An indigenous firm, Evolve FM, has jointly won a major Commonwealth property management contract, as part of a program to drive $300 million in saving
Running an old, insecure version of software — open-source or proprietary — can and will jeopardize the security of any site. It's Equifax that is
We recently moved our readers to a new system. You may need to reset your password here to login.
Not a member ? Join here for free.
Forgot your password?
Home Features Gary Banks: the reform ended when the politics got ugly
Text size :
TAGS Gary Banks, Politics, policymaking
What happened to the days of reform? The media, the spin cycle and governments that abandoned good policymaking process, the former Productivity Commission head argues.
The Governance of Public Policy: Lectures in Honour of Eminent Australians
The old saying “good policy is good politics” can bring a wry smile to the lips of political insiders. But the recent victory of the Key-English government in New Zealand provides further evidence, if such were needed, that president Harry Truman, who coined the expression in 1950, and Paul Keating, who picked it up five decades later, were on to something.
However, there can be no presumption that one automatically follows from the other. At a conference at the Australian National University in Canberra earlier this year, federal government frontbencher Josh Frydenberg reminded us of a monumental counter-example: the Coalition’s “Fightback” package that turned the “unloseable” election of 1993 into the “sweetest victory of all” for Paul Keating.
The facts are that a positive relationship between reformist policies and politics has typically only held when underpinned by good process. By this I mean process that ensures that a policy has been tested, contested and well explained to those affected, such that agreement can first be reached about the policy problem, making possible acceptance of the policy solution.
Receive unlimited access, get all the latest public sector news and features, plus The Juice, our daily news update sent direct to your inbox.
The Mandarin is where Australia's public sector leaders discuss their work and the issues faced within modern bureaucracy. Join today to discover the latest in public administration thinking and news from our dedicated reporters, current and former agency heads and senior executives.
Gary Banks is the dean and CEO of the Australia and New Zealand School of Government. He was formerly the chairman of the Productivity Commission and has held various roles in government. He is an editorial adviser to The Mandarin.
Read Related Content
While I agree with the premise that reform
relies on reliable, transparent processes, I don’t accept some elements of the
I think the problem with the media is not its
24/7 character, but rather its heavy handed bias. “Oppositional” opposition is a
media tactic as much as a party political one, and in the realm of public
debate, its potentially much more damaging to policy reform. Witness the appalling
state of environmental policy as one example. This is one area where true
reform is required if we are going to seize the tremendous opportunities open
That said, the premise of Gary Banks’ piece is reaffirmed
by the account of working under the Rudd Government given in Greg Combet’s
autobiography; where due process falls down, the result is woeful and
potentially dangerous policy implementation, which invariably makes the electorate
afraid of further reform. And is fodder for the trenchant views and intent of
the highly vocal elements of the conservative media outlets.
Gary, I have often wondered how we have come to this. The early 90s were a good period for reformist governments. I was at Cabinet Office in Vic and then Treasury and Finance, and there was a commitment to reform that ran through government and the agencies. We were supported by institutions including PC and ACCC as well as Ctg Treasury.
What went wrong? Why was this equilibrium so unstable and some law of Entopy carried us to our current situation so well captured in your article?
My guess is the benefits of reform were never understood by the community.. Benefits occur over time and the counter factual is not established. So all the effort and energy, and indeed the disruption was held against reform. Perhaps the benefits of reform such as higher living standards also sowed the seeds for failure. People could afford to be blasé about making further sacrifices. Perhaps also peopl wanted programs that had actions and IMMEDIATE and tangible outcomes..even if these were achieved at high cost.(pink batts).
Perhaps also Governments stopped being courageous, so the direction of causality swung towards policy being determined by Electorate white noise that was taken seriously to secure political advantage.
Either way I regret where we are today and wonder what it will take, short of a major economic crisis to find the pathway to reform-minded governments supported by high quality, courageous advice.
Pingback: No Crap App: w/b 13 Oct 2014 | No Crap App()