The nanny state meets Yes, Minister in Australia

Being employed at a university, working on research funded by the Australian Government, I have had the opportunity to observe the bureaucracy at work. It has not always impressed. A particularly poignant moment was the Government insisting on a progress review of our work. They said it wasn't "getting the buzz that other programs were generating." Buzz? I thought we were supposed to be doing research. At any rate we held the review, with our presentation full of brightly colored pictures. At the end, the Government was quite impressed. "Did you really do all that?" My boss was compelled to ask, "Have you read the dozens of high quality research reports we've sent?" Their answer: "Well, the reports were so dry." Meaning no, they hadn't read them. Sigh.

The particular field I'm in, space research, has a funny relationship with the Government as well. In 2009, the Australian Senate studied the dismal performance of Australia in space programs, and issued a report entitled "Lost In Space." But the Government has had one over-weaning priority: a balanced budget--actually a surplus. So they formed a Space Policy Unit of bureaucrats, none of whom were scientists or aerospace engineers, with the mission of dealing with the damning report. One can almost hear the charge to the bureaucrats: "Make this report go away. And don't you dare commit any funds."

Which, a mere four years later, the recently announced space policy, actually titled the Satellite Utilization Policy, admirably accomplished. A precis of the policy: "For decades, Australia has received data from satellites built and launched by other nations, for little or no cost. We have accepted none of the risk of those space programs. We like it like this." The press lauded the release of the policy, with the exception of one intrepid SBS reporter who noticed its hollowness--and had the good sense to interview me about it!

But this isn't about space; it's about an outsider's observations about the Australian Government, its decision-making process, and its attempts to create fairness at any cost--such as freedom of speech, and of the press (the subject of earlier posts).

Recently, another outsider has made similar observations. A senior editor at The Australian (a paper not known for its friendliness to the Australian Labor Party), Nick Cater has expanded his criticism to include the bureaucratic side--the permanent staffs, not the elected officials. He has found commissioners who take guidance from international organizations rather than Parliament. And from the article, "He notes with dismay how we have permitted the intrusive expansion of bureaucratic intervention into ever more intimate aspects of Australian life through the education system under cover of terms such as "social justice" and into homes through an expansion of the role of public health." I hope that, somewhere, he also notes those assaults on personal freedoms.

The elections will be September 14th. I wonder whether a change of government will even matter--the "fairness" theme seems to have hypnotized a large segment of the voting public; and the bureaucrats will still be there.