(Australian Journal of Public Administration 69(4) 89-98 National Council of the Institute of Public Administration, 2001).

In that essay Professor Adams covers a huge amount of ground in a mere nine pages, often with a twist of irony as he makes observations about how people and groups operate.

Though this competition essay for which he claimed the award, and his more recent work A Social Inclusion Strategy for Tasmania (2009)

http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/divisions/siu/strategy

are predominantly focused on social infrastructure issues, his insights can be extrapolated to almost any arena where assessment needs to be made regarding people and structural management.

Professor Adams was a key architect of “A Fairer Victoria,” the Victorian Government’s social inclusion strategy. instrumental in Victorian policy initiatives captured in the “Growing Victoria Together”
Prof. David Adams was announced as the inaugural Social Inclusion Commissioner for Tasmania in late 2008. He is eminently suited to commenting on management principles within government.

His witty remarks about Federalism are encapsulated on his wry observations about the concept of the Mexican Standoff as cited by me elsewhere including in submissions to the Productivity Commission. I hope he will excuse such liberal citation with the aim of promulgating his ideas in this topical climate of major reforms.

Mexican Standoff: (according to David Adams (2002, p92)
“State to Commonwealth: Your low rates and highly targeted income support payments cause poverty Commonwealth to State: Your pricing policies on your inefficient state services mean people can’t afford access to them that cause poverty.”

Adams asks about whether new Governance and delivery systems need to be re-defined. He says (p96)
“Some of the old institutional boundaries are no longer appropriate and many never worked well anyway. The simple idea of the Commonwealth being responsible for income support and the state for a mix of universal and targeted welfare support (for example, housing health concessions) needs to be revised.

In our new joined-up integrated and partnership world these old settings don’t seem so sensible.”

Adams holds that the track record is not good for getting the institutions to work together (p96). He points out to the possible need and renewed debate about institution design, referring to the work of Kuhnle (2000).

He also holds the view that COAG and ministerial councils are “creatures of government for government”.

He believes that:

“Broader forums and structured arrangements are needed to focus effort. Despite being a rather exclusive and tightly managed club COAG still represents the most obvious forum within which the states and territories and the Commonwealth could canvass a national approach. However a truly national forum where the policy community clans can meet with other partners (such as business and local government) would be a good way of testing the new settlement.

Whilst still on the topic of Mexican standoffs and turf wars, I quote from Peter’s Kell’s 2005 National Consumer Congress speech, during which he analyzed the Productivity Commission’s Draft Report on the Review of National Competition Policy.

“Finally, it would be very disappointing, as I said earlier, if any national review was to be used as a vehicle for cynical and unproductive turf wars between different agencies. There are few things more depressing for consumer activists than seeing reform agendas hijacked by agency self- interest, so we have got to make sure that does not happen.”

Earlier in the same talk, Peter Kell cited directly from the PC’s Review of National Competition Policy.

“The Australian Government, in consultation with the States and Territories, should establish a national review into consumer protection policy and administration in Australia. The review should particularly focus on: the effectiveness of existing measures in protecting consumers in the more competitive market environment; mechanisms for coordinating policy development and application across jurisdiction, and for avoiding regulatory duplication; the scope for self- regulatory and co- regulatory approaches; and ways to resolve any tensions between the administrative and advocacy roles of consumer affair bodies.”

At a broader level there is some concern about how principal objectives are described in the last annual report given reference to “capturing the benefits of competition for consumers.” One would hope that no enshrined consumer rights will be sacrificed in an endeavour to capture such benefits.

Welfarist approaches to public policy:

A crucial component of Adams’ George Murray Essay 2001, (published 2002), though with the focus on poverty, he asks some challenging questions about inter-governmental structures and communications and focuses on the issues of federalism and anti-federalism, in such a way as to make his essay absolutely pertinent to almost every arena where a “joined-up” government is envisaged.

The Lens Approach (David Adams (2002:95)
Therefore these insights are as relevant for instance to the Consumer Policy Framework recommendations. Here’s an extract from that essay regarding the “lens” approach in evaluating policy parameters based on governments’ past issues and bad experiences

a) Lens Approach (according to Adams (2002, p95)

b) Seeing like a State (p96 Adams (2002)

c) What is it that we are talking about (agreeing the meaning)?

d) What do we understand to be the causes and consequences?

e) What are the outcomes we have in mind?

f) What levers do we have to make a difference?

g) Who else should we work with?

f) What does the public expect us to do?

g) What works?

h) What is the cost and risk?

i) Is there a minister who should be accountable?

