The six months or so before an election is a stressful time for civil servants dealing with ministers or developing and implementing new policies.

The campaign has not yet started – officially. Before the guarding periodgovernments can still make policy decisions and have the right to expect the public service to support them in their policy processes, from ideas to implementation.

It was precisely during such a pre-election period – in a different year, with a different government – ​​that then-Treasury Secretary Ken Henry gave a speech to staff to warn of the dangers at this point in the election cycle:

“…divisions will be under pressure to respond to the growing number of policy proposals before and after an election is called. Right now, the risk of developing policy proposals that are frankly bad is greater than usual.”

Ken Henry’s speech to Treasury staff, March 14, 2007

He went on to say:

“…we need to be aware of the high opportunity cost of proposed policy measures, in order to advocate sound and welfare-enhancing policy action – capacity building measures, better functioning markets, less system complexity and greater budgetary discipline. »

More than 15 years later, the findings and advice still ring true.

Today, as then, the government faces multiple competing demands for policy interventions, some good, some not so good. At the same time, the treasurer wants the budget to be more sustainable. Not all ideas, good or bad, can be funded.

With a pre-election budget now highly likely, a rigorous review of the proposals by the cabinet’s Expenditure Review Committee (ERC) should, in theory, weed out the hiccups. In practice, during this undeclared pre-election period, governments may make decisions using criteria different from those that normally apply.

The problem lies in the mismatch between short-term and long-term voter appeal.

In the long term, voters reward governments for policy decisions that bring lasting improvements in well-being: economic opportunities, environmental sustainability, community amenities, social cohesion, security, etc.

Unfortunately, when it comes time for elections, voters can be swayed by shiny, exciting new policies whose merits have not yet been tested. Governments will be tempted to appeal to the short-term interests of voters – leading to policies that Ken Henry would call “downright bad”.

What are these types of policies – and can public servants avoid them?

Subsidy programs are the most likely to get civil servants in trouble. Politicians love to give voters a pocketful of cash. It’s even better if it’s not just a promise, but something a government can put in place while it still governs.

An example of this is the “sporting misconduct” scandal under the previous government. As part of a program agreed in the 2018 pre-election budget, then-minister Bridget McKenzie, before the 2019 election was called, distributed community sports infrastructure grants aimed at marginal seats.

A sequel audit report found the program deficient and “uninformed by a proper evaluation process and sound advice.” The officials involved, both at Sports Australia and within the minister’s home department, have not escaped criticism.

Subsidy problems are not limited to coalition governments: under Keating’s Labor government, Sports Minister Ros Kelly had her own.sports business“.

Civil servants can, however, rejoice at the news Rules and principles of grants which came into force on October 1. Among other things, new clauses The rules provide that if a minister deviates from the ministry’s advice regarding whether or not to award a grant, he or she must report this in writing to the Minister of Finance, who must table this report in Parliament. This may not stop a minister’s office from informally pressuring their ministry, but the rules give civil servants a chance to fight back.

Another type of policy often implemented during this period concerns new infrastructure. Not all of these policies are bad, we need infrastructure, but the pitfalls to avoid are infrastructure projects announced without a full cost/benefit analysis or consideration of long-term risks.

The other trap is large infrastructure projects that look cheap in the first four years – that is, the entire period of forward estimates – while planning, designing and obtaining approvals are in progress – then, well beyond the prospective estimates (and the next election), huge invoices for the construction phase begin to arrive, putting a strain on the budget of the department which remains holder of the plot.

The best solution available to defense officials against this risk is to carefully document the projected spending program and provide a contingency to meet unexpected cost increases. This is exactly what Defense did with a staggering amount123 billion in foresight provision on the AUKUS submarine agreement.

This is more difficult, however, when policies focused on current spending, not investments, entail significant costs outside of forward-looking estimates: for example, the introduction of new social protection programs. As with an infrastructure project, they too may involve design and consultation phases during which expenditure is relatively low compared to when the new policy comes into full effect. Documenting the risks of overspending can help – even if it annoys a minister, many of whom are far too optimistic about the risks.

Once elections are called, interim conventions come into effect and life becomes easier for civil servants politically. A government may, during its campaign, have “definitely bad” ideas expressed in terms of election promises, but the civil service is not obliged to implement them.

There is of course a potential problem that arises after the election is over and the winning party has made unrealistic or unachievable promises. How the civil service should brief its new minister on this is a question for another day.

In the meantime, the coming months are a time when civil servants should be particularly wary of bright ideas coming from ministers’ offices and insist on following proper processes and full documentation.

LEARN MORE:

Did Chalmers signal a pre-election federal budget?