The accountability gap: why govt hides behind bureaucrats and advisory bodies

We've heard a lot from parliamentarians about independent people making the rules.

They key messages are "we, the pollies, don't make these rules" "they're made by independent people."

The inference being that they must therefore be fair and reasonable. Both of these responses are really just rubbish.

Our apparent affection for setting up committees or boards that are "independent" is one of the things that remains inexplicable to me. It is a ridiculous mistake on many occasions.

Independent of what? The Parliament you elect. Weird that we want people who are answerable to no one telling the Parliament we elect what it ought to do.

In a way, it also allows our parliamentarians and especially governments to avoid taking responsibility.

Independent means answerable to no one. The board and chief executive of a statutory authority or advisory body do not answer to the public.

They don't need to give a damn what we the people think. Having been appointed, many take it as confirmation of their wisdom and behave accordingly.

If Parliament, doesn't agree with their recommendations they might leak their advice to try and pressure the government into doing what they recommended (a common public service tactic).

The government who is answerable to us is far more likely than these independents and indeed public servants to know what you and I are prepared to accept. Why? Because we hire and fire them.

These independents don't suffer the fate of being fired. They're anonymous. They might, might care, but they never have to take responsibility.

We've all heard people saying "it was within the rules" or "we don't make the rules". But the truth is in the end the government does.

Independent advisers and public servants keep their jobs in any event. Their advice may be poor, ill informed, biased or whatever. The bottom line is if on implementation it hits the proverbial fan, none of these guys rush to the media and fess up.

Are you surprised that the words "it was us or me" are not words that come rolling off their tongues?

Put yourself on an independent advisory body. You can offer whatever advice you like. You will never have to answer to anyone if it all goes pear shaped. You might describe it as all care and no responsibility. The all care bit might be a gross overstatement. You don't have to give a damn. Have you seen the people who made these recommendations coming forward and defending them? Quelle surprise.

The idea of using independent advice also allows politicians to outsource responsibility. All too easy to say "independent advice" has concluded.

Sure mate, but you're the government, having considered the advice do you agree with it? These guys are appointed by governments.

Governments we elect should take responsibility. They should weigh up the advice and make the final decision.

No government should outsource the final decision. Get independent, expert advice, sure. But weigh it up along with the electorate's view and make the damn decision.

Bear in mind, the media have known these rules for ages.

The revelations, if you call them that, have been on record and available for media scrutiny. This isn't a sudden change in behaviour by the odd politician. Some of them have been using the opportunity offered over a period of time.

Might it be fair to publish the details of all those politicians with kids who could max out in the system but don't. Yes it would.

Why should they all be tarnished with the brush of a few? It was the same with the infamous gold card which entitled very long serving members to some post parliamentary travel. A few overused the entitlement, brought it into disrepute and it was cancelled.

That raises another separate aspect of this issue. Namely, what's legal versus what's fair and reasonable.

When we bought an apartment in Canberra, my husband was all for buying it in a way that would make the mortgage payments deductible.

It wouldn't be in my name and I would rent it from the legal owner, possibly Tony or a company or trust we set up. We didn't do it. Others did. My grandfather always said that if you'd be embarrassed reading about something you did on the front page of the Sunday papers then don't do it.

He understood that something might well be legal, that does not mean it's fair or reasonable or that it passes the pub test.

It might be mean, nasty, cheap, lacking in decency, the list goes on. It may nonetheless still be legal.

So the responses from pollies that their claim was within the rules or legal, doesn't impress. They still have an obligation as normal citizens, perhaps even more so as politicians to take from the taxpayer not just within the rules but within what is fair and reasonable.

You might say: "why have the rules?"

The answer is if the government can see the rules are outside of public acceptance, they should change them.

Any politician using the system should be capable of seeing what the taxpayer will make of the rules being maxed out.

If they choose to take that risk, that's their business and for them to answer for. Other families are separated because of work. I'm not sure that politicians should be treated so differently. However, one way to tighten them and see just how much it's about family reunion would be to limit the trips to Canberra in sitting weeks.

Don't imagine the pollies are alone. The electorate does the same thing in terms of taking what it can from the communal bucket.

We've forgotten, or at least pretend, that the dollars that come our way are from our fellow citizens.

READ MORE VANSTONE:

They run a business and pay tax, have a job and pay tax, buy stuff and pay GST, import stuff and pay duty. In the end, by both direct and circuitous routes, it's money from fellow citizens.

In a very real sense, it is not the government's money, it's ours.

So if you think it's fair enough that because you have the resources you can wangle your kid to get independent Austudy when a much less fortunate kid can't and you choose to plunge your families hand in to grab from that bucket you ought to think again. In my lifetime, relying on a handout from fellow citizens was what you did when every other avenue was closed. Now it's like doing the crossword.

To be fair part of the reason for that attitude is that we now pay out so much in benefits that those who can manage without are wondering why they should. Too much largesse has left those paying the bills just fed up and keen to get a share.

Sooner or later we are going to have a reckoning with ourselves.