Try matching the following government departments with their mission statements;
|
A.
Australian Department of Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Population and Communities |
1.
We provide leadership on food,
agriculture, natural resources, and related issues based on sound public
policy, the best available science, and efficient management. |
|
B.
Australian Government Department of Climate
Change and Energy Efficiency. |
2. We enhance Australia’s economic prosperity by improving the strength, competitiveness and sustainability of the Resources, Energy and Tourism industries through the provision of high quality policy advice and program delivery services for the Australian Government. |
|
C.
US Department of Agriculture |
3.
Advancing a sustainable Australia: our
environment, water, heritage and communities. |
|
D.
Australian Department of Agriculture, food and fisheries. |
4.
To improve Australia’s wellbeing by
contributing to effective national and global responses to climate change,
including the necessary transformation of the Australian economy. |
|
E.
Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada. |
5.
We work to sustain the way
of life and prosperity of all Australians |
|
F.
Australian Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism. |
6.
The Department provides
information, research and technology, and policies and programs to achieve an
environmentally sustainable agriculture, agri-food and agri-based products
sector. |
If you were pretty certain about them all (* answers below) except for one, then you have joined the list of people confused about why the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry would propose a new Mission Statement that completely avoids any reference to agriculture, forestry and fisheries.
The issue has been the subject of media comment in recent days, and has certainly created the impression that the Australian Government Department responsible for agriculture, forestry and fishery programs is reluctant to be identified with, or seen to advance the interests of those sectors.
The proposed change is consistent with some wider changes in the Canberra bureaucracy over recent years, yet at the same time at odds with the increasing involvement of the Australian Government in a whole range of areas that were previously State Government responsibilities, and that therefore require more specialised expertise within the Canberra bureaucracy.
During the Howard administration, and certainly more so since that time, senior Departmental personnel in Canberra have increasingly been 'insider' appointments, with virtually all new senior Departmental personnel having 'central agency' (Treasury, Prime Minister and Cabinet) experience, but not necessarily experience related to the agency they manage. Presumably, this creates a culture of strong loyalty to the central agencies, and indeed there is a widely held view that the only way to advance to a Canberra leadership position is to have 'done your time' in at least one of the central agencies.
At the same time, however, the Australian government has increased its direct involvement in policies (and the implementation of those policies) in areas of the economy that were previously State Government responsibilities. Health, education, water and the environment are four obvious areas where this is the case, and carbon policy also means Australian government involvement in a whole range of industries and activities in which the there was not a great deal of Commonwealth involvement in the past.
The result is a 'generalised' bureaucracy, which is increasingly required to deal with very specific areas of industry activity. The inevitable consequence seems likely to be an increase in the pink batts, school building and live cattle export type episodes. In each of these cases the bureaucracy and/or its political masters were not sufficiently familiar with the industries they were intervening in due to lack of experience and corporate history, and the results were somewhat predictable.
Something will eventually have to change. Either the Canberra bureaucratic culture will have to be changed to one that values industry experience and knowledge, or the Australian Government will have to withdraw from a wide range of areas where it has recently assumed responsibility. Which of these will eventuate is unclear at this stage, but hopefully the dilemma will be resolved before too much longer.
Answers:
A-3, B-4, C-1, D-5, E-6, F-2
Comments
viewers away rather than attract their attention and interest.