Australian Government Administration Research Articles

Arguing about Indigenous administrative participation in the Whitlam era: A representation theory analysis

AbstractIn 1974 Prime Minister Gough Whitlam established the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration (‘the Commission’), appointing HC Coombs as chair. The Commission's brief was ‘to inquire into and report on the administrative organization and services of the Australian Government’ giving particular attention to, among other issues, public servants’ ‘participation in forming policy and making decisions’. From the outset the Commission aligned itself with the view that Aboriginal people were ‘less than proportionately represented in the administration’. The Commission asked CD Rowley to prepare a report on Aboriginal issues. Barrie Dexter, Secretary of the newly established Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Charles Perkins, Assistant Secretary and Arrernte man from Central Australia, both gave evidence to the Commission. The competing ideas on Indigenous administrative participation expressed by Coombs, Rowley, Dexter and Perkins in the course of the Commission will be considered through the lens of representation theory. While all four doubted the capacity of the bureaucracy to provide a meaningful channel for Indigenous representation internally, each argued from a different view of representation. Understanding their positions on how Indigenous people should be represented in public administration, including their assumption that there would also be external Indigenous representation, could shed light on tensions that are still present today.

The Seven Dwarfs and the Age of the Mandarins: Australian Government Administration in the Post‐War Reconstruction Era, by SamuelFurphy (Australian National University Press, Canberra, 2015), pp. 246.

The Seven Dwarfs and the Age of the Mandarins: Australian Government Administration in the Post‐War Reconstruction Era, by SamuelFurphy (Australian National University Press, Canberra, 2015), pp. 246.

Samuel Furphy (ed.), The Seven Dwarfs and the Age of the Mandarins: Australian Government Administration in the Post‐War Reconstruction Era, Canberra: ANU Press, 2015. 246 + XXI pp. ISBN 9781925022322. Paperback, A$38.00.

Australian Economic History ReviewVolume 58, Issue 2 p. 207-212 Book Review Samuel Furphy (ed.), The Seven Dwarfs and the Age of the Mandarins: Australian Government Administration in the Post-War Reconstruction Era, Canberra: ANU Press, 2015. 246 + XXI pp. ISBN 9781925022322. Paperback, A$38.00. Kosmas Tsokhas, Kosmas Tsokhas Canberra, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this author Kosmas Tsokhas, Kosmas Tsokhas Canberra, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this author First published: 14 August 2016 https://doi.org/10.1111/aehr.12115Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume58, Issue2July 2018Pages 207-212 RelatedInformation

Increasing the influence of one’s research on policy

The problemWe would all like to believe that the best possible evidence informs health policy. Unfortunately, the translation of evidence into policy is not a simple process. Numerous factors influence policy development because decision making is an inherently social process, not just a technical exercise. Expert opinion, political sensitivities, organisational constraints, primary re- search and systematic reviews may all contribute to a given decision, but the priority accorded some elements over others rests well outside the bounds of a researcher's influence.1 Even more sobering is the fact that the importance of evidence in the policy-development process may erode over time.2The good news is that the Australian government wants to improve the quality of policy, and a 2010 document entitled Ahead of the Game: Blueprint for the Reform of Australian Government Administration expressly directed public servants to establish or reinvigorate partnerships with academia and research.3 Moreover, in 2011, 21 Australian Public Service department heads endorsed the call for public servants to employ 'the most up-to-date thinking and approaches' and to 'more effectively use the innovative capacity of a much broader base.'4 At both the national and state levels, health departments have been trying to improve exchange at the research-policy interface for some time. The Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing established the Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute, at the Australian National University, in 2003 (www. anu.edu.au/aphcri/)5 and in 2011 it created a knowledge-broker- age position located at Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute, which is currently held by one of the authors (PMcI). Similarly, the Sax Institute (www.saxinstitute.org.au) was creat- ed with core funding from NSW Health, and operates a knowl- edge-brokerage service that has completed 87 evidence checks since 2005. Furthermore, National Health and Medical Research Council funding has been provided to establish the Centre for Informing Policy in Health with Evidence from Research (http:// acc .cochrane. org/cipher).Australian governments are clearly expressing a desire to improve the research-policy interface through promotion of partnerships and increased interaction between researchers and policy makers. However, any health researcher keen to seize this opportunity is likely to face two problems: the apparent cultural differences between knowledge producers and users, and the rapid cycling of individuals through various positions within health departments.The former problem can be explained by the 'two commu- nities' theory, which posits that the producers and users of knowledge 'live in separate worlds with different and often conflicting values, different reward systems, and different languages. '6 Research into the attitudes of upper-level executives in the US government provided the empirical base for this theory. A multivariate analysis demonstrated that the difference between users and non-users of data external to government departments was explained by the cultural gap between government officials and social scientists, rather than the specific knowledge required for a given policy problem or by the real or imagined constraints of working within a bureaucratic system.The 'broken link' phenomenon arises when a research pro- ducer establishes a good working relationship with a potential research user, only to have that individual move to another position and be replaced by someone with little or no content knowledge. The regular movement of departmental staff between positions is a deeply embedded cultural phenomenon, which can be traced back to the 1976 Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration .7 The review recommended, among other things, that public servants move across areas and depart- ments to break down the silos that had developed.7 The movement among multiple roles, departments and areas continues today and is promoted at the highest level with the notion of a single leadership cadre across the Australian Public Service, as expressed in One APS - One SES. …

