Sunfish
14th Sep 2015, 21:15
Most should know the answer to the question of why Ministers and public office appointees never see to "do" anything and the frustration this causes. I think that for one or two here an explanation might be in order. The truth is that for a variety of reasons no intelligent public office holder will do anything but even the simplest of administrative actions without "advice" - written advice. Advice recommending that she is to perform some specific action.
If you have written advice and that advice proves to be wrong, then your backside is generally covered. You have someone to blame. That is why you hear politicians saying "I am advised…", "my advice is….". They apply this mantra to everything.
While this may seem strange to some, it is logical if you think about it. Whoever is writing the advice has to check wether the action is first legal, then if the action is even possible, verify the facts and truth of the matter then if its in line with Government and institutional policy,, including financial policy and finally if the any actors involved are bona fide.
To do otherwise invites political disaster. The State of Victoria once had an ill advised scheme of giving government grants to business developers - some of whom turned out to be shonks who took the money - hundreds of thousands of dollars and ran off overseas, never to be seen again. Then of course there are the other disasters beloved of the press - for example appointing people with criminal records or fake credentials (insufficient background checks), or examples of total hypocrisy (lack of common sense by the advisor) and so on.
The advice to a public figure should always take the form of a written brief, preferably One A4 page, perhaps one and a half at the extreme, that sets out the subject, the facts, discusses any policy implications and finally a one sentence recommendation beginning with the words "That you sign/note/ agree/ (verb).
The brief is signed and dated by the originator and then countersigned by everyone up the chain of command to the Minister who inspect the product and if necessary reject it. Sometimes a brief may go through Four or more iterations before the chain of command is satisfied with its tone and content.
Once you understand this process it becomes easy to see why there is such institutional inertia. The system works quite well in preventing public officials from scoring "own goals" and the chain of command is proof against civil servants in the lower levels "going rogue". However the brief construction process provides endless opportunities for the chain of command to put there own spin on events, a word here, a comma there and a dire mistake turns into a victory and vice versa.
A particular caution to well meaning people who write to CASA, perhaps making a teensy complaint for example. Your letter will be sent to the relevant person, usually the person who took the action you complain about. He will draft the brief detailing CASAs response to your complaint and the letter to you which will be signed by his boss or his bosses boss or perhaps even AVM. Skidmore. Along the way, there is plenty of time to label you as a malcontent, a serial complainer, a hysterical idiot, a scofflaw, etc. . You get the drift? Don't complain.
By now you should understand my cynicism about the chances of AVM. Skidmore making any impact on CASA. There is not a hope in hell of reform while the existing chain of command remains in place. Of course the good AVM. will be invited to think that change is happening, and that he instigated it. Public servants are very good at manipulating leaders, its their sport.
To reform CASA would take a bright young thing from PM & C and a small tiger team of aviation professionals not part of CASA and working on a greenfield plan to rewrite the act, dismember CASA and bring in the NZ/FAA regs. In my opinion such a project would need the Ministers support with the PM's approval. The package would probably be the subject of a one paragraph brief to Cabinet for approval. That is about the only way I can think that the existing chain of command can be sidelined and some pruning and healthy regrowth can occur.
If you have written advice and that advice proves to be wrong, then your backside is generally covered. You have someone to blame. That is why you hear politicians saying "I am advised…", "my advice is….". They apply this mantra to everything.
While this may seem strange to some, it is logical if you think about it. Whoever is writing the advice has to check wether the action is first legal, then if the action is even possible, verify the facts and truth of the matter then if its in line with Government and institutional policy,, including financial policy and finally if the any actors involved are bona fide.
To do otherwise invites political disaster. The State of Victoria once had an ill advised scheme of giving government grants to business developers - some of whom turned out to be shonks who took the money - hundreds of thousands of dollars and ran off overseas, never to be seen again. Then of course there are the other disasters beloved of the press - for example appointing people with criminal records or fake credentials (insufficient background checks), or examples of total hypocrisy (lack of common sense by the advisor) and so on.
The advice to a public figure should always take the form of a written brief, preferably One A4 page, perhaps one and a half at the extreme, that sets out the subject, the facts, discusses any policy implications and finally a one sentence recommendation beginning with the words "That you sign/note/ agree/ (verb).
The brief is signed and dated by the originator and then countersigned by everyone up the chain of command to the Minister who inspect the product and if necessary reject it. Sometimes a brief may go through Four or more iterations before the chain of command is satisfied with its tone and content.
Once you understand this process it becomes easy to see why there is such institutional inertia. The system works quite well in preventing public officials from scoring "own goals" and the chain of command is proof against civil servants in the lower levels "going rogue". However the brief construction process provides endless opportunities for the chain of command to put there own spin on events, a word here, a comma there and a dire mistake turns into a victory and vice versa.
A particular caution to well meaning people who write to CASA, perhaps making a teensy complaint for example. Your letter will be sent to the relevant person, usually the person who took the action you complain about. He will draft the brief detailing CASAs response to your complaint and the letter to you which will be signed by his boss or his bosses boss or perhaps even AVM. Skidmore. Along the way, there is plenty of time to label you as a malcontent, a serial complainer, a hysterical idiot, a scofflaw, etc. . You get the drift? Don't complain.
By now you should understand my cynicism about the chances of AVM. Skidmore making any impact on CASA. There is not a hope in hell of reform while the existing chain of command remains in place. Of course the good AVM. will be invited to think that change is happening, and that he instigated it. Public servants are very good at manipulating leaders, its their sport.
To reform CASA would take a bright young thing from PM & C and a small tiger team of aviation professionals not part of CASA and working on a greenfield plan to rewrite the act, dismember CASA and bring in the NZ/FAA regs. In my opinion such a project would need the Ministers support with the PM's approval. The package would probably be the subject of a one paragraph brief to Cabinet for approval. That is about the only way I can think that the existing chain of command can be sidelined and some pruning and healthy regrowth can occur.