Opportunity Lost? Victorian Labor's Enactment of Community Development 1999–2006

The idea of community development has been evoked by Australian governments over many decades. The expressions of community have differed widely, often as a result of politics rather than informed policy. In 1999, after seven years of radical neo‐liberal restructuring in Victoria, the Bracks government found itself unexpectedly elected to power. They faced new challenges such as a diminished public sector, growing social inequality and climate change. The first two terms of Victorian Labor were a seminal period in terms of the role they would invoke for ‘community’. Did grass roots participation take a central place, or did rhetoric rule over substance? The evidence points to a government maintaining a neo‐liberal trajectory, and thereby losing an opportunity to enable an active citizenry.     

Twenty years of Australia's engagement with Asia

Abstract

For the past two decades, ‘engagement with Asia’ has been a central theme in Australian public policy and public debate about Australia's place in the world. The commitment to Asian engagement has been shared by both sides of federal politics throughout this period; however, when in government the Labor Party (1983–96) and the Coalition (1996–2007) pursued radically different approaches to this common objective. This article contrasts and evaluates the differing approaches adopted by the Labor and Coalition governments, in the context of the domestic and regional debates and controversies that accompanied them. In particular, it seeks to explain why Australia is more engaged with Asia than ever before, in seeming defiance of the widespread criticism of the Coalition government's particular approach to Asian engagement.     

Another Opportunity Lost? Victorian Labor's Enactment of Sustainability, 1999–2010

‘Sustainability’ provides the dominant frame for environmental policy debate, even though there is considerable debate to as to what sustainability is, why is it needed, and how can it be progressed. From 1999 through to 2010, Victoria was governed by Australian Labor Party (ALP) led governments that, at times, actively pursued the goal of sustainable development. This culminated in the stated ambition for Victoria to be ‘world leaders in environmental sustainability debate and practice’. This paper explores the way in which sustainability was enacted by Victorian Labor while in government. The evidence indicates that the potential of Victorian Labor's vision was never realized, and that it failed to significantly reform the neoliberal policy settings it inherited.     

The evolution of an Asia‐Pacific policy community in Australia

Australian Labor governments have, in recent times, become particularly active in shaping the form and content of regional forums where outstanding economic and security issues can be semi‐publicly aired. An increasing number of analysts have characterized this activist role with APEC and CSCAP as a manifestation of ‘intellectual leadership’, and have explained this evident concern with the promotion of common understandings (and hence the possibility of rules) as the natural stance of ‘middle powers’. This paper surveys the means by which Australia's Labor governments came to engage in these regional dialogues; the arguments that have facilitated that engagement; and the individuals who have played leading roles in articulating those arguments. It concludes with brief observations about the possible trajectory of these two regional dialogues, and reference to some of the obstacles they might pose for future Australian governments.     

The governance of public affairs

• Government and governance are frequently treated as synonyms. Governing is what governments do in formulating and implementing policies. A burgeoning political science literature uses the term governance in a different way to describe the growing tendency of governments to govern in partnership with a range of non‐state actors and, as a purported consequence, the marginalization of governments within policy‐making processes. Here, some writers go so far as to talk about ‘governance without government’. In a forthcoming book, Rethinking Governance: Bringing the State Back In, Stephen Bell and I argue that this dominant ‘society‐centred’ perspective on governance is flawed. In our view whilst governments are indeed now more likely to forge relationships with a larger range of non‐state actors, they nevertheless remain the central players in governance arrangements. Indeed we argue that governments have been strengthened through the relationships they have developed. This article reviews some of the extant literature on governance and specifies the basic terms of our ‘state‐centric relational’ approach.

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Non‐Departmental Public Bodies Under the Howard Governments1

There has been both continuity and change in the use of non‐departmental public bodies (NDPBs) during the Howard years. In terms of continuity, the statutory authority and its incorporated version, the statutory corporation (in whose development late 19th and early 20th century Australian governments played such an important part), have remained in wide use. In terms of change, however, two other NDPB forms offered some challenge to its popularity. The government‐owned company came to be a preferred form for government business enterprises (GBEs) and, more recently, for many other non‐commercial public activities as well. And the executive agency, first making its Australian appearance in 1999, seemed initially to be another significant challenger, but its numbers, never great, were soon cut back. The article examines these trends, relating them to several relevant systemic inquiries and policy changes, notably the Humphry review of the governance of GBEs, the final settlement (in 1997) of the package of financial management acts, the Uhrig inquiry of 2003 and the system‐challenging pressures that have followed it. Commonwealth participation in joint (Commonwealth/subnational and Commonwealth/private) activities is also noted, as is the lack of ‘fit’ of the Australian experience with international theorising about ‘agencification’. Finally, the article seeks to identify the leading figures within the Howard governments who have been directing both the changes and the continuities involved in these developments.     

