Sometimes its hard to get across why some of the more seemingly mundane announcements made by government are important. The idea that the Treasury has decided to create a Board to help run it might sound good. Get a bit of outside help in to make sure it is doing the right thing. Nothing wrong with that?
But when the Treasury Secretary John Whitehead slipped into a speech ten days ago that he was going to establish a “governance” Board with representatives of the “private sector” alarm bells rang for me.
Firstly, in the context of purchase advisors, politically appointed working groups on everything from tax to regulation, welfare to housing, a review of policy advice led by Graham Scott, the role of Murray Horn leading the National Health Board, this Board, and Tony Ryall’s enthusiasm that it could be used by the rest of the public sector this is clearly part of an agenda to fundamentally change our public sector. That change amounts to a privatisation of advice.
Why does this matter? It matters because our system of government is based on the idea that the public service will provide free and frank advice to Ministers. They are in effect the taxpayers representatives in making and implementing policy and ensuring the governments get the best advice possible. Privatising advice undermines that assumption of neutrality. Those Ministers are then responsible to Parliament and the public. Handpicked policy and governance groups can lead to governments hearing what they want to hear and to reducing accountability. And that will be bad for all of us in the long run.
If people think I am over dramatising this- take a look at the media release from Treasury yesterday. The role of the Board is described as “setting the strategic direction” for Treasury. John Whitehead has said he will only veto the group in ‘extremely rare’ circumstances.
Chris Eichbaum has a great article in the Dom Post today on this issue (not on-line as far as I can tell). As he says
We need responsive and responsible public servants. Injecting a new third element into our existing governance arrangements may well be a step too far. It is most certainly the kind of proposal that should be the subject of public scruitiny and debate- not just announced.
As Chris is alluding to, the process for establishing the Board is not good. There are no terms of reference, and we only have the vaguest idea of how they will work. Again John Whitehead said after his speech ten days ago that the Board will have “community and private sector” expertise. No sign of the community sector in the Board members announced yesterday. No sign of a voice for the vulnerable people who are most effected by Treasury’s policies.
I am certainly not against government agencies getting advice from the community and stakeholders. In fact I strongly support a closer connection between agencies and the people who use services. But not when it undermines the neutrality of public services and not when it is used to reinforce the agenda of one political party.
