[Peetwo]

On a different tack.

One of real Mandarins – a mandarin’s mandarin showed his dedication, understanding and command of his remit, in style at last estimates.  From page four through to 20; Mike Mrdak managed an in-depth Q&A session with Sir Gallacher with great panache, from memory without taking one question on notice.  A remarkable demonstration from a master of the game.

Nicely done that man; I wonder what he could make with a crack team on the aviation portfolio’s instead of the rubbish he has to work with now.  It’s an interesting question.

Cyber Tim Tam voted by the IOS as a token of respect…Bravo.

Ol'Tom I too was taken by that very first passage of play starting here in Hansard:

CHAIR: I now welcome, all the way from Tasmania, Senator the Hon. Richard Colbeck, representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, and Mr Mike Mrdak, the long-suffering Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, and officers of the department. Minister Colbeck or Mr Mrdak, do you want to make an opening statement?


Senator Colbeck: No.

Mr Mrdak : No, I am happy to proceed to questions.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

Senator WILLIAMS: You might regret that!

Senator GALLACHER: Following the recent ministerial changes, has a charter letter been issued for the ministerial responsibilities in the department? Sorry, Mr Mrdak; I am presuming a charter letter is a definitive outline of the responsibilities. Am I correct in that?

Mr Mrdak : Yes, you are correct: charter letters do set out ministerial responsibilities and also the Prime Minister's priorities for the portfolio in the period ahead. Charter letters have not yet been finalised for the portfolio.

Senator GALLACHER: Does it then follow that we do not know what the responsibilities of the respective ministers are?

Mr Mrdak : Responsibilities have been settled as per the ministerial arrangements, and details have been settled between ministers in relation to responsibilities within the portfolio and across portfolios, but the formal charter letters are yet to be received.

Senator GALLACHER: How will I understand that, then? These are sort of like administrative letters that follow after discussion and agreement—is that what you are saying?

Mr Mrdak : Yes, that is partly the case. The letters will formalise what has already been put in place through the ministerial arrangements, and often the responsibilities are captured in the title of the minister. More importantly, they set the priorities for the period ahead where the government seeks to have ministers prioritise their responsibilities. In the case of our portfolio, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. Warren Truss, remains Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development with overall responsibility for the portfolio and also is a member of the cabinet. Minister Fletcher, who has responsibility for territories, local government and major projects—

Senator GALLACHER: I am going to go to the actual question about who does what. We saw this play out in another portfolio in the last week. So, the minister gets sworn in and gets allocated responsibility for a portfolio, which has a description.

Mr Mrdak : Yes.

Senator GALLACHER: And then there is a charter letter, which—for want of a better word—demarks the various areas of responsibility and adds in the Prime Minister's policy priorities.

Mr Mrdak : That is correct.

Senator GALLACHER: And that has not occurred?

Mr Mrdak : The final letter has yet to be provided—that is correct.

Senator GALLACHER: If we were to go back to the last election, was that the same scenario?

Mr Mrdak : Yes, it was.

Senator GALLACHER: And how long did it take for the charter letters to be issued?

Mr Mrdak : I think it was a matter of weeks. It was within a couple of weeks of the ministerial arrangements being put in place.

Senator GALLACHER: Are we within weeks, or are we out of weeks?

Mr Mrdak : No, we are in a similar period to previous arrangements.

Senator GALLACHER: Can you indicate the specific divisions or sections within the department which relate to each minister—to Minister Truss.

Mr Mrdak : As I indicated, the Deputy Prime Minister, as the cabinet minister for the portfolio, retains responsibility for the portfolio overall. He retains overall responsibility for the infrastructure investment program, and particularly the transport and regional development aspects of the portfolio. Minister Fletcher, as his title suggests, has responsibility for territories, local government matters and major projects—which is the delivery of the government's investment program, particularly the major commitments to major projects, and also the development of the new infrastructure program going forward. He also has responsibility for the work of Infrastructure Australia. Minister McCormack assists the Deputy Prime Minister in the portfolio and has particular responsibility for a number of our funding programs including Roads to Recovery, Black Spot, Stronger Communities and Stronger Regions...

...& on..& on it goes, really quite impressive photographic memory & understanding of (nearly) all the machinations of the new Turnbull Executive team. Here is the link for the relevant Hansard with video link - Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee - 19/10/2015 - Estimates - INFRASTRUCTURE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PORTFOLIO - Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development 

While on the subject of the New PM Turnbull's Executive government & his philosophy on the role of the bureaucracy, the following is an excellent analysis (no offence HarleyD & StevieE ) from the APPS Policy Forum worthy of reading in full .. :

Turnbull and Corbyn: the rise of anti-politicians?

Does the sudden rise to power of two non-traditional politicians highlight voter dissatisfaction with the choices they are being presented at the ballot box?
Charlie Shandil

PHOTO: AAP

October 2015 - Government and governance | Australia, The World

New world politics no longer marries with old world party-led models, and now we’re getting politicians to match the changing times, argues Charlie Shandil.
An issue arises for democracy when one side of the political fence looks much like the other, and the notion of representation becomes diluted because the citizenry feel they are voting for the same person, no matter which party they opt for.

