Irresponsible government

The growing use of outsourcing and contracting for public services over the past few decades has generally been a boon for taxpayers and consumers alike.

However, to ensure the public interest it’s essential that all deals between Australian governments and other parties to provide and deliver services are exposed to the greatest possible scrutiny.

Often, Australian governments do this well. The Productivity Commission’s annual Report on Government Services series details provision across areas such as education, health and justice. Many (though not all) programs are subject to evaluation by their parent departments and independent agencies.

But there is one area of service delivery — which consumes $2.5 billion of public spending — that is not subject to a great deal of scrutiny. That’s Australia’s offshore detention centres in Nauru and Papua New Guinea: the ‘illegal maritime arrivals asylum seeker management’ program, run by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.

DIBP’s portfolio budget statements say they are responsible for delivering “services that support partner countries”, but what partner countries are expected to do is not clear beyond the very basics. For example, centre facilities should meet “relevant local standards”, detainees’ immigration status should be determined in a “timely” fashion and “in accordance with the [host] countries’ international obligations”.

All of this suggests that the specifics about which goals are being met in offshore detention is treated as a matter for the governments of Nauru and Papua New Guinea, rather than an Australian responsibility.

Last month conservative commentator Mark Steyn said that the Australian Government has a responsibility to “own” the policy of offshore processing and ensure the governments of Nauru and Papua New Guinea are delivering on expectations.

In other areas of public policy, a murky and ill-defined contract which deflects responsibility for outcomes from the Australian Government to the organisation responsible for service delivery would not be acceptable.

Governments don’t have their own money: they have taxpayers’ money. As a result, Australians rightly expect clarity and transparency in all areas of public policy. Why should offshore detention be any different?