Knowing who to abuse

In opinion polls, politicians usually rate down with used car salesmen and journalists in public esteem. Most of the deficiencies in society, real and imagined, are attributed to failures by politicians.

Australians also believe it is their absolute right to complain about them, while many also think they are entitled to subject them to abuse, online harassment, media criticism and public heckling. A few even threaten violence.

I know this because, for five years, I was a politician myself. Although I have also been a business owner for decades, those five years are sufficient, to many people, to make me always and forever a politician.

The abuse only originates from people who do not know me. It is very rare to be abused or threatened, on political grounds, by anyone with whom I have had a normal conversation. The abusers are not always anonymous (I've had death threats from people who include their name), but their venom is directed at someone they only know from the media: a politician.

That's not a complaint; my skin is thick. My point is that such amorphous criticism of politicians reveals a problem – many people do not know who is responsible for what they are complaining about, so they lash out at any politician in every direction.

If they knew more about how government operates, and how decisions are made, they would have a better idea of who to complain to. Moreover, their complaints might have some impact.

There are plenty of politicians who absolutely deserve to be criticised, but it is absurd to be criticising a politician who opposed a contentious decision or played no part in its adoption.

A good start is an understanding of the jurisdictions of our three levels of government – federal, state and local. An example of a lack of understanding is seen whenever there are bushfires, droughts or floods. This invariably prompts sharp criticism of the federal government (and leading federal politicians) for the lack of assistance, egged on by an ignorant media. Yet it is state governments that have primary responsibility for responding to these events, as they run all the emergency and volunteer organisations.

When it comes to taxes, complaining about state stamp duty to a federal politician is pointless, as is complaining about the GST to a state politician.

If complaints are to make a difference, they need to be directed at the people who make relevant decisions. The key is to know who they are.

A good place to start is government ministers, who usually introduce bills and regulations. Other culprits include members of the Cabinet who approved it, plus members of the governing party who voted in favour of it in parliament. Quite often there are also other members of parliament who voted in favour of it.

However, these are just the tip of the iceberg. Ministers are frequently persuaded to introduce new legislation by others, such as committees, lobby groups or other politicians. Following the money often helps to understand who is really responsible. Just look at the subsidies for wind and solar electricity.

But by far the main source of advice in relation to government policy is the public service. If the heads of a department are convinced of a particular course of action, they will repeatedly advise their minister to implement it. Once implemented, they will fiercely defend it. And because ministers come and go, while public servants do not, it is usually only a matter of time before they succeed.

A couple of examples show what I mean.

The Workplace Gender Equality Agency supposedly aims to improve gender equality in the workplace. However, all it does is collect income information from employers and compare the incomes of men and women in each employer and industry. It completely disregards the different choices made by men and women and simplistically argues that any gap is bad. I exposed this in interactions I had with the bureaucrats here and here.

The Agency is a ludicrous waste of taxpayers' money and should be abolished. However, gender equality is a sacred cow that cannot be challenged, even when it is based on stupidity, and its public servants are committed idealogues. It would take a minister with an unusually solid spine to take them on.

Another example is Australia's policy on vaping. In other countries, rates of smoking have fallen substantially as much less harmful nicotine alternatives, primarily vaping, have been adopted. Our Health public servants are convinced that vaping is a conspiracy by Big Tobacco and must be opposed at all costs. Using dodgy information, they have persuaded multiple Health Ministers that the rest of the world is wrong and they are right.

Criticising the ministers does not change anything; the only option is to identify the responsible public servants and direct any criticism at them. This can be done, but it requires some effort.

Every Commonwealth and State department has a website where the names of senior management can be found. They might only be in the Annual Report, but they are there somewhere.

Each Commonwealth and State department is also subject to interrogation at Budget Estimates. This is the process in which politicians quiz senior bureaucrats about how they are spending taxpayers' money. Some sessions are shown online, but the transcripts are always available. From these it is usually possible to identify which public servants are defending the indefensible.

I do not personally recommend abuse as a means of achieving change. It rarely works and, to me, implied the abuser was a not very smart. However, there is nothing wrong with informed, vigorous criticism. I often used it myself when I was a politician, and it sometimes forced ministers and public servants to offer arguments in support of positions they might have never previously considered. They probably would not admit it, but at least occasionally they even had second thoughts.

But none of that happens when the wrong person is abused.