The Australian Citizens' Parliament: forging shared identity through public deliberation

• Active citizen participation is increasingly being recognized as essential to effective public policymaking. A key challenge for public administrators is how to effectively engage constituents' diverse viewpoints in sound deliberation that will likely result in coherent, agreed judgments. This paper investigates one such public deliberation process, Australia's first Citizens' Parliament, which brought together 150 randomly sampled Australian citizens charged with the task of formulating concrete policy proposals to be considered by the Federal government. One unexpected outcome of this initiative, especially given Australian ambivalence about nationalism, was the emergence of a shared identity among participants that appeared to bridge cultural and geographical divides. We explore linkages between salient elements of the deliberative process, the emergence of a sense of ‘being Australian’, and the final agreed list of policy recommendations that indicated an understanding of and commitment to the ‘common good’. If the emergence of a shared identity is acknowledged as a key to the development of a coherent public voice, then further examination of these linkages will be critical to the efficacy of future public deliberations. Moreover, given the heterogeneous nature of the Australian electorate and the challenges inherent in the country's federal governance structure, the findings have significant implications for policymakers in similar constituencies, notably the EU and the USA.

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

An Analysis of the Joint Board or County Model as the Structural Basis for Effective Australian Local Governance

Australian policy‐makers continue to rely on municipal amalgamation as the main engine of structural reform in local government, despite strong evidence that it diminishes participation and representation without improving service efficiency. Several promising, but neglected alternative models of structural reform have been developed, including ad hoc resource sharing models, Regional Organisations of Councils, virtual local government, and agency models. In an encouraging response to the recent policy of enforced council amalgamations in NSW, the Shires Association of NSW (2004) has recently proposed a ‘Joint Board model’ of local governance and invited comment on this model. This article takes up this challenge and seeks to place the Joint Board model in conceptual context and evaluate its characteristics and simulated cost savings.     

Unanswered questions in service provision for modernizing states

In ‘Innovations in the provision of public goods and services’ (Pinto, R. (1998). Public Administration and Development, 18 (4): 387–397), Pinto contributes to the ongoing policy debate on service provision in two important ways. First, he points out that service provision reform is a complex, evolutionary process that is at once political and economic. Second, he argues that public management and administration, rather than becoming obsolete, will have to become more naunced and refined as governments increasingly allow private sector and citizen participation in the delivery of services. Both these propositions could be further developed by acknowledging the ongoing redefinition of what makes services ‘public’. Governments in developing countries will successfully redefine the ‘public’ character of services only when they resolve the enduring trade-offs between efficient delivery and distributive justice, between the roles of citizen and consumer. Copyright © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

In Search of Society? The Limitations of Citizen‐Centred Governance

Democratic governments have spent much of the last two decades attempting to recalibrate their governance systems around a single focal entity: the citizen. The all‐pervasive rhetoric of citizen‐centred governance has seen policies conceived, delivered and evaluated in terms of the satisfaction levels achieved by individual ‘citizens’. This article argues that by disaggregating societal interests down to the smallest available individual unit – the citizen – policy makers have created unrealistic expectations of individual participation, leading to public distrust when ‘citizen‐centred’ rhetoric does not match reality. Simultaneously, the focus on individual outcomes has narrowed the policy‐making gaze away from wider society‐level measures that could create more robust policy options in the face of ‘hard choices.’ The result – paradoxically – is that the more government focuses on pleasing the individual citizen, the less trusting those citizens are of government's ability to deliver meaningful outcomes.     

Policy on innovation in Australia: Divergence in definitions,problems, and solutions

Innovation has joined the mainstream in many nations as governments search for new ways to tackle challenging societal and economic problems. But Australia is seen to be lagging on innovation policy. Is this related to how governments define innovation? What do they regard as the problem they are addressing? What proposed solutions follow from this? This paper examines how Australian governments have defined innovation over four decades, signalling their policy intentions about how to make the nation more innovative. Definitions of innovation are analysed using 79 Australian (national level) policy documents published from 1976 to 2019. Close reading of these documents suggests two main definitions: innovation as technology, and innovation as culture. Topic modelling uncovers more differentiated themes, shows how definitions change over time, and demonstrates an association between definitions and political parties in government. The divergent approaches suggest a lack of coherence and continuity to policy on innovation in Australia.

