Centre for Policy Development's Blog, page 127

Public Service Research Program | An Overview

"The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do for themselves, in their separate and individual capacities."

Abraham Lincoln

Three decades of 'reform' in public sectors around the world have seen significant changes in the way public services are delivered. Market mechanisms have been applied in a range of ways, including privatization, imitating markets by introducing artificial competition and incentives into government service delivery; treating citizens as consumers; and replacing the direct funding of services with 'government by tax break'.

The trend in the last three decades has been to attempt to reduce the role of government to a minimum, with a philosophy that governments should only intervene in exceptional cases of market failure. It has taken a global financial crisis to make people realise that there are many things that markets do not do "so well". Governments will continue to do what individuals and markets cannot do at all, but we also need to recognise that public services cannot always be delivered as if they were products in a market. We will draw on economic and social research that explores the case for government as a provider of public goods, despite the increased demand and pressures on revenue over the coming decades.

The CPD Public Service Research Program aims to:

define a vision for the role of government in Australia
articulate values, principles and a policy framework for the future of the public service
ensure that governments recognise the importance of publicly provided services and that those services are properly funded over the long term

After years of hearing about what governments can't do, shouldn't do, or will inevitably stuff up if they try, it's time to recapture a vision of the positive role of government, and put forward an agenda for public sector reform in the 21st century. At the heart of this vision should be a public service that works in cooperation with citizens to build a fair, sustainable and democratic society.

This program will research frameworks for public sector reform in the 21st Century that can better cope with the challenges of meeting changing community needs, delivering fair and universal public services, retaining a skilled and motivated workforce, increasing demands on public sector expenditure and the long term risks of declining revenue.

Both within and outside the public service, many have identified a range of barriers to innovation in the public sector, including the policy development/service delivery divide, the risk-averse culture and the lack of management support. In our recent paper, Beyond the Blunt instrument: The Efficiency Dividend & its alternatives, we argued for a change in emphasis away from efficiency dividends and narrow performance management approaches and towards measuring effectiveness in the delivery of government services.

The Public Sector Research Program will articulate the economic and social evidence on:

What governments do best (covering both their role in directly providing public goods, and their role in enabling the market and community sectors to do likewise);
How governments can do what they do best, better (taking in common causes of governments' failure to serve the public interest effectively and how to address them)
How to fund governments to serve the public interest over the long term

… and it will place these questions within the context of the major forces driving change in the public sector over the coming decades.

For more information contact James Whelan, public service research director: james.whelan (at) cpd.org.au

Ian McAuley | Let The FJ Holden Be A Lesson

Ian McAuley Let The FJ Holden Be A Lesson

It's cheaper to own and operate a car now than it was 20 years ago, so why the hysteria over the carbon tax and its effect on fuel prices?

CPD Fellow, Ian McAuley examines the truth behind this debate and suggests that the discussion should not be focused on changing fuel prices but rather on how to change our patterns of consumption.

Read his article in New Matilda here.

Ben Eltham | My Cup of Tea: Taxpayer dollars head to Hollywood

Recently there's been a few big-budget film's coming out of Australia and even if you haven't seen Baz Luhrmann's Australia, you've at least heard of it.

The government points to its increased funding to explain the new wave of success stories coming out of the Australian film industry. But how much this is Hollywood and just how much support are our local film industry getting?

Ben Eltham examines rhetoric and reality in Crikey here.

Ben Eltham: High Emission Retail Politics

The carbon tax debate was never going to be pleasant and a week of relentless attacks by the opposition has shown us just how messy this discussion is going to get.

How sustainable is this assault on the government? Even more to the point, how sustainable are the opposition's alternatives to a carbon tax?

CPD Fellow, Ben Eltham discusses the fallacies of both opposition politics and policy in his article for New Matilda here.

Kate Gauthier | Both parties at sea on asylum policy

You've heard a lot about the asylum policy debate in the media. The Government announces a new policy. The opposition denounces any new policy. Talk back radio goes back and forth about the best way to deal with this issue. If all this noise about asylum seekers makes you almost believe there is thought put into how to develop best practice approaches, think again. You've been conned.

Read Kate Gauthier's article in The Punch here.

