The push by the Nationals – led by Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce and Nationals' deputy leader Fiona Nash – for systematic decentralisation of federal public servants to regional cities, has accelerated. Government departments will now be forced to justify why at least some of their functions should not be moved out.
As criticism mounts, the Nationals are redoubling their efforts. Crucially, they are being supported by their senior partners in the Turnbull government, the Liberals. Not a word of criticism has come from senior Liberals, including the Prime Minister himself, though the only federal Liberal representative in the national capital, Senator Zed Seselja, has spoken up.
Many persuasive arguments, by the ACT government, local federal MPs, and local business and community leaders, have been made in defence of Canberra and against these proposals by the Nationals. They have been made specifically in relation to the first such move, the shift of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority to Armidale in Joyce's electorate of New England. That it is Armidale and not another regional city doesn't really matter, although it strengthens the case against Joyce on the grounds of self-interested pork barrelling.
Whatever the general argument for decentralisation, Canberra is the wrong target. It is actually the best Australian example of decentralisation to the bush that there is. It is a bush capital. The Nationals should be proud of this national achievement rather than try to undermine it.
Related Content
Furthermore, Canberra is still quite a small city, dependent on public service employment. Seselja has made the point effectively that, if decentralisation is the aim, Sydney and Melbourne are much more suitable targets.
From another important perspective, a move out of Canberra is illogical and positively harmful because it is fit for purpose. To have a single centre for government administration makes for better public administration and better government. As Seselja has also said, efficient and effective government is in the best interests of all Australians.
As well as contributing to better public policymaking in the short term, such a concentration of policy skills (already constrained by the fact that almost two-thirds of the public service is located outside Canberra) makes a longer-term contribution to good governance by serving the needs of a career public service.
Cost-benefit analysis also does not support the Nationals' case, both generally and specifically in the case of the move of the pesticides authority. Not only will it hurt the government's own bottom line but the Productivity Commission warned in its recent report, Transitioning Regional Economies , that such decentralisation might offer only limited stimulus to regional cities anyway.
Furthermore, not only will forced staff transfers lead to personal hardship but voluntary take-up of transfers will lead to such limited numbers, as in the pesticides authority case, that serious inefficiencies in organisational productivity will result.
The voices of those who have defended Canberra have been accompanied by some deafening silences. The biggest silence has come from the public service itself. One of the problems in public discussion of what is best for efficient and effective federal government in Canberra is that, by dint of their commitment to serving the government of the day, senior public service leaders cannot contribute.
This is a huge gap because, while they, too, may be accused of self-interest because they are based in Canberra, public service leaders are among those who know what are the best administrative arrangements for good government. Let's hear their views on substantial decentralisation of the Australian Public Service. The public has a right to know.
Canberra region leaders, not just those in the ACT itself, should also speak up. Decentralisation of the federal public service from Canberra is a regional threat. Many of the public servants who are under threat of transfer live outside the boundaries of the ACT in Queanbeyan, Googong, Jerrabomberra, Yass and other nearby parts of NSW. This should put it clearly on the agenda of leaders such as the regional mayors and the Labor member for Eden-Monaro, Mike Kelly.
The debate has been accompanied by some deafening silences. The biggest silence has come from the public service itself.
More particularly, NSW Deputy Premier John Barilaro, who is the Nationals' state member for Monaro, must be drawn into the debate. He surely doesn't want his federal public service constituents transferred from his own electorate to some other regional city around Australia. Rather, he should be supporting Seselja's call by urging study of the transfer of federal public servants into Queanbeyan and the region from Sydney.
What also should be highlighted is how decentralisation policy has now become a public sector rather than a private sector matter. Joyce's predecessors, like Sir John McEwen, advocated policies like tariff protection and other development incentives to encourage private firms to move to the regions. Locked into free trade and other market-based policies by their Coalition partners, the Nationals have turned their back on such decentralisation levers. All they now offer is public service decentralisation despite the damage it will likely cause to Canberra and to good government.
Just where all this will end is unclear. Perhaps good sense will prevail after a lengthy and stressful battle within the confines of the public service, or perhaps the Nationals will be given their head because of their strong position within the Coalition government.
The rest of Australia will not come to Canberra's aid nor is it realistic to expect Seselja to sacrifice himself over the issue by resigning his government position. That wouldn't work anyway. Rather, the buck stops with the Turnbull cabinet, especially senior Liberal ministers, to rein in Joyce and Nash.
John Warhurst is an emeritus professor of political science at the Australian National University. john.warhurst@anu.edu.au