Of particular relevance to the Consumer Policy Framework, still relying on Adams’ work and views is his analysis of the reasoning often undertaken in considering reform measures. He says:

Most present their empirical evidence and then focus on either macro solutions or community empowerment or structural reform of the welfare state) or a suite of micro level program solutions (e.g. dental health, concessions, etc.

Macro solutions are seen as too complex and risky by most governments whereas micro solutions are seen as important but partial and difficult to justify one over another. The policy terrain of government tends increasingly to be exploring the middle ground.

Adams refers to the tendency to embrace universal rather than inherently “welfarist” approaches. Adams tackles various concepts about engaging the public, whether they are prepared to pay more taxes to tackle, for example child poverty? He refers to some evidence to support this (e.g. Australian Social Monitor 2001; c/f Adams p07). /52 Adams talks of “deliberative democracy” techniques for engaging these issues, referring to the Canadian Policy Research Networks 2001 (Adams (2002), p97).

In speaking about poverty as a precarious public policy idea and of issues of public accountability and leadership, David Adams, Department of Premier and Cabinet, Victoria, says:

“Good ideas tend to be simple to understand; resonate with people’s experiences of live; have leadership and a policy community around them; fit into program and resource structures of governments and seem capable of solving immediate problems.

The idea of eradicating poverty has lost these features. For example for the past 20 years poverty ideas have been knocked off their perch by economic reform ideas. Not only are there these competing economic ideas (which are claimed to be a solution to poverty) there is also a raft of new social capital ideas making claims on policy resources. The idea of poverty has been obfuscated such that we can’t agree what it means any more or how to measure it or who is responsible for tackling it. Which of course means no one can be held accountable.

Having some national goals and agreeing some basic language and targets would be a good start (to going forward) and “making the idea influential again.

I emphasize the findings of SSC in 2000 as a reminder to all concerned with upholding adequate levels of consumer protection. The SCC had found the following

a) Lack of understanding of NCP policies;

b) A predominance of narrow economic interpretation of the policy rather than wider consideration of the externalities

c) A lack of certainty between States and Territories as differing interpretations of the policy and public interest test, result in different applications of the same conduct;

d) Lack of transparency of reviews; and

e) Lack of appeal mechanisms

Referring again to the 2002 Senate Select Committee findings more fully discussed in subdr242part2, during its extensive examination of public concerns about the application of competition policy, reform agendas and community impacts, I deal with a few of these concerns briefly. Besides these findings I reiterate concerns that:

“The Senate Select Committee had found that social services were not shown to improve during NCP.
The SSC took seriously the suggestions in many submissions that some aspects of NCP and its administration would appear to be in conflict with the principles of good health community and social welfare service provision. That Committee’s findings in terms of competition policy and its impacts are further discussed elsewhere.

Whilst the Senate Select Committee did not seek to duplicate the work done by the Productivity Commission and the Committee confirmed that there were overall benefits to the community of national competition policy it found that those benefits had not been distributed equitably across the country. Whilst larger business and many residents in metropolitan areas or larger provincial areas made gains residents from smaller towns did not benefit from NCP.”

I hope the goals for productivity identified will remember to consider the findings of the Senate Select Committee as far back as 2000 (see subdr242part2).

“An unintended consequence of changes to the way social welfare services are funded would appear to be these additional administrative costs. Further it is evident that narrow cost/benefit analysis is not capable of examining many of the social factors involved the application of NCP in the social welfare sector.”
I repeat that all regulatory reform needs to be considered in the context of corporate social responsibility and the public interest test.

That includes any reform measures that either enhance or have the potential to hamper access to justice, or any regulatory measure that may, in the interests of lightening the burden on the courts for example, impose obligatory conciliatory demands on the public, and particular those most affected by the power imbalances that exist – the “inarticulate, vulnerable and disadvantaged.”

