This sounds like wonderful news. I do hope so

much that it is true …. and not just more

shift-the-blame and cover-your-backside

ornamentation.

If it is true and there really has been a

complete change of heart and of workstyle in

Treasury then we really can hope for an end to

policies that have ruined and killed good

citizens, that have rewarded utter scoundrels,

that have lost exports, that have destroyed whole

industries, that have spoiled the environment,

that have squandered much public money, that have put

us in peril of attack, that have obstructed

progress and innovation.

I am willing to believe in a miraculous

conversion on the Road to Damascus; such things

are possible - even in Treasury …. but until I

see consistent proof that such a miraculous

conversion has taken place, I shall remain

sceptical though optimistic.

Pablo [11]:

Absolutely spot-on.

See what Blackfellas actually living there need

and want themselves. Then let them have housing

they can use, can appreciate and can feel is

their own. And guess what? Energy-efficient,

appropriate housing will then be built at a

fraction of cost of the “fools’ palaces� and cost

only a tiny fraction to maintain.

If a rising generation of Blackfellas themselves

later want the most advanced housing in the 21st

Century, housing that would make the Finns

envious, that will be great too. Then everyone

[except the advertisers in “lifestyle� magazines]

will be as happy as Larry …. and that includes

the bloke who has been saving to buy his very own

house out his meagre CDEP pay.

The bureaucracy is, for a major power base, about as rational and un-ideological as you could expect. Reason and good argument do go a long way. The treasury values statement is really just trying to express ‘the Australian settlement’ of a mostly egalitarian, fair and just society that does not unnecessarily get in the way of opportunity and freedom.

Well, as a public servant Ken Henry’s job is precisely to accept “ministers’ perceptions of what constitutes wellbeing and cobble policy around those prejudices�. Like it or not (and like all conscientous public servants I bet there’s plenty of times when he doesn’t like it), someone voted for those ministers’prejudices whereas no-one voted for his.

This should come as no surprise to anyone living in the real world.

Which returns us to the question of the function of this mission statement. Clearly it performs three functions:

1. to project Costello’s fixations through the distorting lens of happy talk.

2. to fool and befuddle anyone fool enough to be misled by spin.

3. to help terminate the career of any public servant above a certain level of seniority who seeks to turn these statements into a mandate to recommend too enthusiastically policy contrary to the prejudices of the incumbent government.

FWIW that mission statement would have had to be approved by Costello, and quite likely by Howard too.

Oh, to be sure. I’m sure Cossie liked the generations bit, since that appeared to be an obsession for him and Howard thought it was just a motherhood statement.

Like I said, it’s not something I’m in disagreement with, but I just wondered about the dysjunction between the “Treasury is evil” debate from the 90s and this set of principles which went unnoticed until yesterday.

FWIW that mission statement would have had to be approved by Costello, and quite likely by Howard too.

In private life Henry is a strong greenie, BTW - so much so that I suspect he probably votes Green.

Added to that, its probably worth mentioning that the Rudd Government has tied itself into a bit of a policy straitjacket with the admittedly diligent way it is sticking to its pre-election commitments (or in some areas, lack thereof). It may well be that the pressure on the government to be economically conservative when it comes to public spending is the telling force on show, rather than what Treasury may or may not think or waffle on about.

Bank regulation is up to APRA. Exchange rates float. “Saving money” from the Federal budget, as Martin puts it, is the Finance department’s role.

Ken Henry must have thought, what exactly IS my job these days … ?

Kudos to him for coming up with a thoughtful mission statement, that goes beyond traditional mission statement banalities.

“what right does Treasury as an institution have to formulate these principles?”

Well, I’ve always been a supporter of the notion of the frank and fearless mandarin, dispensing advice frankly and fearlessly. (Maybe I just watched too much Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister!)

Particularly since Treasury now has little formal power, it is all the more important to be an independent and forthright source of advice. And their theoretical framework should be entirely up to them.

In assessing public policy issues, we apply a broad wellbeing framework comprising five elements:

> the opportunity and freedom that allows individuals to lead lives of real value to them;

> the level of consumption possibilities available to the community over time. This includes both market and non-market goods and services, such as voluntary and community work, the quality of the physical environment, health and leisure;

> the distribution of these consumption possibilities, including among different groups within society, across geographical regions and across generations;

> the overall level and allocation of risk borne by individuals and, in aggregate, by the community; and

> the level of complexity confronting Australians in making decisions about their lives.

That’s how they assess policy for its contribution to wellbeing.

So in light of your questions, the supplementary is - what right does Treasury as an institution have to formulate these principles?

The Treasury Department aims to improve the wellbeing of the Australian people, by providing sound and timely advice to the Government based on thorough analysis of options, and by assisting the Treasury Ministers in the administration of their responsibilities and the implementation of Government decisions.

This form of words means either:

that the Treasury seeks to trick ministers into taking options they otherwise wouldn’t take.

or

that the Treasury accepts ministers’ perceptions of what constitutes wellbeing and cobbles policy around those prejudices.

Perhaps what they meant to say was:

The Treasury Department aims to improve the wellbeing of the Australian people, by providing sound and timely advice to the Government based on thorough analysis of options, by demonstrating that some options clearly improve the wellbeing of the Australian people better than others, and by assisting the Treasury Ministers in the administration of their responsibilities and the implementation of Government decisions.

Although I doubt it.