How to deliver a 'world class' public service

Introduction

The new Crisafulli LNP Queensland Government has come to office with the promise to establish a "world class public service".

That is fine, but we don't know what that means and neither probably does the new government. It has not released any detailed policy papers about what it proposes to do to achieve a "world class public service". There are not any details about how it will tackle the politicisation of our public institutions and overcome the problems about the lack of integrity as identified by the Coaldrake Review of Culture and Accountability in the Queensland Public Sector's (Coaldrake 2022).There are also issues like Queensland's current compulsory preferential voting system which the LNP wants to replace. How is that to be achieved without looking like a partisan motivated move?

While the LNP Government has promised that "jobs are safe" for the bulk of public servants, it has already sacked ten of the twenty-two departmental heads inherited from the previous government and is quickly installing its own appointees. The "now it's our turn" syndrome of putting LNP appointees in the top jobs is clearly underway. Can that process be improved?

The issue is both clarifying what a "world class public service" means in practice and how it is to be achieved along with other needed reforms?

What previous Non-Labor governments did – the failure of Audit Commissions

Both the previous Borbidge Coalition (1996-8) and Newman (2012-15) LNP governments appointed special audit commissions to review government administration. Such commissions had been employed by the Victorian Kennett Liberal governments (1992) and the first Howard Government (1996-8) (Jones and Prasser 2013). The incoming Abbott Coalition Government also appointed a National Commission of Audit.

While these bodies had a wider remit they were largely stalking horses for public sector cuts rather than public administration renovation. The one appointed by the Newman Government with former federal Liberal Treasurer, Peter Costello as chair, was especially seen as being politically driven to justify cuts and not really an independent review. Consequently, for these and other reasons, audit commissions as a mechanism of independent review have fallen out of favour even among incoming non-Labor governments.

Certainly. Premier Crisafulli has made no mention of reviving the audit commission instrument. He did not want to scare the public service horses and repeat the mistakes of the Newman Government in that regard.

The issue, then, if not an audit commission, how will the new LNP Administration achieve overdue government renovation without it seeming to be just another government seeking to make changes for political advantage? Will it just be a range of ad hoc, one-off reviews with little attempt to develop a more cohesive approach with a clear open process?

Bring back EARC

One suggestion is to revive the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission (EARC).

EARC was a recommendation of the 1989 Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into corruption. Its task was to review all aspects of Queensland's public administration because a major thrust to the Fitzgerald Report was its criticism of Queensland's system of executive dominated government, weak parliamentary system, excessive secrecy, outdated public service arrangements and related issues.

What was EARC?

EARC established in 1990, was a statutorily based body under the Electoral and Administrative Review Act 1989 passed by the then National Party Government. It was headed by a highly regarded commissioner, Tom Sherman, a former Commonwealth Crown Solicitor.

EARC was supported by a competent but small staff. Some were seconded from the public service and supplemented by consultants and academics. EARC was not meant to be a permanent body, but was to review a wide range of areas, report and then disband.

EARC was a unique Australian body. As Tom Sherman (Sherman 1990: 3) noted at the time:

I can think of no other body, certainly in a Westminster system, which has such a wide-ranging mandate to inquire into parliament, electoral system, local government, and public administration.

Sherman's assessment still holds true today.

What did EARC do?

In essence EARC's brief was to review the:

• Legislative Assembly's electoral system
• operation of the Parliament
• public administration of the state
• local authority electoral system
• local authority administration

In terms of process EARC sought to "apply the highest standard of good public administration …its reports must be of the highest quality. Its operational, personnel and management practices must have high integrity" (Sherman: 3). EARC developed a clear agenda of projects, employed open processes involving extensive public consultation, workshops, and developed draft and then final reports with clear recommendations. Its operations were overseen by the Parliamentary EARC Committee which generally operated on bipartisan lines.

As the National Party Government that established EARC fell from office in December 1989, all of EARC's reports were made to the new Goss Labor Government.

In just over two years EARC produced:

• 21 issues papers
• 23 reports including full state and local government redistributions
• received 5,000 public submissions
• held 13 public seminars
• held hearings throughout the state
• drafted new bills and subordinate legislation
• presented state and local government electoral redistributions

The issue papers covered these topics: freedom of information laws; public sector auditing; parliamentary committees; review of administrative decisions; codes of conduct; government media units; pecuniary interest registers; donation laws; whistleblowers; electoral systems; political donations, reviews of auditing; reviews of parliamentary committees; media units in government; Attorney General independence (see EARC 1993 for full list).

EARC's reports reflected open public processes and were noted for not just their high quality, but also their practical recommendations. It has been assessed that 80 per cent of EARC's recommendations were accepted and implemented while many others were only slightly modified. New legislation flowed. As Professor Ken Wiltshire (1992: 265) wrote, "EARC has been a model organisation in terms of administrative reform". It was efficient, inexpensive, and its reports a benchmark in practicality and quality.

By 1993 EARC had completed all its prescribed tasks and was wound up by the Goss Government as was originally envisaged. Nevertheless, some thought it should have continued. It was getting in the way of a government that wanted to move on from the Fitzgerald Report and start governing more on its own policy agenda (King 1995). There was also strained relations with new key permanent bodies like the Public Sector Management Commission established by the Goss Government but were not a recommendation of the Fitzgerald Inquiry.

Professor John Wanna of Griffith University (1995: 167) best summed up the situation:

… the decision to abolish the Commission was perhaps taken too soon by those who were not particularly anxious for EARC to remain. Pressure arose from many sources including the Premier, the Labor Caucus, the Parliamentary Committee, government departments, and other review bodies … and by making such a decision foreclosed debate whether there was a longer-term role for a body such as EARC. It is unfortunate that the decision cannot be revisited.

Why a new EARC now?

Now is the time to revisit that decision and revive EARC. A new government has come to office after a considerable time in opposition. It is time, as we were told during the recent election campaign, for "a fresh start". Much has gone awry in Queensland's system public administration requiring review, renovation and modernisation. Piecemeal changes are not the answer. Queensland's whole system needs a systematic review. EARC is the way to do it. EARC was a model institution. If any government wants to build a "world class public service" it could do no better than to rekindle the EARC to help it achieve its goals and to ensure any changes gains public support.

What might a new EARC do?

A new EARC could start with a series of papers to implement the aforementioned Coaldrake Review's fourteen recommendations. Progress on these proposals has been slow. A new EARC could assess how they might be implemented and at the same time revalidating their worth.

Other areas EARC could review include:

• permanency in the public service
• senior staff and other position appointment processes
• central public service personnel agency
• electoral voting systems
• review of Fitzgerald reforms
• departmental structures
• ministerial staffing

As the government has a four-year fixed term it has time to manage this process well. So to proceed the Crisafulli Government needs to:

• develop legislation for the new body;
• appoint a chair and members with impeccable credentials;
• establish parliamentary oversight committee;
• set a clear agenda and priorities.

There is no reason why the new EARC could not be as expeditious, cost effective, and efficient in delivering its reports as its predecessor.

If successful the Crisafulli Government might even consider retaining EARC on a part time basis to be activated with certain sensitive issues need and independent review. It would be a Westminster first!

Conclusions

Queensland has a ready-made instrument of reform at its disposal – EARC. It worked well in the past and was discarded too quickly by governments eager to reassert unfettered executive government control. It just needs a government with a real commitment to reform to revive the EARC instrument at this important juncture in Queensland's pollical and electoral cycle.

Wouldn't be a change for Queensland to be setting an example for the rest of Australia about how to modernise government in such an open way?