Government is not a business; if it were there would be no need for it. It is important for government not to be profligate, to run efficiently and to be innovative, but there is a broader public interest which overrides all that the public service does which of its nature results in “”inefficiencies” that the private sector would not tolerate. That public interest is hard to define, but it includes things like fairness, equity and diligent accounting for public funds.
The new head of the ACT Public Service, John Walker, in a speech this week gave such emphasis to the private-sector corporate ethos that there might be a danger that the overriding public interest might be overlooked.
Mr Walker is right to be concerned about excess staff, inefficiencies, unbalanced budgets and debt and to initiate steps to deal with them. The public will benefit from that. He goes to far when he says the ACT should be run like a corporation rather than a traditional public service. He emphasised management and entrepreneurial innovation over administration. He said, “”We don’t need secretaries, deputy secretaries, first assistant secretaries and so on. We need directors and managers and chief executives _ people who can be held accountable for directly delivering services in line with the Government’s agenda.” He referred to Ministers as directors of the board of Corporation ACT.
The trouble with this approach is that a corporation is solely concerned with profit. Profit is its raison d’etre. Moreover, to suggest that the head of departments (Mr Walker’s chief executives) are answerable only to the directives of the ministerial “”board” is a dangerous misconception of the nature of a liberal democracy. It conveniently ignores the rule of law. It ignores a public servant’s responsibility to the public and the public good. These are, of their nature, nebulous concepts. But they are important.
A further point is that Mr Walker’s model _ making public servants solely accountable to Corporation ACT _ ignores the principle that public servants are also answerable in some cases to the will of the Parliament. In a situation of probably permanent minority government the Walker model is not especially apt.
Mr Walker wants to encourage public servants to be more innovative and entrepreneurial. This, of course, necessitates risk. Risk is fine in a corporation. A corporation seeking high returns will take greater risks, knowing that the penalty for failure is greater loss. The results of that sort of conduct are demonstrated in the bottom line, with the ultimate price being bankruptcy. It is not an appropriate model for the public sector, because the public sector cannot go broke.
This is not to condone sloth, but top promote public care. In a corporation, directors can dispense with process and openness of tendering and can take short cuts because it is dealing with its own money.
Mr Walker, had some other worthwhile messages. The ACT must remove some of the work practices and industrial relations impediments inherited from the Commonwealth at self-government in 1989. He is also right to put the ACT on accrual accounting and to establish a full assets register; these are important elements in public accountability. The Government could start with an overall land account.