This has been Australia’s story since the initial ousting of Kevin Rudd in 2010, and has caused a significant disconnect between politicians and the citizenry. Recently however, there has been a change in the wind with Malcolm Turnbull, a grammar educated son of a hotel broker, being promoted as Australia’s 29th Prime Minister – a self-proclaimed ‘Prime Minister of the 21st Century’,

Prior to his political career, the Prime Minister was the managing director and then partner at Goldman Sachs, he was proclaimed as virtually inventing the internet in Australia with his role at OzEmail, and he also held a number of senior positions in internet companies such as WebCentral.  However, while the spotlight is on the government, it is also important to mention the 21st century public service. The Treasury Secretary John Fraser, a man worthy of any top job himself, left the public service as Deputy Secretary of the Treasury in 1993 to eventually become Chairman and CEO of UBS Global Asset Management. Also, Michael Thawley, formerly Australia’s ambassador to the United States before being appointed as Secretary to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, was a senior executive at the major United States funds management group, Capital Group. While these two most senior bureaucrats were brought in under the Abbott government, they will now have the opportunity to truly bring in their A-game – a game for the 21st century.

What is being witnessed in this 21st century public administration is a move away from career politicians and public servants, to not just key influencers in their own right, but individuals coming back into the game with the mindset of reform: reforming the perception of politicians, public administrators, and the construct in which they reside. It is with this rise of anti-politicians and anti-bureaucrats that we will start to see a connection between the citizenry and the political construct as it evolves towards a 21st century mindset.

A similar cultural shift away from the norm of politics is occurring in the United Kingdom. Jeremy Corbyn, a son of peace campaigners of the Spanish Civil War and a lifelong socialist activist, has recently been criticised by his fellow Labour folks as incapable of leading the UK Labour Party to victory. However, his anti-austerity cause is finding a receptive audience amongst those searching for an alternative to the current political figureheads.

On 16 August 2015 the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown delivered a speech at the Royal Festival Hall opposing Corbyn and stating that, for the UK Labour Party,
“[T]he best way of realising our high ideals is to show that we have an alternative in government that is credible, that is radical and is electable – is neither a pale imitation of what the Tories offer, nor is it the route to being a party of permanent protest, rather than a party of government”.

The problem with this, however, is that the leadership of former UK Labour Parties have not been an ‘alternative in government’. Rather, they are a supplementary to the current government, or perhaps at best, an extension of. This, however, is not said in partisan banter. If it were the former UK Labour Party in government, one could make the same argument. Thus, the key issue is that no matter which side of politics one opts for, voters end up with much of the same.

At its fundamentals, democratic representation holds three characteristics. First, representation invokes a principle-agent relationship where the representative stands for or acts on behalf of the represented. Second, the representative holds political power which can be exercised responsibly, and where the citizenry has some influence upon how the power is exercised. And third, the citizenry have a right to vote for representatives, thus providing a measure for political equality. However, this approach to standardising democratic representation has not evolved with contemporary democracies, which has led to political institutions becoming disconnected with the citizenry.

According to Dalton (1996), “An essential element of democracy is an involved public”. It is the notion that in order for democracy to function, it requires an active citizenry, where through public deliberation and involvement in politics common goals are defined and implemented. Without public involvement in the process, however, democracy lacks in legitimacy and its ability to carry out its function. Putnam (1995) argues that western countries with voluntary voting have seen a 25 per cent decline in the last thirty years.

Similarly, political membership in the UK has seen a 75 per cent decline, and Biezen et al. (2012) estimate that in the last thirty years France, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland and Ireland have seen a 50 per cent decline in party membership. Similarly, reports on Australian party membership numbers have shown that while in the 1950s ALP and Liberal parties held around 350,000 members, both parties currently have an estimated 50,000 members.

However, while voter turnout and party membership are important issues, the symptom should not be mistaken for the condition. The symptom, in this case, is the active participation in formal politics. While the prevalence of political disengagement is a concern, this issue can be dealt with by surface-level interventions such as compulsory voting or incentive-driven membership.

The condition, however, is the prevalence of an anti-political culture. Contemporary political disaffection is not driven by a sense of apathy towards politics or politicians, but rather by a culture of negativity towards them. In considering the first and second points of representation detailed earlier, anti-politics is driven by the notion that the exercising of power by elected representatives is not representative of the citizenry, which renders representatives incapable of standing for or acting on behalf of the represented.

It is this anti-political culture that Malcolm Turnbull and Jeremy Corbyn are harnessing.

They understand that politics is no longer ideologically driven, but rather led by the issues of the present day. New world politics no longer marries with old party-led models, nor does it map to traditional democratic processes or institutions. The traditional political landscape allows for structured debates between the representative and his citizenry, with the caveat that the representative chooses the topic of debate, where it is held and how it is conducted. Today however, citizen-led activism is anarchistic and endemic, with political debates occurring on multiple platforms, at various times, and on an array of issues, without it being led by any one or group of people from any background or specialisation.

While some in the Australian Liberal Party and UK Labour Party may argue that giving rise to anti-politicians such as Turnbull and Corbyn sits outside the principles of their party-led ideologies, this in fact may be a good thing. By being an “anti-politician”, they are by definition dissatisfied with formalised political parties, and thus provide an alternate option for the citizenry from traditional party-aligned mentality. In a time where the concept of representation no longer adheres to the three principles outlined above, the rise of anti-politicians may reintroduce a rigour in representation long forgotten.

- See more at: http://www.policyforum.net/turnbull-and-...AidWt.dpuf

This bit..

...What is being witnessed in this 21st century public administration is a move away from career politicians and public servants, to not just key influencers in their own right, but individuals coming back into the game with the mindset of reform: reforming the perception of politicians, public administrators, and the construct in which they reside. It is with this rise of anti-politicians and anti-bureaucrats that we will start to see a connection between the citizenry and the political construct as it evolves towards a 21st century mindset...

...I can very much relate to, especially when you consider the 20+year maladministration of aviation safety, under the archaic, early 20th century, big "R" regulation philosophy, still fiercely defended by the Iron Ring & old school aviation aristocracy.

Choc frog 4 Charlie c/o the APPS


MTF..P2