‘Thick-headed’ bureaucrats dodge questions on legalities around Palestinian recognition

Key Concepts

• Whitehall: The British civil service, known for its bureaucracy and often opaque workings.
• Senate Estimates: An Australian parliamentary committee process where government departments are questioned by senators.
• Mandarin: A senior civil servant.
• Obfuscation: The action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.
• Dissembling: Concealing one's true motives, feelings, or beliefs.
• Faffing about: Wasting time or being inefficient.
• Montevideo Convention: A 1933 treaty that sets out the criteria for statehood in international law.
• Office of International Law: A department responsible for advising governments on the legality of their actions under international law.
• DEFAT: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
• Take on notice: A common bureaucratic response to defer answering a question, often implying the information is not readily available or will not be provided.
• Lake Burley Griffin swamp: A metaphorical reference to the perceived inefficiency and corruption within the Australian public service.

Senate Estimates: A Critique of Bureaucratic Obfuscation

This analysis focuses on a specific episode of Australian Senate Estimates, drawing parallels to the British satirical television series "Yes Minister" and "Yes Prime Minister." The core argument is that the Australian Public Service, exemplified by the Attorney-General's Department's performance during Senate Estimates, engages in obfuscation, dissembling, and inefficiency, wasting taxpayer money and hindering accountability. The episode in question revolves around the Australian government's recognition of Palestine and the legal basis for this decision.

The Recognition of Palestine and Legal Ambiguity

Senator Claire Chandler of Tasmania questioned representatives from the Attorney-General's Department regarding the legal standing of Australia's recognition of Palestine. The department's representatives consistently deflected direct answers, highlighting a perceived lack of transparency and accountability.

• Statehood Criteria: The discussion began with the traditional criteria for statehood under international law, as outlined in the Montevideo Convention: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states.
• Political vs. Legal Decision: Bureaucrats stated that recognition of a state is primarily a "political decision" at international law, rather than a strictly legal one, implying that legal definitions are secondary to political will.
• Undefined Territory: When questioned about whether Palestine has agreed borders defining its territory, the department refused to provide a legal opinion, deferring the question to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DEFAT). This was framed as a "physical question, not a legal question" by one official.
• Advice on Recognition: When asked if the Office of International Law had provided advice on the legitimacy of Australia's recognition of a Palestinian state, the department confirmed they had given advice but were unable to provide specific dates or the number of occasions, stating they would "take that on notice."
• Duration of Advice: The issue of providing advice on recognition had apparently come up "numerous times" over "many years," with one official estimating "over the last 15 years," but they were hesitant to be precise.

Bureaucratic Evasion and "Taking it on Notice"

A recurring theme throughout the questioning was the repeated use of the phrase "take that on notice." This phrase, according to the presenter, is a hallmark of bureaucratic evasion, often signaling an unwillingness or inability to provide a direct answer.

• Squirming and Deflection: The transcript highlights the visual cues of bureaucrats "squirming" and looking "uncomfortably at each other" when pressed for answers, which the presenter interprets as a sign of their discomfort and potential dissembling.
• The "Glasses Tell": The act of bureaucrats taking off or putting on their glasses is identified as another "tell" that often precedes the inevitable "we'll have to take that on notice" response.
• Capital City Ambiguity: When asked about the capital of Palestine, the department stated it was "not a matter for this department," and when pressed on whether they knew or were legally unsure, they again deflected. They also refused to comment on the capital of Israel, claiming it was outside their responsibilities, despite it being a well-known fact (Jerusalem).

Arguments Against the Recognition of Palestine

The presenter presents a strong argument against the Australian government's recognition of Palestine, citing several negative consequences:

• National Disgrace: The presenter labels the Australian Public Service a "massive multi-billion dollar organization" and a "national disgrace."
• Alienating Allies: The recognition is seen as having "deeply upset our ally Israel."
• Fueling Anti-Semitism: It is argued that the decision "poured more fuel on the fire of homegrown anti-semitism, thereby threatening Australian Jews."
• Setting Back Peace Process: According to the Americans, the move "set back the peace process," potentially costing lives.
• Unfulfilled Commitments: The presenter questions whether the recognition was conditional on Palestinians fulfilling commitments made to Prime Minister Albanese, and whether Australia has "potentially recognized a future terrorist state" if Hamas remains in control. The department's response that commitments have "no bearing on whether Palestine is recognized as a state legally" is met with derision.
• Non-Existent State: The presenter asserts that Australia has recognized a Palestinian state that "has never existed, does not merit existing under current conditions and in the foreseeable future cannot and will not exist."

Conclusion: Draining the Swamp

The episode concludes with the presenter lamenting the lack of accountability, mirroring the "plaintiff sigh" at the end of "Yes Prime Minister." The repeated "I'll take that on notice, Senator" is presented as the unsatisfying outcome under the current government. The presenter calls for action, suggesting it's "time we drained the Lake Burley Griffin swamp" on behalf of the "battered and abused Aussie taxpayer." The core takeaway is a profound distrust of the bureaucracy's ability to provide clear, honest, and accountable answers, particularly on matters of significant national and international importance.