Holding the 'experts' to account

This approach to government also has implications for technological progress. For instance, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator controls all dealings in genetically modified organisms in Australia. Without a doubt, GM technology raises complex scientific questions. But the underlying debate over the "precautionary principle" requires no qualifications to understand. By abdicating responsibility to a regulator, government avoids the necessary task of confronting the neo-Luddite movement.

The regulator was established by a GM-friendly government and is relatively sympathetic to industry. But even where short-term tactical victories emerge (for example, the approval of commercial GM canola crops), the strategic battle is being lost: the "need" for GM regulation is conceded by the mere existence of such a regulator, which will hardly question its own raison d'être. When political winds change, the regulator will become an agent of GM opponents, invested with the authority of expertise which GM proponents have conferred upon it.

In short, the use of delegation to abdicate responsibility in controversial areas invites unnecessary regulation, not to mention capture of the delegatee by established interests. To be sure, these problems can affect elected legislatures also. But the democratic process, combined with the public's healthy scepticism towards politicians, provides a check in that context. This check is wholly absent when dealing with "expert" bodies that, like the medieval church, shroud themselves in the mysticism of their arcane knowledge.

The trend towards delegation is irreversible, as much of it is the necessary consequence of society's increasing complexity. Cognisant of the growing power of expert bodies, we must therefore develop more effective mechanisms to hold them to democratic account.