It was interesting to read that in a recent podcast interview, former Victorian premier Dan Andrews said he was a ‘big person’ and brave enough to make difficult decisions. There can be no doubt that Mr Andrews did make significant decisions for the state during his decade-long term as the premier. His claim that it was better than just occupying the office, offending no one and getting precisely nothing done is valid. Love him or loathe him, Mr Andrews could hardly be described as a do-nothing premier. Many of his infrastructure projects, especially local works such as replacing railway level crossings, were both needed and popular. But a proper assessment of his stewardship involves further questions: were all of his projects prudent; and what is the long-term cost to the people of Victoria, which has the highest debt and taxes of all the states? How much more will the ongoing projects cost before being completed at well-over budget prices? Beyond these legitimate questions are other issues: has his radical social agenda been of benefit or detriment to Victorians? And did his accretion of power in the hands of the premier’s office damage the democratic process? His lumping of all the people into two self-defined groups in saying – ‘you know in Victoria, the haters hate and the rest vote Labor’ – is a self-serving narrative that lacks nuance and smacks of hubris. Even suggesting that, ‘there was a sense of despondency’ among Victorians fails to acknowledge that for many people, it was the result of his decisions.

The podcast, hosted by a former Labor campaigner, followed the release of a report by the Victorian Ombudsman, Deborah Glass, into the operation of the public service under Mr Andrews’ government. It is a devastating critique of the erosion of responsible government in the state. ‘Two sentiments stood out – concern and fear. Concern at what people saw as the quickening erosion of longstanding Westminster principles of responsible government. Fear that if they spoke up, if they were anyway identifiable as having done so, their careers would be finished,’ Ms Glass reported.

Fear was not confined to the state’s bureaucracy. It was corralled daily by the premier throughout Covid 19. The daily media conferences with their grim warnings, the lockdowns and the excessive police responses struck fear into many Victorians. The obsessive secrecy that Mr Andrews cultivated was compounded during the pandemic. Almost all power was centralised in the hands of the premier in Victoria. There was only narrow access to him, even by most colleagues and senior public servants. Those who were prepared to speak ‘off-the-record’ reveal an administration that was totally controlled by the premier’s office. The fact that Mr Andrews had more personal staff than the Prime Minister and the NSW Premier combined was a manifestation of this control. Media and other staff were withheld from ministers, curtailing their ability to obtain independent advice and to put alternative views. Creeping totalitarianism infected Victoria. It became highly centralised and unaccountable. Even the corruption watchdog seemed powerless in the face of the Andrews juggernaut. The Ombudsman’s report confirms the regression from the Westminster principles of government.

Mr Andrews’ response to the Ombudsman’s report was to assert that it was natural that people involved in politics would also be involved in public policy, and it doesn’t make any sense to exclude them, avoids the central criticism. The Ombudsman’s criticism of the $125 billion Suburban Rail Project is a relevant case. Created by a former ministerial staffer at Development Victoria, its development was kept secret from department officials and infrastructure experts. Ms Glass found the development of the project bypassed normal policy development, with consultant PwC engaged to ‘prove up’ the merits of the project. ‘It was subject to excessive secrecy and “proved up” by consultants rather than developed by public servants,’ she said. ‘Its announcement “blindsided” the agency set up by the same government to remove short-term politics from infrastructure planning. The lack of rigorous public-sector scrutiny over such projects before they are announced poses obvious risks to public funds.’

Her criticism is not that people with party political affiliations or experience should be disqualified from participation; that is clearly nonsense. Rather, it is that such people should not control the process to the exclusion of the well-established avenues of advice. When long-practised conventions are neglected or ignored, government suffers. Governments are enhanced by the receipt of alternative advice, but they should not ignore or sidestep processes that have proven effective in many jurisdictions over a long time. As Lord Acton once remarked: ‘power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’

James Madison’s aphorism that, ‘in framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself,’ seems to have been undermined in Victoria by a premier who centralised power to himself. Once such conventions are weakened, they are difficult to restore. While welcoming the review, Jeremi Moule the head of the public service said he was ‘disappointed’ by the ‘tenor’ of the report, which he said had not placed sufficient emphasis on its finding that allegations of partisan hirings could not be substantiated. The new premier could not say how many people were employed in her office – hardly an encouraging response that anything has changed!

Mr Andrews’ disdain for the work of the state’s integrity bodies was palpable, saying ‘there’s not an accountability officer that doesn’t want more money, more power.’ His assertion that they were not elected, and therefore subservient to the government, rings hollow when his government supported their creation as independent agencies.

The Victoria Opposition should be using the Ombudsman’s report to set a new standard for itself in government. A clear policy of ministerial responsibility, cabinet decision-making and a transparent role for the public service will appeal to voters across the political spectrum.