Ben Eltham | Managing disasters

Nature's forces – floods, cyclones, fires and this week the earthquake in Christchurch – won't stop, yet we still live on flood plains, in the bush, on the beach and in earthquake zones. Rescue services struggle. Communications fail. Insurance companies spread the cost. The CPD's Ben Eltham adds some common sense to the role of government in educating people and ensuring better responses to risks that are not so remote.

Listen to what Ben and others have to say on managing disasters to Background Briefing on ABC's Radio National here.

Kate Gauthier | Both parties are all at sea on asylum policy

You've heard a lot about the asylum policy debate in the media. The Government announces a new policy. The opposition denounces any new policy. Talk back radio goes back and forth about the best way to deal with this issue. If all this noise about asylum seekers makes you almost believe there is thought put into how to develop best practice approaches, think again. You've been conned.

For those of you who have seen The Usual Suspects, asylum seekers are Kaiser Sozé. A made up bogey-man criminal used to distract you from what is really going on. It's all just a political marketing campaign from both parties aimed at marginal seat voters. They use the boatpeople debate to define their party's image. 'Cruel to be kind' for the Coalition, with 'tough but humane' for Labor. The reality is, when you analyse policies from both parties from a purely rationalist public policy angle, they both fail the test.

The recent treatment of the nine year old orphan boy Seena, who lost both parents in the asylum boat sinking is raises serious doubts about Labor's desire to be seen as tough but humane. Seena has family here in Sydney to care for him, but instead he was packed off back to Christmas Island detention the day after his father's funeral. When asked by the media why he could not show compassion to just this one child, the Minister claimed that 'processes' were in place and procedures had to be followed, as though the decision and power was out of his hands. But isn't that why we built Ministerial discretion into the system, so judgement calls can be made by the Minister when exceptional circumstances require it? Yesterday Chris Bowen said  Seena and his relatives will be released next week, meaning the Government wasted the money flying them back to Christmas island, when the family could have stayed in Villawood detention centre. Great work Minister, now how about the other 1039 kids locked up in immigration detention facilities?

The Coalition's Scott Morrison complained about the $300,000 being spent on flying 22 asylum seekers from Christmas Island to Sydney and back for the funerals. How about the Coalition spending $1 billion on 46 people? Morrison's election promise was to re-open the offshore detention centre on Nauru. The Pacific Solution policy was costed by Oxfam Australia at $1billion and only diverted 46 refugees to other countries – a cost of a cool $24 million per diverted refugee. One might argue that its purpose was to deter others from coming. The policy ran for five years and the most boat arrivals Australia ever saw in a single year was 5600. That works out to $35,000 per asylum seeker deterred from coming. Frankly it would be cheaper to have an ASIO officer sit up in Indonesia with a sack full of cash bribing people to stay away.

The idea that deterrent policies like Nauru, Christmas Island or temporary protection visas stopped boats was never properly tested anyway. Politicians and pundits only quote the changing numbers arriving in Australia when there have been 'hard' or 'soft' policy changes. But a comparison of our arrival numbers with OECD averages for nations who did not make any policy changes, shows that Australian ebbs and flows in arrivals exactly matches the OECD average. In other words, anyone suggesting that Australian policy made all the difference in boat arrival numbers is either lying to you or has been conned.

The weird thing is, the best policy approach (one that sought good policy outcomes not just political outcomes) was actually put in place by the Howard Government.

Starting in 2005 the Community Care Pilot (CCP) provided intensive casework, psycho-social support and, where necessary, housing and income support to vulnerable people in the immigration regime. The results were startling to the Howard Government  – immigration cases were resolved faster, it was a lot cheaper and people who were rejected for visas were more likely to return home voluntarily rather than appeal the rejection or require forced deportation. In other words, community-based processing of asylum seekers results in greater compliance with the system and better outcomes for Australia.

Yet neither party wants to use this proven method, because it doesn't play well to the electorate. But the evidence shows that asylum seekers should be released from detention and processed in the community. Not because it's compassionate and not because it's the right thing to do, but because it works and it saves hundreds of millions of dollars.

