Knowing who to abuse

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.