Breaking news: Randall vs Johnson in Fed Parliament

There’s been blood lost within the broad church of the Liberal Party today and it’s just another thing to make life difficult for Colin Barnett and his nervous nannies.

Don Randall, the Liberal Member for Canning today launched a damaging attack on one of his State colleagues in Federal Parliament. The scathing assessment of Police Minister Rob Johnson below might well be an indication that Mr Randall, who is still on the backbench after serving 5 terms in Parliament, may be considering retirement. Although the 59 year old is known for his gruff manner, the kind of public honesty below typically only comes when a Member of Parliament has given up on dreams of being promoted and no longer needs friends in the Party.

Take a read of my transcript of his extraordinary speech below and watch this space…

It is with a heavy heart that I feel compelled to outline why I have no confidence in Rob Johnson MLA, the member for Hillarys and the Minister for Police in the West Australian government. I have spent an inordinate amount of time and effort trying to represent the views of my constituents and Western Australians generally but, alas, his response and outcomes to these representations leave me no other alternative but to question minister Johnson's ability to do his job. I have made representations to this minister on a range of law and order issues for which he is responsible. A strong cabinet minister would be able to deliver more police and resourcing to an electorate like mine. Because he cannot, combating crime and antisocial behaviour and hooning in Canning is underresourced. One of the most recent issues is that of WA police targeting motorists leaving Canning Highway onto the Kwinana Freeway. It is on this road that police have been quite unfairly targeting motorists from behind bushes where the speed changes are confusing to drivers. This has received much media attention so I will not say any more than that this is wanton opportunistic use of police resources, particularly when double demerit points apply. It is unconscionable and should cease. This road is not a traffic blackspot as main road statistics will confirm. Minister Johnson has yet again abrogated any responsibility and leadership on this issue. The electorate would prefer these police resources to be better addressed against hooning and other antisocial behaviour in the community. In fact, as is his way, the minister has tried to shift the responsibility of this issue to Commissioner of Police Karl O'Callaghan and then to transport minister Troy Buswell.

The incompetent maladministration by this minister was demonstrated during the Kelmscott Roleystone bushfires in my electorate. He blamed everyone else and took no responsibility for any dysfunction. This is not how the Westminster system works. Others were sacked. Even the police commissioner is in a cloud now over this issue. Johnson's bumbling behaviour has seen him labelled 'Inspector Clouseau' by the state opposition. As an opposition MP he expressed his desire to bring back the noose when in government and to introduce the 'birch' to lawbreakers. As a government minister he has ditched those populist fantasies.

The minister is so weak and ineffective that the Labor appointed police commissioner is given a free rein. There is obviously no respect or authority shown by the commissioner, who at times chooses to stray into other occupations such as part-time FM radio host and rockstar. He can do all this and stare down the minister because the minister is weak and ineffective in giving leadership and direction to the commissioner in both policy and policing areas. Johnson and his office contend that he is unable to direct the commissioner or convey a strident point of view to the Commissioner of Police. This is not true; he has the powers to do so under the Constitution. One can only suspect that Johnson's silly and incompetent behaviour is due to an emerging health condition. Mr Johnson has made it known that at the age of 68 he intends to continue as a member for Hillarys. He wants to be Speaker in the next state parliament. He is often telling others that he wants to retire but he has no other hobbies or interests so he may as well keep going because he has nothing to do in retirement. It beggars belief that his pre-selectors could allow him to stand again, given his incompetence as an MLA and minister. I have friends and associates living in his electorate who tell me they feel offended that he is the Liberal's choice, and cannot bring themselves to vote for him. I share their aggravation.

Senior public servants should be term of government

The Barnett Government will soon have to deal with the vexed issue of whether or not to renew the contract of one of the State’s most high profile bureaucrats – Police Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan - and it will cause unnecessary angst for all involved, as usual.

Mr O'Callaghan’s clever strategy to build cosy relationships with the local media has made him one of the few free-range department heads in the Government. The Premier and his Cabinet openly acknowledge that he does a pretty good job as Commissioner, but secretly would like a bit more control over his public comments without the fear of a media backlash.

However, regardless of the individual involved, the current structure and culture of our administration makes all governments vulnerable to controversy when they consider the future of any senior public servant. This is mostly because Oppositions are always hungry to invent a conspiracy theory of the betrayal of a fine public officer if the incumbent doesn’t renew a contract and just as quickly slam the Government for supporting a dud if they choose to renew. It’s largely a no-win situation for the government.