Emeritus Professor Joseph Ezra Isaac: Pioneer Scholar and Practitioner in Industrial Relations

This research note celebrates Joe Isaac’s 90th year by outlining some of the highlights in his extensive career and exploring the interface between his roles as a prominent scholar and an arbitrator. Joe Isaac has been one of the most infl uential contributors to both academic scholarship and public policy in Australian industrial relations during the past 60 years. In the words of Keith Hancock “despite [Joe’s] modesty and unassuming demeanour, he has been among the most effective and infl uential of Australian thinkers.”1 In fact, along with Hancock, his former student, Joe Isaac is one of a select number of academics who have succeeded in influencing both theory and practice in the fi elds of labour economics and industrial relations not only in Australia but also at the international level. In the course of his long career, which began in the early 1950s, Joe has undertaken numerous leadership roles within academia and public life. He served as President of the Economic Society of Australia in 1969. He was Foundation President of the Industrial Relations Society of Victoria in 1964 and Patron of the Society from 1988 to 1996. He was appointed to the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration, chaired by Dr H. C. Coombs, which reported in 1976. He was a member of the Western Australian Higher Education Review Committee in 1991–92. He was Deputy Chancellor of Monash University from 1980 to 1988, in which he played an important role in the governance of the institution. He was visiting professor in a number of American universities and was an Overseas Fellow of Churchill College, Cambridge in 1972. He served as President of the Academy of Social Sciences Australia from 1984 to 1987 and is a recipient of honorary doctorates from three universities. He was Chair of the General Insurance Claims Review Panel from 1992 to 2001.2 The many honours he has received include Honorary Fellowship of the London School of Economics since 1977, Jubilee Medal 1978, Centenary Medal 2003, the Association of Industrial Relations Academics of Australia

New Capabilities to Allow us to Prosper

New Capabilities to Allow us to Prosper

Achieving a step change: the holy grail of outcomes-based management

In 2011 public sector management is at a crossroads, without a clear way ahead. Politicians in New Zealand and comparable jurisdictions, such as Australia (Advisory Group on the Review of Australian Government Administration, 2010), are searching for new thinking on how to improve public sector performance. Some practitioners have responded by seeking to repackage long-standing ideas in an effort to extract improved performance from existing systems. In New Zealand, different governments have introduced marginal, piecemeal additions to the current system.

From Rhetoric to Blueprint: The Moran Review as a Concerted, Comprehensive and Emergent Strategy for Public Service Reform

On 3 September 2009, Prime Minister Rudd announced a six‐month Review of Australian Government Administration. He appointed an Advisory Group chaired by Terry Moran, Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, to prepare a discussion paper, oversee a benchmarking study and consultations, and craft a blueprint to reform the Australian Public Service (APS) in order to deal with future governance challenges. The vision is to develop a forward‐looking, innovative, collaborative, citizen‐focused, agile, informed and highly‐skilled APS to advise and deliver policy and services for government. Ahead of the Game, a comprehensive Blueprint for action, was released on 29 March 2010. This article provides a high‐level review of motivations and process for the Moran Review, an overview of the Blueprint, an assessment of the strategy and process, and suggestions for moving forward on selected issues.

Equipping the Australian Public Service for Australia's Future Challenges

Equipping the Australian Public Service for Australia's Future Challenges

Introduction: RCAGA and Agendas for Change in Australian Government Administration

Introduction: RCAGA and Agendas for Change in Australian Government Administration

Consultants and the Public Service

Governments, as well as the community at large, need disinterested analysis and advice. It is important that governments are advised on the options for and against intervention in what some perceive as wrongs, and the potential and likely costs as well as the benefits to the whole community of such interventions. When the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration (RCAGA) was set up, most of this advice came from ‘official sources’: principally the Commonwealth Public Service, supplemented by official bodies such as the Tariff Board and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. RCAGA was concerned about the narrowness of Australian policy discourse (especially in relation to economic policy), and explored several avenues for widening it. Ironically, these possibilities did not include what has turned out to be a very significant alternative to official sources: the use of outside consultants. This paper reviews the growing use of consultants in government, starting from the concerns of RCAGA, and exploring the institutionalisation of ‘outside’ advice, and the impact of this on the capacity of the public service to advise.