I repeat the findings of the Senate Select Committee’s 2000 enquiry effective management of hardship policies as implemented by the government or contract out had not been adequately addressed by shifting of financial responsibility to “bloody awful agencies which ought to be defunded”

In previous submissions I have addressed in some detail by citing the findings of others, and especially in relation to energy matters, that competition policies, and their interpretation have not always brought positive outcomes for consumers, and this was particularly of concern in the area of essential services and financial services.

Written some two years after the Senate Select Committee Inquiry of 2000, David Adam’s essay comments as follows on the welfare state:

“Then we discovered the crisis of the welfare state. In public administration we also discovered public sector reform, markets, competition, and public choice reasoning as a new focus Now there is relative silence.

Tim Costelo keeps a lonely vigil in the media but as Horne (2001) notes there is generally a lack of political leadership on social issues in Australia.

There is really no public debate on Australian poverty anymore. There are plenty of seminars and workshops and an occasional conference. There is also a lot of research. Most debates involve the same people. Mostly our researchers and a small number of community sector opinion leaders. In particular, church-based organizations flying the flag, but many of those are struggling with their identity (Lyons 2001), and with the legacy of contracting where the price paid does not equal the cost of service There is an occasional feature article in the media, usually triggered by another report on poverty, most recently the Uniting Care Report (Leveratt) and the St Vincent de Paul Report (July 2001)”

Adams comments that:

“without leaders and a public profile and a simple set of key themes to promulgate the chances of recognition meaning and understanding and the propensity for action is more limited.”

This is an indictment. Social policy depends on superlative leadership.

Adams refers to the “trickle-down theory.” This is described as one where the assumption is made that Greater productivity creates wealth and that the distribution of increased wealth would ultimately benefit all Australians.”

He further claims that redistribution is not a term that is associated with the legacy of the 1980s and 1990s. Worse still, he says that social justice was seen as a “failed legacy of the 1970s.”

So we are back to discussing Universal Service Obligations and whether there is a role for these at all in considering corporate social responsibility. Public presentations by economic regulators at home and abroad gain mileage from such titles, whilst the consumer policy framework is forced to consider options that may take us all back to those “bloody awful services” that the SCC found unproductive and damaging to the social fabric of the Australian society and any real commitment fairness and justness principles.

Whereas I believe that it is the responsibility of the community as a whole to support those who are more disadvantaged for whatever reason, the distribution equation is about making sure that private investors and corporations gain maximum profits whilst shifting these corporate social responsibility to the government or contracted services that may repeat past history. Adams as referred to popular buzz wards like “the poverty trap,” “disincentives to work” and to philosophies that believe that “productive economies with high employment are the solution and that welfare payments lead to dependency.” (p4)

Before launching into discussion about regulatory matters and complaints mechanisms seen to be deficient on a number of counts, and repeating skepticism that reliance on a combination of generic law and existing industry-specific complaints schemes somewhat revamped, I refer again to the work of David Adams. Though the topic is poverty as a precarious public policy idea, many of the philosophies are as applicable to other arenas.

David Adams in the abstract to his award-winning essay discusses the “rebuilding of a cohesive epistemic community with an outcomes focus.”

Under this heading, (p95) Adams speaks of a poverty community in terms of fragmented clans. The same principles may be applied to other arenas of service provision. He identifies:

The Research Clan

The Third Sector Clan

The Government Clan, divided into Commonwealth and State clans

The Commentator’s Clan (basically divided into the media clan and the academic clan)

On the fringes of membership are the social entrepreneur’s clan (only recently organized as a clan in Sydney some 12 months back) and the new Social Theorist’s clan (place management and community building clan meetings Other clans such as the philanthropic clan and the local government clan tend to move in and out of the policy community Rarely do the clans meet together except for ‘networking; at the occasional Social Policy Research Centre or COSS conference There is an umbrella clan called the National Coalition Against Poverty, but it mainly constituted by the Third Sector clan. There is no common plan uniting the clans and no forum for them t meet Meeting to think about the future would seem a sensible idea. I can’t remember the last time representatives of the clans met to discuss poverty, but I suspect it was many years ago.

Adams recommends canvassing:

A suite of outcomes and targets that would be useful” in terms of “the sort of Australia we want to see in 5-10 years and what our respective contributions might be to get there.

