Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Holding the 'experts' to account

By Alan Anderson - posted Friday, 27 May 2005

Though it is the resentment of the frustrated specialist which gives the demand for planning its strongest impetus, there could hardly be a more unbearable - and more irrational - world than one in which the most eminent specialists in each field were allowed to proceed unchecked with the realisation of their ideals. The Road to Serfdom, F.A. Hayek

Over the past several decades, governments in the developed world have delegated power to administrative and expert bodies to an unprecedented extent. In many more cases, credulous acceptance of "expert" advice in lieu of debate constitutes effective delegation. This trend, while inevitable, has accelerated to the point where it is undermining both democracy and freedom.

There are three underlying causes of delegation. I will illustrate them with examples from my home jurisdiction of Australia, but my conclusions apply equally elsewhere.


The first cause is the explosion of technology and innovation in almost all fields of human endeavour. To keep pace with the growing complexity of the world, governments have, of necessity, delegated authority in specific areas to expert bodies. For example, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority promulgates rules on aircraft safety.

The second cause is the desire to keep certain objective decisions free of the polluting influence of politics. For instance, most developed nations have given their central banks independence in setting monetary policy to ensure that irresponsible politicians cannot plunge us back into the inflationary spirals of the 70s.

The third cause is shirking of governmental responsibility. Rather than making and defending controversial decisions, politicians resort to "expert" bodies to provide political cover for their non-decisions. Naturally, delegation arising from the third cause is passed off as arising from the first and second causes.

There is a difference between, on the one hand, politicians setting out broad policies and leaving it to a delegatee to sort out the details and, on the other, politicians delegating to avoid the necessity of formulating a policy. The latter class of delegations frequently conceals unjustifiable government intervention in markets behind a façade of independent expertise.

Experts are not objective. Expert regulators are subject to capture by established interests. They are prone to empire-building, which encourages them to support additional regulation and the consequential increases of their resources. And individual experts frequently have barrows to push in their fields of interest.

A good example is broadcasting law. Australia allocates some radio and television spectrum, free of commercial licence fees, to community broadcasters, who often represent potent ethnic lobby groups. As demand for spectrum outstrips supply, allocation by the Australian Broadcasting Authority is based upon "the existing and perceived future needs of the community" and "the nature and diversity of the interests of that community".


The idea that a regulator can better assess the radio and television interests of the community than a simple auction of spectrum is both laughable and, to anyone who has suffered through an hour of community television, demonstrably wrong.

Another example is the Industrial Relations Commission. The government has outsourced the politically sensitive setting of the minimum wage under Australia's awards system to a quasi-judicial body. The proposition that any authority could make a depoliticised decision over wage levels is naïve, as blatant political stacking of the Commission has shown. Reconciling competing interests in this area is clearly a political function. Yet the system lends a fig leaf of credibility to what would otherwise be a naked example of rent-seeking by organised labour.

Expert bodies can also be used as cover for unjustifiable government subsidy. Grants to the arts administered by the Australia Council, a body populated by arts "experts". Imagine the Arts Minister, deprived of this political cover, explaining to taxpayers why he thought it worth allocating thousands of their hard-earned dollars to pay someone to prance around a stage naked and smeared in paint.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

Article edited by Kelly Donati.
If you'd like to be a volunteer editor too, click here.

First published in Tech Station Central on May 18, 2005.

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

3 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Alan Anderson was a senior adviser to Treasurer Peter Costello and Attorney-General Philip Ruddock. He has previously worked as a lawyer with Allens Arthur Robinson and a computer systems engineer with CSC Australia. He currently works as a management consultant in Sydney.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Alan Anderson

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 3 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy