[ASPA] Canberra Times article - Ties with the USA: Uncle Sam and [Public Administration: Stephen Bartos]

Wed Jul 5 09:11:32 EDT 2006

Ties with the USA: Uncle Sam and [Public Administration: Stephen Bartos]
Stephen Bartos
Tuesday, 4 July 2006 

ON THIS 4th of July, how does the Australian Public Service stand in terms of
its relationship with its counterpart in the United States? 

It is a longstanding relationship; in addition to its Westminster heritage,
Australia's system of government also owes much to US traditions of political
and constitutional thought. Ideas of how a federation might work , (for
example, delineating a division of responsibilities between federal and state
level, state representation in an upper house called a senate) and the
importance of a constitutional basis for action by government (the
Commonwealth Government in Australia can only do what it is permitted to do
by the constitution) have strong antecedents in US thinking on the issues. 

A search of the Australian Federation Databases throws up more than 3000
references to the US in the speeches and writing of participants in
Australia's federation debates of the 1890s. The framers of our constitution
chose not to adopt many of the features of the US system - in particular,
they did not entrench the "separation of powers" doctrine to anything like
the degree to which it applies in the US - but they incorporated many others.

So, worries that our system is becoming too Americanised are about a century
too late - it incorporated ideas from the US right from the start. 

The term "Washminster", coined in 1980 to suggest Australia is somehow a
hybrid of the Westminster and Washington systems, misses the point. Australia
started off as a child of mixed parentage, and like all children grew up and
developed its own personality, developing a distinctively Australian approach
to government that differs from that of either parent. Still, we maintain
close ties with the US, and there are continuing influences from their system
on our own public service. This article considers some of these. 

Sections of our public service have intimate ties with their US equivalents.
Obvious policy areas include foreign policy, where the US relationship is a
key concern for Australia, and defence. The US contribution to Australian
defence capability, via intelligence links in particular, is hard to
overestimate. There are other parts of the bureaucracy where there are policy
links - for example, in relation to greenhouse policy, our approach to the
Kyoto protocol is influenced by that of the US, and we have continuing
dialogue (even if tetchy and difficult at times) over agriculture and
quarantine matters. 

In terms of public-sector reform, the US has had a habit of reform by acronym
- PPBS, ZBB, NPR, GPRA - with only limited success. The sheer size and weight
of the public sector makes widespread reform difficult in the US. The
National Performance Review, championed by Vice-President Al Gore, promised
"government that works better and costs less" but ran out of steam; the
current focus by Congress on better performance-reporting through the
Government Performance and Results Act is perhaps more promising because less
ambitious in scope, but it is still too early to tell. US thinking on public
administration can nevertheless be influential: Australia often borrows ideas
on public-sector reform from the US; sometimes we can succeed in applying
them where the larger and less flexible civil service finds difficulty. 

Influences may just be in terms of language - I noted with dismay that
Minister Joe Hockey in a June 19 press statement borrowed the US term
"deadbeat" dads to refer to fathers who default on child support, even though
our child-support system is fairer, better enforced and infinitely less
acrimonious than the combative approach to enforcement of alimony payments in
the US from which this term originates. 

Even more worrying is the effect on the operations of our public sector of US
television shows. Crime shows are a case in point. The University of Canberra
is holding a seminar later this month to discuss the "CSI effect", where
juries are demanding to see DNA evidence like that collected by the fictional
forensic scientists in the television series. 

I have been told by state police that some criminals are convinced by TV that
they have "the right to remain silent; anything you do or say can be used
against you in a court of law; you have a right to consult a lawyer; if you
can't afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you ..." (if you watch US cop
shows you know the spiel - it's what comes after the gruff older cop tells
the young sidekick to "read him his rights"). These "Miranda rights" are
named for a series of court cases after the 1963 arrest of one Ernesto
Miranda in Arizona, and apply in the US, not Australia - although of course
our police do have comparable obligations to be fair and reasonable. 

Because of movies and television many Australians think they know about the
US - even though the reality of that country is more diverse, and more
complicated, than ever shown on screen. In relation to government, there are
fundamental differences which mean their public service can never be like
ours. The primary one is separation of powers: the division of government
into the separate branches of the legislature, executive and judiciary. 

In Australia, the judicial system is separate, operating at arm's length and
independently of government and parliament. But the legislature - that is,
the law-making function of the Parliament - and the executive - that is, the
Government and its activities - are much closer entwined, because the
Government is formed out of the party with a majority in the lower house of
Parliament. The passage of legislation is thus inherently a government
function. In the US, the government and the Congress are strictly separate -
to the extent that a member of Congress has to resign before they can take up
a position in government such as becoming a member of the Cabinet. 

The President proposes legislation to the Congress, but what shape it then
takes is up to the House and the Senate. The President can veto legislation,
and often will if a Bill is mangled beyond recognition, but for the most part
there is an ongoing tussle between what the Government can do and what the
Congress will authorise, and legislation represents a worked-through
compromise. 

A number of implications for the civil service of the US flow from this.
Until the late 1800s virtually all civil service appointments were doled out
by the President, from top to bottom. Today only the more senior positions
are political appointments, with the majority on a career track, but these
political appointments at the top are very influential. However, Congress is
not out of the picture: it can strongly influence what happens in the
executive via legislation. So there is a much stronger reliance on detailed,
prescriptive legislation setting out how government will operate. The depth
and detail of the rules that apply to the US civil service come as a shock to
Australians used to less regulation and more focus on outcomes than on
process. In fact, administrative "due process" is an important term for
understanding how the US civil service operates. 

This is not just of theoretical interest. The highly prescriptive nature of
the US approach to civil service matters has had a massive impact on all
Australian government departments through the new procurement guidelines that
flowed from the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement. These guidelines represent
an uneasy compromise between the principles-based Australian approach that
used to apply and the hundreds of pages of US rules, and Australian public
servants are finding the additional complexity and undue bureaucracy a heavy
burden. The relationship with the US is a rich and rewarding one at times,
but can be frustrating, as in this case. 

Stephen Bartos is director of the National Institute for Governance,
University of Canberra.

Erik Bergrud
Director, International Center for Civic Engagement and
Special Assistant to the President for University Projects on Civic
Engagement
Park University
8700 NW River Park Drive
Parkville, MO 64152
United States of America

Phone: +1-816-584-6412
Fax: +1-816-741-5812
erik.bergrud at park.edu <mailto:erik.bergrud at park.edu> 
Web: http://www.park.edu/icce <http://www.park.edu/icce> 
Blog: http://icce.typepad.com <http://icce.typepad.com> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/intl_aspaonline.org/attachments/20060705/c04da535/attachment.html 