As a former senior public servant at both Commonwealth and State level, I have had the experience on occasion of a staff member or a member of an advisory group endeavouring to have something restricted even though it was eligible or allow something which was not eligible, on the basis that this was a better solution than what the rules encompassed (or did not, as the case might be). I believed then and believe now that public administration and the interests of the taxpayers, indeed of the nation, are best served by public servants and members of advisory or assessment committees applying legislation, regulations and guidelines as they are written and as they have been suitably legislated, approved or endorsed.

The alternative is quite simply a misuse – whether conscious or not – of power (never underestimate the power of otherwise little known public servants and people appointed to committees!). And when power is misused successfully that breeds cynicism and opportunism in those who observe the unchallenged or unpunished misuse. If as a public servant I thought the rules were not well written or did not serve the Government’s policies, there were always processes for such concerns to be raised and – assuming they had some merit – to be pursued. I did not always succeed in getting change, but then I was not elected as a legislator.

Unfashionable as the concept may be, laws and rules matter and the interpretation of laws and rules matters. Transparency matters. Words matter.