How to deliver a 'world class' public service

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?