Unfortunately, both sides of politics have decided to go back to the old ways of using asylum seekers as weapons in their policy trench-warfare. But like most wars, it costs a lot of our money and is pretty useless in achieving its perceived goal. But it is great at achieving the real goal – to distract the public and the media from investigating the real problems facing Australia. The fix is in.

This article was first published in The Punch here.

Kate Guathier | Both parties are all at sea on asylum policy

You've heard a lot about the asylum policy debate in the media. The Government announces a new policy. The opposition denounces any new policy. Talk back radio goes back and forth about the best way to deal with this issue. If all this noise about asylum seekers makes you almost believe there is thought put into how to develop best practice approaches, think again. You've been conned.

For those of you who have seen The Usual Suspects, asylum seekers are Kaiser Sozé. A made up bogey-man criminal used to distract you from what is really going on. It's all just a political marketing campaign from both parties aimed at marginal seat voters. They use the boatpeople debate to define their party's image. 'Cruel to be kind' for the Coalition, with 'tough but humane' for Labor. The reality is, when you analyse policies from both parties from a purely rationalist public policy angle, they both fail the test.

The recent treatment of the nine year old orphan boy Seena, who lost both parents in the asylum boat sinking is raises serious doubts about Labor's desire to be seen as tough but humane. Seena has family here in Sydney to care for him, but instead he was packed off back to Christmas Island detention the day after his father's funeral. When asked by the media why he could not show compassion to just this one child, the Minister claimed that 'processes' were in place and procedures had to be followed, as though the decision and power was out of his hands. But isn't that why we built Ministerial discretion into the system, so judgement calls can be made by the Minister when exceptional circumstances require it? Yesterday Chris Bowen said  Seena and his relatives will be released next week, meaning the Government wasted the money flying them back to Christmas island, when the family could have stayed in Villawood detention centre. Great work Minister, now how about the other 1039 kids locked up in immigration detention facilities?

The Coalition's Scott Morrison complained about the $300,000 being spent on flying 22 asylum seekers from Christmas Island to Sydney and back for the funerals. How about the Coalition spending $1 billion on 46 people? Morrison's election promise was to re-open the offshore detention centre on Nauru. The Pacific Solution policy was costed by Oxfam Australia at $1billion and only diverted 46 refugees to other countries – a cost of a cool $24 million per diverted refugee. One might argue that its purpose was to deter others from coming. The policy ran for five years and the most boat arrivals Australia ever saw in a single year was 5600. That works out to $35,000 per asylum seeker deterred from coming. Frankly it would be cheaper to have an ASIO officer sit up in Indonesia with a sack full of cash bribing people to stay away.

The idea that deterrent policies like Nauru, Christmas Island or temporary protection visas stopped boats was never properly tested anyway. Politicians and pundits only quote the changing numbers arriving in Australia when there have been 'hard' or 'soft' policy changes. But a comparison of our arrival numbers with OECD averages for nations who did not make any policy changes, shows that Australian ebbs and flows in arrivals exactly matches the OECD average. In other words, anyone suggesting that Australian policy made all the difference in boat arrival numbers is either lying to you or has been conned.

The weird thing is, the best policy approach (one that sought good policy outcomes not just political outcomes) was actually put in place by the Howard Government.

Starting in 2005 the Community Care Pilot (CCP) provided intensive casework, psycho-social support and, where necessary, housing and income support to vulnerable people in the immigration regime. The results were startling to the Howard Government  – immigration cases were resolved faster, it was a lot cheaper and people who were rejected for visas were more likely to return home voluntarily rather than appeal the rejection or require forced deportation. In other words, community-based processing of asylum seekers results in greater compliance with the system and better outcomes for Australia.

Yet neither party wants to use this proven method, because it doesn't play well to the electorate. But the evidence shows that asylum seekers should be released from detention and processed in the community. Not because it's compassionate and not because it's the right thing to do, but because it works and it saves hundreds of millions of dollars.

Unfortunately, both sides of politics have decided to go back to the old ways of using asylum seekers as weapons in their policy trench-warfare. But like most wars, it costs a lot of our money and is pretty useless in achieving its perceived goal. But it is great at achieving the real goal – to distract the public and the media from investigating the real problems facing Australia. The fix is in.

This article was first published in The Punch here.

Ben Eltham | Can multiculturalism work for Labor?