A Quarter of a Century of Performance Auditing in the Australian Federal Public Sector: A Malleable Masque

Utilizing Porter’s (1981) theoretical framework for historical narrative analysis, this article examines the history of performance auditing in the Australian federal public sector. The analysis considers four crucial events in the period 1973‐98 the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration (1976), the Australian National Audit Office efficiency audit developments (1979), the Joint Committee of Public Accounts Inquiry (1989), and the struggles over the passage of the Audit Act 1997. The analysis supports the proposition that performance auditing is a malleable social construct rather than a definitive performance review technology. The construction of its technological basis has been contested, with several concepts being included or excluded by various groups. These have both reflected and influenced agendas and activities at individual, organizational, institutional, sociopolitical and socioeconomic levels in the Australian public sector. Performance auditing is therefore revealed as a masque that ultimately may defy any universal technical definition.

THE FORGOTTEN ROYAL COMMISSION: PUBLIC SERVICE REFORM IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA

The publication Public Service Inquiries in Australia edited by R.F.I Smith and Patrick Weller (1978) concentrated on the wave of inquiries that swept Australia in the 1970s with most attention being given to the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration (RCAGA). While the focus of the book was on contemporary developments, Roger Wettenhall's chapter 2 outlined “A Brief History of Public Service Inquiries” so as “to set the present generation of inquiries more firmly in a historical context” (1978, p.15).

DEVELOPMENTS IN PUBLIC SECTOR AUDIT: HOW EFFECTIVE ARE EFFICIENCY AUDITS?

Abstract: A crucial issue facing the public sector is the extent to which efficiency and effectiveness are elements in the concept of accountability to parliament and the people. This paper argues that the recent moves towards efficiency audit in many countries, including Australia, need to be extended to effectiveness audit, and that to the extent that this does not occur, efficiency (and compliance) audit in the public sector is ineffective and accountability lacking.An examination of Australian public sector auditing is undertaken first, based on a discussion of the 1974–76 Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration, the 1977–82 Review of New South Wales Government Administration and the subsequent implementation of their recommendations as the means of clarifying and elucidating the definitions of compliance, efficiency and effectiveness audit, as well as a means of critically analysing Australian developments. Developments in public sector auditing in the United Kingdom and the United States of America are critically examined. Finally, the future prospects and problems facing public sector audit in Australia are reviewed, and policy options relating to the development of comprehensive audit are outlined.

REINTERPRETING THE DEBATE ON AUTONOMY IN PUBLIC SERVICE SCIENCE*

Abstract: The report of the Science Task Force of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration rekindled an old debate on autonomy versus accountability for government scientists. The rationale given there for allowing the natural science community great discretion in managing its own affairs while in receipt of very considerable public funds did not get much support in the debate. Unfortunately, the debate did little to illuminate the problems facing those charged with producing creative, but relevant research in public institutions. A more productive way of tackling the question of autonomy and accountability is to see whose interests are promoted by different stances on the issue. Some critics represent the quest for autonomy as simple power‐seeking by professional elites. Yet the institutional setting for many supposedly autonomous scientists involved in successful innovation in industry often involves extensive interaction with non‐scientists. User groups — such as the agricultural commodities research committees — influence scientists through a loosely coordinated network. In this situation a form of accountability exists, although it is not exerted through formal parliamentary mechanisms. The arrangements have some elements of corporatism. Autonomy is not prominent within this setting except elusively as a rationale used to blunt temporarily the impact of particular interest group demands that threaten the continuity required to realize investments in long‐term research projects. In this case, autonomy is essentially a myth. However, to the extent that it allows scientific institutions to combine interaction in the practical world that their research must serve with some insulation from short‐term political or interest group pressures, it may be valuable for successful research management. Science administrators sometimes regulate the research of their juniors quite closely, indicating that even individual “scientific autonomy” can be a very limited form of freedom. None the less, it can be managed in such a way as to allow creative talent to flourish within an accountable structure albeit one that departs from the conventional norms of responsible government.

SCIENCE IN A PUBLIC SERVICE ENVIRONMENT: ARE STATUTORY AUTHORITIES THE ANSWER?*

Abstract: The Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration reported evidence of widespread morale problems among government scientists. A major contributing cause was seen as the environment under which science is conducted within a departmental structure. One solution which has been advocated by many scientists, although rejected by the RCAGA, is to transfer government scientific laboratories into statutory authorities.

