4 PRIME MINISTER
POft MEDIA 16 MARCH 1990
Liberal-National Party public service changes would cost
taxpayers at least an extra 885 million a year.
Coalition public administration changes would also add
another 2,900 bureaucrats to the public payroll.
The extra costs and increased public service numbers would
result from disputes between the two parties over the carveup
of Ministerial responsibilities.
The Hlawke Labor Government has introduced sweepinig reforms
to public administration.
Public service numbers have been cut, savings have been made
in departmental amalgamations and the bureaucracy has been
forced to meet efficiency targets.
The inability of the Liberal and National Parties to work
together would force these unneeded bureaucrats onto the
public payroll.
Because of their " to the victor the spoils" attitude these
reforms and the savings to tnxpayern will be scrapped.
In an interview in " The Australian" on 18 January Mr Peacock
Indicated he favours returning to " a more traditional
system" with 25 or 26 Departments, compared to the current
number of 18.
While he claims our streamlined system hasn't worked, hie
produces no sensible supporting arguments.
Mr Peacock admits, for example, that the Foreign Affairs and
Trade merger has worked well, but sys he is nevertheless
looking at breaking it up.
From the interview just mentioned Mr Peacock said:
" I think the amalgamation ( of Foreign Affairs and
Trade) figs worked quite well the only one that ha;
worked quite well. In fact, I'd been an oeivocate of it
beforehand. But I have to say to you I nm inclinjed,
norwithutanding how well it's worked, to re-32tamine
whethtir it continues iti that vain".
1
2.
The reason for dismantling my Government's Departmental
amalgamations has nothing to do with considerations of
government effioiency. It has everything to do with
Coalition jealousies. Mr Peacock cannot manage a system
where a National Party Minister Is running a portfolio with
a Liberal Party Minister in support, or vice versa. it is
this and this alone which is driving him to increase
significantly the number of Departments.
Traditionally, in the Coalition, the Liberals have run
Foreign Affairs, and the Nationals have run Trade. They
cannot break the mould, no matter how beneficial the merger
has been for the country.
Australia's international trade objectives must be an
integral part of foreign policy. The recent Garnaut Report,
among numerous others, demonstrates the necessity of keeping
that linkage. And with the MTN Round drawing to a close
continuity is vital. How can Australia continue its high
MTN profile this year when the main bureacratic vehicle Is
being dismembered?
The Liberals' and Nationals wish to turn the clock back on
the boldest and best reform made In government
administration for decades.
The prevent machinery of government changes are demonstrably
working well in four key respects.
First, they have reduced overlap and thereby saved as at -the
end of the last financial year around $ 85 million and 2,900
Staff. They are not ALP figures they are figures from the
budget papers confirmed by the Department of Fina.... See
page 86, attached, of the 1988-89 Budget Paper No. 1: the
Department of Finance has now confirmed those figures)
To undo the changes would, on beat estimates, add these
costs and staff. However, It 1. s not possible to be more
precise because of the failure of the Opposition t~ o produsce
any evidence that I t has developed a cohiezrent plan fori Lhtt
public service.
As an example of the difficulty of breaking up Departments,
the Department of Employment, Education and Training has
amaf~ lgamated the regional offices which before our machinery
ot-Government changes were separate offices of two
Departments. Under the Liberal and National Parties
separate networks would need to be re-established.
The Department uses the Commonwealth Employment Service for
delivery of some student services ( eg Austudy) In a range of
locations that would not otherwise be available.
All Integrated Departments now have Integi-tted m~ anagemient
information systems that are very costly and disruptive to
replace. The costs of change have increased considerably
Since the era of the " quill pen"
3.
These costa are not picked up in the so called * Economic
Action Plan" and therefore make the Coalition's fiscal hole
exceed $ 7 billion.
Senond, having more than one Minister in a portfolio
enables the senior Minister to concentrate on major policy
and administrative issues and thus enhances Ministerial
control. This benefit would be lost by splitting up Departments. it
would be the reverse of the innovation and strategic
thinking in Government policy Australia needs now.
Third, our reforms have brought together in particular
portfolios broader perspectives and more coherence in policy
advice. For example, the Department of Transport and Communications
arose from an amalgamation of three Departments. Previously
they were lobbied by transport, aviation and communication's
interests respectively, and to a large extent were
' captured' by their constituencies. The combined Department
is now better able to see through narrow interests and
provide co-ordinated advice.
Fourth, the present administrative arrangements offer much
greater flexibility in portfolio operations, and reduce the
amount of disruption through constant change. This is
illustrated by comparing the number of Departments abolished
and created and the number of transfers of functions between
Departments in the Fraser government period with those under
my Government.
Under the previous Coalition government there were 148
substantial changes in a seven year period. In the first
four years of the Hlawke Government, 60 such changes were
made. In the two and a half years since the new machinery
was introduced in 1957, only six chnnges have bean made.
Mr Peacock wants to return to the disruptive and morale
breaking systems of the worst years of coalition government.
Previously there were too many Departments with common
policy interests competing with each other for influence and
cluttering up the policy making and Cabinet processes.
Thes restructuring in 1987 has contributed substantially to
reducing the load on the Cabinet system.
At the tine the new machinery was announced in Parliament on
September 1987, Mr Howard generally welcomed the changes
and particularly the concept of having more than one
Minister sworn to particular departments, describing it as
" a very sensible administrative change". He also spoke
positively of a number of the amalgamations and
consolidations made.
4.
Mr Howard said:
" The concept of having a number of Ministers sworn to
administer a particular department is certainly a
concept that the Opposition supports".
" The old idea that one had to create a shell department
in order to have another Minister performing in the
Same general. area as an existing Minister was an
anachronistic one. I am vary pleased indeed that the
Governm: ent ties been able to put that behind it".
" A number of the amalgamations and consolidations of
Departments that have bean announced by the Government
Ba also welcomed by the Opposition".
He haes spoken publicly since that time In general support of
the new arrangements. Clearly the former Leader felt
himself strong enough to be able to contemplate managing a
situation with Ministers from the different coalition
parties in the some portfolio.
In 19036 1 said I would put a stop to growth in the
Commonwealth public Hervice. Since then public service
numbers have fallen or remained utatic each year.
Numerous scrutinies have reduced public service numbers.
For exbnmple, savings of over 1. 000 have been due to changes
hII Pr0C-,& 8. nq of accounts, travel. the Fl rut flome Owners
Scheme, and pharmaceutical payments.
The Forward Estimates envisage staffing levels of 155, 297
in 1989-90 falling to 149, 352 in 1992-93.
Mr Peacock now seeks to reverse this trend.
A~ ll because he can't control inter-party bickering.
These are not matters of esoteric interest to people
involved in public administration, whether as practicioners
or specialist observers. They go to the heart of efficient
Government and to the development of policies relevant to
the national interest.
The public would pay a very high price for many Coalition
proposals in particular areas of policy. But the action it
would take on machinery of Government would cut away at the
very process of good government itself.
A