It's been a tough issue for Labor for 20 years but as senior Libs engage in overt vilification, Bowen and Gillard have a chance to take a stand on multiculturalism, writes Ben Eltham.

Read what Ben Eltham thinks how this might shake up political debate in a country as diverse and discriminatory as this one in his piece in New Matilda here.

Eva Cox | Hands up who wants a 30-hour week

Is there one clear possible area of policy reform that would provide a good basis for making society more civil? A core issue that affects a range of social well being indicators and our life choices? Could too much to do and longer working hours be at the heart of the discontents and social inadequacies of contemporary life?

This shift seems to have come from the move to market models of society with other policy changes that underpin our current obsessions with economic outputs, not social well being. This move that started in the 80s put macho versions of self-interested individualism at the core of policy.

It undermined the original ideas of the women's liberation movement which was to change dominant macho cultures – not just add women into them. Therefore it is my feminism that questions the relative importance of public paid work and private unpaid tasks.

How about we start the push for a norm of a 30-hour paid working week?

If this is sounding radical or unattainable, the UK think tank, the New Economics Foundation has just produced a report, Towards 21 Hours, suggesting we should aim for a future paid workload of 21 hours per week.

The author, Anna Coote, starts her case with the following points:

1. John Maynard Keynes envisaged that by the beginning of the 21st century, most people would work only 15 hours a week.

2. If time spent on housework and childcare was given a monetary value equal to the minimum wage, it would be worth £253.7 billion: 21 per cent of GDP.

3. Shorter working hours does not mean less productivity. In fact, studies suggest that those who work shorter hours are more productive.'

Later, Coote states:

A 'normal' working week of 21 hours could help to address a range of urgent, interlinked problems: overwork, unemployment, over-consumption, high carbon emissions, low well-being, entrenched inequalities, and the lack of time to live sustainably, to care for each other, and simply to enjoy life.

I am not proposing we go as far as that at present. However, I am proposing that the Federal government address time issues by:

Initiating a Time Budgeting Policy framework as the basis for assessing which Government policies affect peoples' allocation of their time to paid work, unpaid work, leisure, production and consumption.
Referring to the Productivity Commission a brief to look at hours of work vis a vis outputs and outcomes and productivity.

Terms of reference could include:

1. Are terms such as full time and part time of any serious value?

2. Changes to current definitions of hours of work as the basis for policy making.

3. Are current terms used by ABS or other policy and reporting authorities for policy making still useful or just for international comparisons with the ILO (International Labour Organisation)?

4. Would it be possible to look at a paid work unit of 3 or 3.5 hours being established as the basic unit of paid work and multiples of this be used to record and assess time allocations?

5. How do we value the productivity of unpaid work and its relationship to paid work in areas such as care and home production?

In the pre-feminist days there was no discussion of unpaid work, just paid work and the problem of too much time off! The feminism of the 70s was devised under the widespread assumption that the future would inevitably contain shorter paid working hours for all. We need to ask what happened as like the paperless office, the 'leisure' that never happened.

The 80s saw working hours become longer at more senior levels, while less skilled workers lost their jobs. Productivity became associated with long hours worked, technology was used to get rid of routine support workers and hours lengthened as people became fearful they might lose their jobs.

Women who moved into paid work, often part time, over the previous decades were seen as not serious workers, if not full-time overtime oriented. The feminist options for all workers to be able to combine paid work, career, family and community responsibilities became less possible.

Few, if any, men are prepared to challenge the false proposition that longer hours means more productivity.

Less time on paid work means having more time for other activities that can reduce consumption of services and other goods: care of others, home productions, creative involvements, volunteering, leisure and pleasure.

If both men and women took similar time allocations, it could break down the implicit gender barriers in paid and unpaid work and reduce consumption. It means more paid work to share around, so those in paid work should be more able to manage the multiple demands and pleasures.

And it may increase individual productivity as there is evidence that shorter working hours are more productive. Maybe we can learn more from Aboriginal priority setting values?

Start by doing away with the useless distinction between part time and full time as more or less than 35 hours per week. This could be a first step in defining what reasonable socially responsible workloads could and should be.

Any takers?

This article was first published in The Punch here and re-published with permission.