news, latest-news

Of all the wars ignited by the late Abbott government, the one on "red tape" got off to a rocky start. It promised "deregulation units" in all departments; that is, more regulation in the cause of less regulation. Even sillier was a threat to link regulation reductions to secretary and senior executives' performance agreements and pay, a move that would have chagrined those in immigration and national security who, at the behest of ministers, have been laying on "red tape" with a trowel. No doubt affected by the short-lived, hard-to-recall flush of optimism after the election of the Abbott government, the then secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Ian Watt, tried to provide some in-principle guidance as to how to slash and burn "red tape's" smothering confines. He said "we are moving to ... a presumption against regulation". Duh! Regulation has been central to modern government since its invention thousands of years ago in China. Government exists essentially to regulate the behaviour of individuals and entities in order to promote the common good. There's plenty of scope to debate just how far this should go, but a "presumption against regulation", in effect, is a presumption against government. Some of this mess is now being cleared up. In March 2015, the Secretaries Board set up an "independent review of whole-of-government internal regulation" and engaged a former senior executive of PM&C, Barbara Belcher, to do it. She was asked to define a set of regulatory principles, suggest regulations that might be removed or modified, and consider minimum levels of regulation and the related "culture" of departments and agencies. Belcher presented her report to the Secretaries Board in October and it accepted all of its 134 recommendations, noting that some would require consideration by government. A 100 per cent strike rate. No reviewer could hope for more. The review appears to have been organised through the Finance Department – not a bad vantage point as it is the author of much regulation, some of which is no doubt useful. The review report was released in early November accompanied by an excited media release from Finance's secretary, Jane Halton – titled, I'm afraid, "Secretaries ready to rid the red" – in which she said the review was "an opportunity to improve public sector agility". Perhaps Belcher, whose report is well written, clear and short on cliches, could be brought back for a further review on how senior officials could be weaned away from the use of corny, pejorative language. Pass the sick bag, Jane, please. The report comes in two volumes. A shorter one with recommendations and summary analysis and a longer one with a fuller "assessment of key regulatory areas". Belcher finds that regulation can be overdone, inefficient, unclear, risk-averse and it can produce myths. Indeed, it can. She recommends five principles for "internal regulation" – that it be: The greatest reductions in regulation are said to be in things like: removing baseline staff security clearances; cutting back on duplicated information collection; moving more work online; electronic tabling of reports for Parliament; reducing property, fraud and financial reporting requirements; greater use of sample templates, processes, contracts and guidelines; and so on. In response to the review, the Secretaries Board has agreed to what is called "a set of actions to be implemented within entities", including: In Belcher's consultations with agencies, the current regulations for remuneration fixing and enterprise bargaining came in for a bit of a hiding. Some complained that these "restricted their ability to be competitive in the labour market" and that "the current model should be examined as future efficiency offsets may impact on the sustainability of entities". What a surprise. Belcher is too polite to make any recommendations relating to these complaints and to do so might have taken her outside her terms of reference. The sensible response is obvious enough. The public service as a whole should be treated as the enterprise for industrial relations purposes, and pay and major conditions should be the subject of a single enterprise agreement based on what is necessary to maintain a reasonably competitive position in the labour market. It's taken far too long for this simple truth to sink in. While Belcher's report is concerned with "internal regulation" and not the grand variety evident in such things as taxation, immigration, company regulation and the criminal code, all seek to promote the public interest as that is mediated through public sentiment and politics. Thus, Belcher points out several times the general interest of governments and ministers in the areas she has examined. This should be kept to the fore. A critical point is how much risk can be tolerated. Belcher says: "An entity's appetite for risk can be set satisfactorily only by senior management." That's fine so long as "senior management" is taken to include ministers, for it is they who must set the tone and in some cases they will wish to determine specific risk limits so as to minimise the prospects of political pain. For example, when the House of Representatives' previous speaker took a helicopter ride that offended public sensibilities, she had to fall on her sword and a review was established, the end product of which will almost certainly be more elaborate regulations. Further, a minor kerfuffle over public servants' overseas travel apparently caused the Abbott government to require all cases to be approved by departmental secretaries – so much for its war on regulation. Belcher says: "The media might be an ever-present hobgoblin but the lifespan of its reports is increasingly short and the content not always worthy of a reaction." When it comes to public sensitivity about officials travelling overseas, however, a minor matter if ever there was one, reaction can be difficult to avoid. That is, politics will often fix the limits of risk and they must be assessed by ministers, not officials. In general, Belcher's report is an excellent corrective to some of the guff on regulation evident in the early days of the Abbott government. She warns against a "red tape reduction industry", so no deregulation units in all agencies, and rather than "presumption against regulation" her report talks about avoiding it where it is unnecessary. It's now up to ministers and their departments and agencies to do what they can. Finally, it is pleasing to report that the word "agile" doesn't get much of a run in Belcher's report. This word is being far too freely used, misused and abused. It's become the latest inane cliche in modern management. For example, the Public Service Commissioner, John Lloyd, says "agile employees are flexible, adaptive and innovative. They work well with people and are customer-focused. They understand it is better to embrace change rather than resist it." What a load of absolute twaddle. Agile means being quick moving, nimble and active – nothing more. A person can be all those things and be as inflexible and unable to adapt as billy-o, irritate people to distraction, be as good with customers as Basil Fawlty and hate change. Not even public service commissioners should ascribe meanings to words they do not have. As George Orwell pointed out, "the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts". Let's drop "agile" like a hot spud. Paddy Gourley is a former senior public servant. pdg@home.netspeed.com.au

https://nnimgt-a.akamaihd.net/transform/v1/crop/frm/silverstone-ct-migration/ba6925aa-ebd4-4e54-80e4-36fdee880902/r0_310_1480_1146_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg