The extent of direct interaction with the Parliament has increased over the years as the level of scrutiny of government administration has increased. More open government, increased Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) activity, the role of the Ombudsman and the increasing effectiveness of interest groups have all added to the legislature’s capacity to scrutinise and, since the 1970s, much of that scrutiny is via direct interaction with the Public Service, not indirectly through ministers. (In an ironical reversal of normal Westminster practice, in Australia, it more often falls to officials to explain and even defend the minister, than for the minister to defend officials.)
Corresponding with this change has been the increasing investment by the executive arm of government in measures to manage communications and maintain control of the political agenda. Accordingly, the scale of activity to prepare for Senate Estimates has not only increased steadily, there is now more close involvement of ministerial staff on politically sensitive matters. Public servants are keenly aware that their ministers’ staff (and at times the ministers themselves and even the Prime Minister) are watching the TV monitors during Senate Estimates hearings, if not sitting at the back of the room.
Technology is also affecting the process. Committee members these days sit with PCs in front of them, allowing their own advisers to prompt and to draw attention to information that might be used to dispute or follow-up answers given in the hearing.
Table 5.4 Responding to new technology in Senate Estimates
When committee members first started to bring laptops to hearings, we had a discussion in the Health department about whether we too should bring our laptops to allow us to refer immediately to data and documents beyond what we held in briefing folders. I decided we should not, as there is sometimes advantage in taking questions on notice in order to allow more careful reflection not only of the facts but of the context. We did, however, have a computer in the officials’ room behind the committee room.
What has not changed much, despite all the efforts surrounding program budgeting and outcomes/outputs frameworks, is the focus of Senate Committee scrutiny. It continues to be strongly partisan, with opposition (and minor party) members seeking ammunition to attack ministers and the government, and government members (and ministers at the table) looking to defend their policies and distance the government from any failures of administration. Questions might sometimes relate to the documents the committee is ostensibly reviewing (appropriation bills, portfolio budget statements, annual reports), but more often they concern issues running in the media already or populist matters that can grab media attention. One can be despairing of this, but it is important to recognise that, as a colleague once told me, ‘the plural of anecdote is data’. That is, petty failures that embarrass and grab attention might indeed reflect poor management or complacency or arrogance. Of course, they might not.
Part of the problem is the opaqueness of official documents these days. The rules governing portfolio budget papers and annual reports seem to have left most of them almost impossible to read, and the financial tables under the arcane accrual accounting that is now used do not highlight key issues and trends even for specialists, let alone lay readers. I suspect, however, clearer, more readable documents will still not shift committee members’ attention from possible scandals to overall performance and program effectiveness.