Another great article and a timely reminder that the public service needs to be overhauled so that the decisions taken as our economic system crumbles aren't based entirely on political dogma, let alone the neo-con mantra of the political party we voted out of office.

It will, of course, be interesting to see if Rudd does have the courage to instigate change from within. I'm not holding my breath. After the latest admission that the acquisition of the Super Hornet is to go ahead I have my doubts. It is more than apparent that Australia's Defense acquisition program has more to do with shoring up the US economy than it has to do with protecting Australia.

The Public Service has developed a bunker culture mentality. No doubt they are reeling from the threats imposed by the previous Government and the Haneef and Rowe affairs illustrate how they are hamstrung - too frightened to say something than is political incorrect.

Dismantling the past will take some effort and courage. The Liberals in opposition are still coming to terms with that legacy while the ex-PM is off around the world telling anyone stupid enough to listen that the Australian electorate was so dumb that they actually voted him out. Howard is a loose canon and has the potential to cause more damage to Australia than any economic meltdown.

Rudd, I accept, is looking ahead - well he might. As a result he may let the wreckage of the past lie where it has fallen and compiled it to the dustbin of history as time and circumstance permit. The senior public servants have probably signed 5 - 10 years agreemants with lots of penalty clauses should they be 'released' earlier which means an overhaul of the PS will be excruciatingly slow. Another legacy of Howard.

Still - there is a fresh team at the helm and they have something to prove, not only to themselves, but to the electorate.

One point about a specific paragraph:

Indeed, just what ARE all these new military accessories going to be used for? Are we planning to go to war more often than we have in the past 20 years (excluding the current 'adventures' in the Middle East)?

As an ex-public servant, I can assure you that it is the public service which runs things, irrespective of the political party in power.

People who thought they were going to achieve something by complaining to a Minister didn't know that somebody in the relevant department drafted a letter for the Minister, which he signed. End of story.

On 'billie's' comments re our "crumbling economy", who are we to blame for that? The economy was not an issue at election time, so why would it be an issue now? Rudd proclaimed himself and economic rationalist, which is what Howard was supposed to be, and the economy over the decade or so of the Howard Government was the best it has ever been

I do worry that Howard-inspired Hoovering (in both senses of the word) of information from the most intimate origins will accumulate in the hands of some unaccountable individual or entity. What un-democratic leverage can be, undetected, exerted from that!! John Winston Howard has speeded us along that direction – has Rudd the guts to get us off it?
Leigh says “the economy over the decade or so of the Howard Government was the best it has ever been”. If that critera is based upon the rate of consuming natural and social resources, it is true. Those who yearn to own their first home, and have concerns regarding depleted future prospects, might prefer a different basis for judgment.
Independent advice, and compliant implementation is desirable, and probably reached its peak in Nugget Coombs. But it was not always embedded in past administrations. A member of the staff of Black Jack McEwan commented to me about her unhappiness at being instructed to prepare election material for his individual benefit. And later, only on the individual's retirement did we find that Treasuary advice was coming from someone yearning for Joh Bjelke Petersen to run the country – a sobering thought for the more rational. At least, from the evidence to date, we are warned and have a fair idea that the Commonwealth Government bureaucrats presently at the helm would not be there if they, generally, had not been prepared to provide the Government at the time of their appointment with assessment results it wanted rather than the impartial information it needed. But that leaves a tough suspicion on those who have done their damndest to serve as thorough professionals.

Lots of questions in this article but not one solid answer provided. Why was the public service so ineffectual?

read your constitution, you'll be amazed that anything gets done.

the australian people don't deserve anything better, any more than sheep in a paddock deserve a jacuzzi. they let themselves be ruled by a group of people who demonstrate no claim to sainthood, but merely claim to be less bad than the other mob.

"you get the government you deserve", if you vote for it.

the quality of the government is an accurate reflection of the national character: faced with the choice of one from two gangs of grifters, they do choose, and go back to the racing guide for another three years. the oz intelligentsia, aptly styled 'chatterati', talks on but being powerless and inexperienced, never thinks to suggest a better system. learn from the past? this is the mob that listened to joh b-p say "don't you worry about that!" for 20 years. all they learned was that politics was not for the likes of them.

"why was the public service so ineffectual?" because "australian democracy" is not democracy.

but you're not going to learn anything. it's too convenient to just blame the pollies for being pollies, the public servants for being bureaucrats. heaven forfend that the oz people should realize that everyone looks out for themselves, and the people have to rule oz, if the people want oz to be run for the people.

no, instead we'll just have a good whinge, and then tug a forelock when a politician walks by.

Bruce Haigh wrote:

"Howard’s wilfully selfish desire to use the instruments of state to maintain his hold on power"

Fascism, anyone?

Just look at the police-state legislation he brought in for the answer to that question.

You would get a far, far better Public service if Public Servants were not permitted to vote,
No one who is directly hanging off the public purse should be allowed to vote.
Undemocratic I hear you shout ? Well, just as democratic as having half the working population paying taxes to keep the public servants in better conditions than those who pay for them.
These conditions are not noticeable in mainstream but in remote communities they really are obvious. The Governments offer very handsome packages for bureaucrats to go Bush for 2 years & then hand over to another bureaucrat just as ineffective & expensive to keep.
What Governments don't realise is that these people apart from not being needed cause too much disruption & are the prime cause for the status quo.
How can any small community ever expect to be a cohesive social group when it is being overun by transients who can't wait to leave.

Under Howard public servants became yes men - no more frank and fearless advice. Where were the public servants to warn Howard about the impact of WorkChoices, WMDs/Iraq or purchase of the Super Hornets?

They were cowering in their offices too afraid to speak for being branded dissenters, and heaven help anyone who might want to whistle blow or gain access to documents under FOI. Any who did speak out (Andrew Wilkie, Lieutenant Colonel Lance Collins et al) faced major impacts on their lives. Even Mick Keelty was told to 'shut up' re his comments that the invasion of Iraq contributed to the risk of terrorism.

Public servants don't run the country, nor should they. They implement and administer the programmes and policies of the incumbent government. Even if they draft a letter on behalf of a Minister the Minister will not sign unless happy with the content. The content is based on the policies developed by that government.

It would be impossible for a Minister to read and respond personally to every piece of mail that is sent - there are thousands. A good public servant will isolate the sensitive ones and ensure the others receive responses or are referred to the appropriate agency. This is the norm and has been under every government with some variation and individual preferences.

Personally I would never waste my time writing to a Minister except my own MP. There is more chance that they can represent you to the relevant Minister but you will still get a variation on a pro-forma reply based on the government's stance. It will be spin and rhetoric to justify their own position.

On a positive note I have witnessed where there has been real assistance offered to people in difficulty due to their letters and this does make being a public servant worthwhile. It is a bit of luck of the draw. If you can contact a bureaucrat who is not just a mouthpiece and has some sense of responsibility to the public, they can sometimes offer real help.

Anyone with a complaint about the federal (and state) public services should go back 20 years or so and look at the changes that were made then by Labor governments to the way that heads of department and other top-level bureaucrats were appointed. In WA, they were short-term political appointments which seriously damaged the independence and objectivity of the public service. Anyone complaining now of how Howard used the system is just a tad hypocritical if there were happy with the same system under Hawke and Keating and, in WA, under Burke and the succession of ALP premiers who followed him.