MANAGING WITH LESS

Managers everywhere are faced always with problems of scarcity, with setting priorities, making trade‐offs and allocating short resources. One part of the administrative task is necessarily about getting the most done for the least cost. But is Australian government administration now entering a particularly severe period of restraint, which will place even sharper challenges upon managers in the public service? I think the answer to this question is yes, and that there is general agreement about this within the public service itself. Problems of managing with less are therefore contemporary and pressing; and this paper is a summary of ways in which those problems are being approached. One way issues in calls for improved efficiency in government. This is not, however, a straightforward matter at all. Improvements or so called improvements to efficiency will always meet some resistance for a mixture of reasons. Some managers think that the need for change is not as great as critics maintain, so giving them no cause to do more than continue their normal practices of good management. Others see a renewed emphasis on efficiency as cutting into the resources properly available to the public service, so harming the community which the administration is supposed to serve. Managing with less is not then merely a technical issue. It involves questions about the meaning of efficiency and the role of management, and also judgments about the nature of the period in which we live and about who gains and who loses when we do indeed have to manage with less: that is, political and even moral considerations are mixed up with considerations of good management and efficiency. These matters of value, choice and conflict cannot be avoided.

Further thoughts on diversity and adaptability in Australian science policy

For more than 50 years the government of Australia has been connected with the performance of scientific research and development, and in all that time there has been but one review of the entire system. Official reviews of particular sectors of governmental research have been carried out in the past, and these have usually resulted in organisational changes. When, for example, the Institute for Science and Industry became the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research in 1926, 1 and this, in turn, became the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) in 1949, 2 it was a result of official reviews of the operations of Australia's main scientific research organisation. The Defence Science and Technology Organization, too, has been subjected to official review and most of the recommended changes have been put into effect.3 It was not until 1975, however, that a comprehensive review of the whole range of governmental research was thought to be necessary; it was carried out by the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration,4 appointed by the Labor Government in 1974 and engaged at the time in the fullest examination of the Australian public service since its foundation. The deterioration of morale and the widespread sense of frustration evident in the submissions it had received from scientists employed in government, except those employed in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, prompted the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration to undertake this review, and it appointed a science task force to assist it in making its recommendations. The task force was to review the existing organisation of scientific research and of scientific services in government, to suggest appropriate institutional and managerial arrangements for research and service activities, to assess the adequacy of present arrangements for determining conditions of employment and careers for scientific and quasi-scientific staff, and to suggest desirable changes. The report of the task force was presented to the Royal Commission

TECHNOLOGY, ADMINISTRATION AND POLITICS

Abstract: Technology is now a subject of politics, but we have little expertise in handling science and technology as issues in politics. Most of the solutions put forward to solve the technology and politics problem have their shortcomings, whether they be the “new calculus” of computer‐based decisions taking into account all possible values; participation and decentralization; competing sources of advice or the implication contained in the Report of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration that government be “elevated” to partnership with the bureaucracy. The technology‐based issue of energy illustrates this move towards politics, first through debates about whether certain values should be excluded from the calculus; secondly by the move to increase the degree of coordination not only within the energy complex but also in its relationship with other social objectives; and finally by posing the need for “brokerage” skills beyond those of profession or expertise. In fact the vision of the future as a knowledgeable society is now a description of the past. Our technological missions, once left to the protected world of the autonomous statutory corporations with their “little” politics, are being pushed into the area of “big” politics with its policy competition. The politicization of technology throws up the need for much more dynamic models of the relationship between politics and administration as neither the dichotomy nor continuum model is adequate. As a start, it may be useful to analyse the ways in which an administrative continuum and a political continuum twist and spiral around each other.

ACCOUNTABILITY, EFFICIENCY AND THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION

Abstract: This paper deals first with alternative concepts of accountability and efficiency. It views accountability—and associated concepts of efficiency—in a hierarchy of increasing sophistication and potential usefulness, but corresponding operational difficulty. The lowest level is fiscal or fiduciary accountability, relating to the actual expenditure of funds and procedures by which that expenditure is accounted for. The second level is efficiency accountability, defined in terms of the ratio of some physical measure of output to cost. The most sophisticated level is effectiveness accountability, in which the output measures used reflect the attainment of objectives or programs. Corresponding to these levels is a hierarchy of approaches to auditing, namely financial, efficiency, and effectiveness auditing.The second part of the paper looks at the present situation in Australia and at the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration in terms of this framework. It argues that the government should commit itself to a continuing, comprehensive process of analysis and evaluation of public programs and activities aimed at making programs efficiently effective in a manner consistent with regular financial procedures. A “package” for implementing this approach—including revised institutional arrangements—is discussed in terms of the difficulties likely to be encountered—difficulties such as the shortage of capable personnel and problems of extending analytical practices to the State and local spheres of government.