I’ll explain how this recurring ugliness could be eliminated with a fairly simple change to senior public service contracts but first, a bit of background:

In the Western Australian public service, there are fundamentally three types of employees: term of government (TOG), fixed term contract and permanent.

At present, TOG employees are very low in number and typically found only in Ministerial offices.  The people in these positions are appointed by the relevant Minister and rarely keep their jobs when a government falls. In each Ministerial office the usual roles for TOG’s include the Chief of Staff, Media Adviser, Ministerial/Parliamentary Liaison Officer and perhaps a Principal Policy Adviser or two. Importantly, the Leader of the Opposition is also afforded a number of TOG employees in his office.

The remainder of the more than 150,000 public sector employees (PSC Annual Report 2011) in Western Australia make up what is commonly referred to as the ‘bureaucracy’ and are broadly contracted as either fixed term or permanent. Regardless of their specific contract conditions, these people are usually considered “apolitical and professional” servants of the public. There is a general expectation that fixed term contracts will be renewed when they expire unless the role is redundant or the employee initiates a change.

Indeed, Premier Barnett has made a number of statements over the years that confirm his strong personal view that TOG’s are very different to their more secure cousins:

A term-of-government employee comes and goes with the government, comes and goes with the minister, and come and goes with the circumstance. A public servant cannot be moved on; that is the difference… What cannot be done under this government is the sacking of a public servant.” (Legislative Assembly, Wednesday, 19 May 2010)

While this commitment is no doubt very comforting to unionists and those employed by the public service, the Premier’s rigid  view is a double edged sword for both the Government and the tax-payers who fund the unsackable 10% of Perth’s population.

Mr Barnett’s staunch defence of the traditional “a public sector job is forever” philosophy is on balance, probably in the interest of the broader public. After all, government employees normally aren’t the highest paid in their field and high churn costs the government money in recruitment, training and lost productivity. I’ll go along with this even though the Barnett Government is currently around 20,000 public sector FTEs over its election commitment.

However, the Premier’s dogmatic implementation of this policy is problematic on two fronts – inefficiency and recalcitrance.

How do you improve the efficiency of an underperformer when they know they “cannot” be sacked? The uncomfortable truth more often than not in the public service is to promote them. Yep, you read it correctly, promote an underperformer. It is widely acknowledged that the fastest way to get a troublesome person out of your team is to move them up – clearly not ideal for the taxpayer and far from fair for those who do the right thing, work hard and don’t get promoted.

A far bigger problem caused by the no-sacking mantra occurs when a government inherits recalcitrant bureaucrats, particularly those in senior positions.

Firstly, let me put this on the record – the vast majority of public servants are excellent people doing the best they can to manage a constant fight for resources and cyclic, back-to-the-future policy changes. But occasionally, governments are faced with a Director General or other executive (on a salary of more than $150,000) who either can’t get their head around the new policies of an incoming administration or outright doesn’t want to. Then what?

The answer is fairly obvious if you concede that very senior public sector employees have to be somewhat political. It’s clear that Premier Barnett will disagree with this notion, but I contest that while bureaucrats in these positions can not act politically, they can’t be truly apolitical either –they need to be quite uniquely multi-partisan: that is, their job is to enable the political party in power, regardless of who that might be. The uncomfortable truth is that means they are often required to perform duties that advantage the government at the disadvantage of the opposition – and in that way, it’s a no-brainer that these roles have a political aspect.

And when a head of department fails (either due to lack of ability or lack of willingness) to fully embrace the policies of a new government, departments often become dysfunctional. To be fair, it’s sometimes a hell of an ask – imagine that a Director General has built a strong, trusting and friendly relationship with the Minister they have been working with for a number of years and within weeks, a new government is elected and asks that person to turn their department around and run in the opposite direction. Not easy for either the Minister or department head involved.

My proposed solution? “Term of government plus 6 months” contracts for heads of departments.

The “term of government” aspect turns the expectation of a renewal upside down – i.e. the person who accepts the role assumes that the contract will probably end in 4 years. If it does, the separation happens without turmoil or conspiracy theories, much like they do in the private sector. However, to avoid a mass exodus of knowledge and expertise at every election, the “plus 6 month” addition allows for the new Minister to meet and work with the person before offering another contract or provides for an orderly handover if there is a change.

While I understand this proposition will scare the daylights out of life-long public servants, it is made in recognition of the fact that a lot of time and political energy is wasted trying to cajole some overly comfortable, reluctant or recalcitrant heads of department to execute changes that take some time to fully implement – such as the Barnett Government’s slow-moving environmental approvals reform.