In his more recent work Professor Adams

At the core of the approach suggested in the report is the importance of shifting from a deficit to an assets model for people and places:

a) promoting enterprise solutions to build capacity and sustainability for groups and places

b) devolving responsibility locally as much as possible through a focus on place management

c) supporting families in communities to have greater choice and responsibility over their futures

d) changing the way government works

All of these during consideration of cultural and operational change that will bring public service provision into the 21st century.

My thanks to Professor David Adams and Peter Kell for inspiring me to quote their views – yet again.

More on public policy another time.

Regards

Madeleine

Individual Stakeholder

PS Ooops. revised copy – failed to proof read first one sorry

Firstly I acknowledge Stephen Collins’ 11 September 2009 blog in response to Lisa Harvey’s article What about the rest of us? (tags: community, engagement, ethics, public service).

In replying to Elton’s blog, Stephen disagreed fundamentally with Elton on the issue of generational distinction “which are progressively more being proved not to exist in anything except marketers’ minds.”
I agree. Marketing theory is evolving. Text theory relating to generation distinctions previously relied upon may need to be reviewed.

There has been progressive blurring of boundaries with generational distinctions. Not all of us can be conveniently labeled in the way that earlier texts of marketing suggest. Welcome the 21st century, including the unsettling effect of comfort zone views of how consumers and other stakeholders perform and think.

Stephen Collins has suggested that:

“It will be the motivated and connected – an ever-growing proportion of society in spite of the notion of the digital divide – who will engage with government this way, but we very much aren’t the product of any generation, rather we are the product of situation – needs, wants, desires, motivation”.

I am living proof that my motivation to connect and somehow traverse the “digital divide” is driven but such utter disillusionment with formal consultative processes wherein the very process is calculated to cripple even the most stoic, obstinate, motivated and passionate of us with incurable consultation fatigue. Even more demotivating is absence of feedback as to outcomes, given the huge amount of effort invested in the consultative arena by those who can in the first place find the incentive and motivation.

After four solid years of consistent input into formal consultative processes and with four or five pending formal submissions with overlapping deadlines, none of which I will be to respond to with quality in mind, I find myself spending more time cyber-spacing as a novice with few required technical skills, rather than devoting wasted energies responding to formal consultations wherein pre-empted decisions are made, minimal if any courtesies are extended in acknowledging the tireless efforts of those who do continue to participate in such arenas.

Therefore, generational gaps and technical skills aside, the Gov 2 Forum has the potential to cross what may a decade ago, according to traditional marketing theory have been considered insurmountable barriers
Having set that straight, I relate to the view expressed by David Eaves as a member of the International Reference Group in his Guest Blog of 2 November 2009 (above) that:

“If we focus exclusively on the external strategy we risk only changing how our governments communicate with the public and miss out on the real gains of transforming how our governments work.”
Gov2 needs to work on a premise that extends far beyond communication strategy, innovative media technology and information exchange.

It needs to be the catalystic platform through which real change at operational level is achieved
“there is huge value, learnings and efficiency gains to be had in adopting web 2.0 internally. If we focus exclusively on the external strategy we risk only changing how our governments communicate with the public and miss out on the real gains of transforming how our governments work.”

Wish I had started my blogs here but will refrain from repetition as I have made three blog postings on “The Faceless Bureaucrat” attracted by the brilliant graphic mime image of a suited and bowler hatted but faceless figure representing the title role.

In various formal submissions to the public arena, including the Commonwealth Treasury’s Unconscionable Conduct Issues Paper in December 2009 in referring to possibly misguided perceptions of impediments to responsible Commonwealth Government intervention, especially within the energy arena I cited the views of Roger Wilkins.

(see citation by Adams D, 2001. Sir George Murray Essay Competition Winner “Poverty – A Precarious Public Policy Idea.” Australian Journal of Public Administration 69(4) 89-98 National Council of the Institute of Public Administration).

By way of background, Roger Wilkins, AO is Secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department, a position he has held since September 2008. Prior to his appointment as Secretary of the Department, he was Head of Government and Public Sector Group Australia and New Zealand with Citi and was Citi’s global public sector leader on climate change from 2006-2008. From 1992-2006, Mr. Wilkins was the Director-General of The Cabinet Office in New South Wales where he played a leading role in areas of reform in administration and law, corporatization and micro-economic reform. Other areas included Commonwealth-State relations, negotiation of agreements on competition policy, international treaties, mutual recognition, electricity, the environment, and health reform.

