloaked the procedures for making senior appointments in the utmost secrecy. Still, the Prime Minister makes the extraordinary claim that his is the most accountable government in Australia’s history. We all know, to the contrary, what the government’s record on the appointment of statutory officers shows. It shows that the Prime Minister is not interested in accountability and proper public administration. Rather, he is interested in what he can get away with.

What can and should be done by a government prepared to put the national interest ahead of its partisan desire to maintain control by stacking its administrative agencies with political proxies capable of continuing to advance its interests long after electors have given it the thumbs down? Some clues are to be found in a recent paper by Professor Meredith Edwards of the University of Canberra entitled Appointments to public sector boards in Australia: a comparative assessment. In the paper, Professor Edwards, who has been a deputy secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, provides an outline of developments in the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand, where, she says:

… governments have recently felt the need to enhance public confidence in the integrity of the political processes around public sector appointments.

Among other things, Professor Edwards considers the response of the government of the United Kingdom to various reports of that country’s Committee on Standards in Public Life. What a mountain of work such a committee would have in Australia as a result of the various injuries the Howard government has visited upon ordinary decency and honesty in public affairs. Perhaps some of this could be outsourced to the United Kingdom committee to take up any possible slack in its own work schedule.

As a result of her survey, Professor Edwards concludes:

... in terms of public board appointment processes, there is an anomaly as Australia clearly lags comparator countries.

That is to say, not only are the Howard government’s habits crook; they are worse than those in other countries that we would usually judge ourselves against. In the United Kingdom, Professor Edwards reports, some of the findings of the Committee on Standards in Public Life led to the creation of a Commissioner for Public Appointments. The commissioner monitors, regulates and oversees senior appointments processes for positions akin to those on statutory authority boards in Australia.

Shortly after its establishment, the commissioner’s office promulgated a number of principles to govern ministerial appointments to public sector boards. Professor Edwards summarises these: ministers remain ultimately responsible for making all appointments; all appointments should be based on merit and equal opportunity; no appointment should be made without it being scrutinised by a panel independent of the ministers and their departments; members of public boards must be committed to public service values and principles; there should be openness and transparency in the processes for making appointments; and the appointment process should be appropriate for the nature of the posts being filled. As a consequence, Professor Edwards says, the system in the UK:

... requires appointments to be advertised and a shortlist to be compiled by a panel that includes or is overseen by an independent assessor. While the final decision on appointment still lies with the relevant minister, the processes that have been established reduce the scope for cronyism by increasing the probability that such decisions will be publicly exposed.

Of course, public exposure is not enough in itself. The Howard government’s appalling record on appointments is forever being exposed, and the standards of public life are further degraded. I acknowledge that few seem to care about this—but they should. Political patronage is no way to see that citizens get the best from their agencies of government.

In 2005 a further report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life found that the system introduced in the 1990s was working relatively well but there were significant weaknesses, including ministerial intervention, in the assessment processes and problems associated with conflicts of interest. Despite these weaknesses, Professor Edwards says:

... the UK appointment system has provided a framework for change that is generating more robust and transparent processes. It deserves closer attention by the Australian Government ... as it offers a means of enhancing accountability and rigour in public processes which could assist in improving the performance of, and building confidence in, government institutions.

Here, then, is an opportunity for the Howard government to do something unmotivated by the usual gamut of base political instincts. It is a chance for it to show a bit of genuine leadership. Sure, it might mean sacrificing the present scope for political patronage, but a broadly applicable system that would enhance the prospects of merit appointments through the use of open and accountable methods, and so promote the better working of its agencies, surely has something going for it.

In some cases, vacancies in statutory positions are now advertised and ministers are provided with merit based advice on who should be appointed. This happens, for example, with positions on primary industry statutory authorities—a legacy of John Kerin, when he was the Minister for Primary Industries in the Hawke government. Unfortunately, such open processes are not generally used for positions where independence is more critical—like the ABC. So here is a chance for the government to put merit and the better working of government agencies ahead of the temptations to reward the political faithful, a chance to do the country as a whole a favour. It would not take much. It would be a good start if, firstly, all vacancies on statutory authority boards could be advertised, unless there were compelling reasons for not doing so—that is to say, the present limited arrangements could be broadened; second, applicants could be considered by an advisory panel, independent of ministers’ departments, including the claims the minister wished to have assessed; third, ministers or the cabinet remained responsible for final decisions on appointees, after receiving advice from the advisory panel; and, fourth, if an appointee was not included on a list of candidates who were assessed as suitable, the relevant minister could explain why such a selection had been made.

Why should this be too much to ask? The present arrangements are just not good enough. They lag far behind those of the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand. We deserve a system that will better minimise the appointment of the unsuitable, like Professor Flint and Mr Gerard, and those who undermine confidence in the much-needed independence of authorities, like Ms Albrechtson and Messrs Brunton and Windschuttle at the ABC. There might not be many votes in this, but we have come to a pretty pass if that is to be the only basis upon which governments are to act. I urge the government to turn from its present lamentable habits and give us a scheme for the appointment of public officials that is worthy of the importance of the role of those public officials.