Both sought answers to vexing questions as to how the debate may impact on timely implementation of many of the PC’s recommendations.

“The current situation where the commonwealth raises 80 per cent of total revenue in Australia but is only responsible for 60 per cent of expenditure is bad for political accountability.

There is a massive transfer of money from the commonwealth to the states and territories.
This means that the states and territories are not answerable to the electorate for the taxes raised to support their expenditure. And the commonwealth, which raises the taxes, is not accountable for the way the money is spent.”

Since 2008 Secretary of the Federal Attorney-General’s Department, Roger Wilkins, AO, further expresses his views on federalism and the roles and responsibilities of government at both commonwealth and state levels and clear accountability parameters, suggesting clarity in these roles as pre-conditions for democratic accountability; for good policy; for efficient government; for sensible determination of revenue allocation; and clarification of expenditure responsibilities. He explains how crucial it is that clarity is adopted in defining those roles and responsibilities.

In that paper Roger Wilkins expresses the following views on the roles and responsibilities of governments at both commonwealth and state levels and clear accountability parameters.

“The roles and responsibilities of different levels of government in Australia are becoming increasingly unclear. This lack of clarity has allowed ad hoc arrangements to emerge, and encourages sub-optimal policy in vital areas including human services and infrastructure development. “Ambiguity makes lines of accountability unclear, has inhibited incentives to produce good policy, has confounded efficient government and undermined the appropriate determination of revenue allocation.”

“How should Australian federalism be reformed? State and federal roles need to be structured so that they are clear, distinct, and work well and the right incentives must be created to support sound policy development.”

“…The High Court has removed limits on commonwealth power. Indeed ad hoc federalism reached its apogee with Prime Minister Howard’s Millennium Speech (Howard 2007), which announced an intention, or preparedness, on the part of the commonwealth to intervene directly at any level or in any area of government activity where the commonwealth thought it in the public interest to do so.

Roger Wilkins recommends that the following reforms:
a) The Subsidiarity principle: Responsibilities for regulation and for allocation of public goods and services should be devolved to the maximum extent possible consistent with the national interest, so that government is accessible and accountable to those affected by its decisions;

b) The Structural Efficiency principle: Increased competitiveness and flexibility of the Australian economy require structural reform in the public sector to complement private sector reform: inefficient commonwealth-state divisions of functions can no longer be tolerated;

c) The Accountability principle: The structure of intergovernmental arrangements should promote democratic accountability and the transparency of government to the electorate (Heads of Government of the States and Territories of Australia, and representatives of Local Government in Australia 1991)
The turf war issue is if great significance here.
It cannot be easy for jurisdictions to relinquish control of policies and provisions that have historically resided “on their turf” whether this refers to trade measurement, energy provisions or any other provisions.

It is high time for the turf wars to end and for a truly national single regulator to take control, whilst recognizing the risks involved in making isolated decisions that do not take into account other regulatory schemes.

Having said that, this does not imply blanket endorsement of approaches within the federal arena. Indeed it has been by direct experience at least within the energy arena that much is left to be desired.
A massive cultural adjustment is required to say nothing of addressing the more difficult issues of nurturing the political will to take a different braver approach.

In an earlier Gov2 blog today (9 April), I referred to the opinion article by Eddie Molloy in the Irish Times.com entitled “Seven things the public service needs to do.”

That article discussed under seven headings the issues of
1 TRANSPARENT ACCOUNTABILITY

2 INDEPENDENT, EXTERNAL SCRUTINY

3 EFFECTIVE SANCTIONS – ACCOUNTABILITY WITH CONSEQUENCES
4 ABANDON THE BELIEF IN GIFTED GENERALISTS

Under this heading Molloy discussed the trend for
“General grade staff move in and out of support functions such as human resources management, finance, economics, corporate services, operations management and even information technology, as if anyone can do this stuff. There is a need to establish attractive career paths for these and other specialisms.”

5 ESTABLISH THE MANAGERIAL ROLE THROUGHOUT THE CIVIL SERVICE

I have briefly discussed Molloy’s findings elsewhere on Gov 2 (#comment-12923; The Faceless Bureaucrat, response to Mia Garlick’s captivating wordless article 17 Aug 2010 one of three blog comments, barring Item 4 “Abandon the Belief in Gifted Generalists).
I will refrain what has already been discussed.

However, I must refer again to Andrea Muys brilliant submission to the Towards Government 2: An Issues Paper, in which he spoke of

“…open consultation and perpetual beta, errors and omissions become matters of public record. As such public servants need to be provided room to fail, if they are not to be forced into paralysis or subversion of the access policy.

To operate successfully Gov 2.0 must accept the existence of errors and implement tight corrective feedback loops seeking a trajectory of increasing accuracy. It cannot work if public servants are in constant fear of criticism and rebuke for the errors and omissions that are a natural part of any drafting or problem solving process.”

So, on that note, let us strive for best practice, consider blurring the boundaries; forget about placing people and groups in boxes and move forward towards a more effective collaborative democracy.

Regards

Madeleine

Individual Stakeholder and Novice Blogger

concepts like engagement, both inside gov and across the gov/citizen divide.

Engagement isn’t created by introducing new technologies or platforms alone. In fact, these actions often exacerbate the situation… but they also often uncover the kinds of practices and behaviours required to make the kinds of interaction you describe possible.

Implementation matters, and people like Andrew McCaffee have been thinking about this in the E2.0 arena – check out his post on the elements of an E2.0 perfect storm

hope this helps

The loss of valuable operational experience throughout restructures of departments/outsourcing has seen departments. And I would add that a lot of the innovators, the covert mavericks, were more often than not experienced public servants.

In short they knew how to get things done inside the department, and probably, it seemed as an outsider they also had a healthy dose of peer respect.

I would add that both corporate and government innovators I have met, have tended to have a firm grasp on operations. Not an MBA (unless as an adjunct to operations), nor management consulting experience, nor spin doctoring – which seems in vogue at the state level. The superior innovations came from less focus on politicisation/message control and more on operations. i.e. actually what the department was chartered to achieve in real terms.

So in my view it is the lack of on the ground operational experience – in some departments – that reduces the potential innovation.

Those are just some more quick thoughts.

Keep innovating,

Christopher

My two cents worth.

A system that does not encourage new challenges allows stagnation of skills and motivation, hence ‘coasting’ is just a rational response.

All is not lost, however.

The majority of public servants I know have are more likely to listen to people who have ‘been around’ a while having demonstrated long term commitment to their sector. We need to win over potential influencers, one at a time, by helping them in developing applications targeted at their own interests, and getting them to a point where they are comfortable enough to then talk to their friends in a way that demystifies the technology and theory.

The Universities could provide a good test bed for the sharing of data both between Federated entities and with the general public. Simple examples are access to research papers and results and even to some library resources.

The linking between a group of Federated government departments with the Universities Federation could provide a mechanism for the public to access much of government data.

I tend to be of the view that we should integrate I.T. back office operations in government and remove duplication, but keep the departments operationally separate in their core competencies. So, Dept of Finance, is – according to what I heard at CeBIT eGovernment in May – working on this.

But I take the view that operations should be decentralised, but admin centralised, and the key is getting the balance right.

I’d love to formulate an analysis on the topic.

I hope that Government agencies don’t again hire McKinseys/Allens/ etc to do these things – and get the same results through the same management-thinking 1990s paradigm written by MBA graduates with no operational experience. I take the view we need more bottom-up decentralised solutions, and less top-down. The internet is fundamentally decentralising, and being stuck in centralism ‘if only we had more control’ is an affliction of many decision makers and management consultants. The alternative is decentralist pragmatism. It’s also scary for command and control, but it’s how networks work. The risks can be lower, because costs are lower.

That’s my broad view of innovation – tension between central objectives and decentralised tactics.

Keep innovating,

Christopher Hire
Executive Director of Innovation
2thinknow

If you open up the sources and allow government services to advertise their wares anywhere they see fit then you are likely to serve the public more effectively than trying to have a single source for government contact.

I am not convinced that separating government sources from other sources is necessary and may be less usable for the citizenery as tend to be concentrated on assistance or services not necessarily on government assistances or services uniquely. In other words people search for tax matters, information sources, health matters – rather than looking at all the things governments might do. E.g. put links to passports on travel sites, links to medicare on health sites, etc.