Points for practitioners

• Innovation has expanded and broadened in its definition and governments and policymakers have paid increasing attention to it.
• In Australia, there are two main definitions of innovation used in policy—one related to technology and one related to culture.
• The technology view of innovation can be further divided into a focus on businesses or a focus on research and development (R&D).
• Different innovation definitions, problems, and solutions dominate at different times, with Coalition governments tending to favour business and technology over culture, and Labor governments doing the opposite.
• There are divergent approaches to policy on innovation in Australia which suggest a lack of coherence and consistency in policy over the long term.

     

Federal Dynamics of Changing Governance Arrangements in Education: A Comparative Perspective on Australia,Canada and Germany

Abstract

Education policy is a highly interesting field from the point of view of governance, given the substantial changes that have been made throughout the world to the governance of such policy over the last 30 years or so. Western governments in particular have made significant changes in the governance arrangements of their education policy in order to achieve two fundamental goals: increased efficiency and greater accountability. In this process, the role of governments has changed but not diminished. This paper explores such developments by comparing the trajectories of governance reforms in three federal countries (Australia, Canada and Germany). What emerges is that the role of governments is key to all governance mixes modelled by the reform processes in the three analysed countries, and that there is greater “national” coordination than before, but also significant differences in the strategies adopted and in the content of reform, due to the differing nature of such countries’ federal dynamics.     

Treasury and Economic Policy – Beyond the Dismal Science

‘Treasury advises and assists the Treasurer, and through him the Government, in the discharge of his and its responsibilities in relation to economic, fiscal and monetary matters. The Department's main responsibilities lie in the field of general economic management’, Treasury, Annual Report 1983. ‘The Treasury's mission is to improve the wellbeing of the Australian people by providing sound and timely advice to the Government, based on objective and thorough analysis of options, and by assisting Treasury ministers in the administration of their responsibilities and the implementation of government decisions’, Treasury, Annual Report 2010a . ‘You can't really evaluate the performance of Treasury in terms of “outputs and outcomes” in any formal or public way because most of the time we are dissuading Treasurers and governments from doing stupid things’, Senior Treasury Official 2000. ‘We once had a “Treasury line”, but now we are more pluralistic’, Senior Treasury Official 2010. ‘Treasury's executive board hunts as a pack, they trust each other and they’ve known each other for long times’, Senior Treasury Official 2010.     

Indigenous institutions and local government in the Torres Strait

The relationships between local governments and Indigenous institutions in Australia are unstudied, despite both being oriented to the local level. Related research focuses on the performance of Indigenous local governments, Indigenous forms of governance and its relation to local government, relations between local governments and Indigenous communities, and the intercultural dynamics of Indigenous and Western governance frameworks in local governments. This article presents the findings of a study that examines relations between local governments and Indigenous institutions in the Torres Strait, a relationship that is framed by s. 9(3) of the Local Government Act 2009 (Qld) (LGA) that allows local governments to ‘take account of Aboriginal tradition and Island custom’. A framework adapted from health-related studies, consisting of three alternative policy approaches—mainstreaming, indigenisation, and hybridisation—is used in this study to characterise relationships between local governments and Indigenous institutions. Kinship and country, two important Indigenous institutions, are marginalised in Queensland's mainstream system of local government, which in turn creates obstacles for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from participating and engaging in local government processes.

Points for practitioners

• Government that does not recognise the institutions which are fundamental to how Indigenous people govern will marginalise them from power.
• Indigenous institutions are legitimate actors whose voice must be considered within mainstreaming discussions.
• Representation within indigenous institutions influences local government relations.

     

What Makes an Aboriginal Council Successful? Case Studies of Aboriginal Community Government Performance in Far North Queensland

Indigenous community governments are at the frontline of current efforts to ‘close the gap’ between Indigenous and non‐Indigenous living standards. Yet there is little empirical evidence about successful performance by these organisations and considerable scepticism about whether introduced Western governance models can ever be viable in Indigenous communities. To identify the governance attributes that contribute to successful performance, case studies were conducted at three Aboriginal councils in far north Queensland. The untested assumptions in current notions of ‘good governance’ were examined. Currently accepted good governance principles and practices were investigated to ascertain their actual causal relationship with council performance. The research further identified key contextual, historical and cultural factors that are important in shaping successful or unsuccessful governance. Practical strategies are suggested for policy‐makers and Indigenous leaders to build the performance of Indigenous community governments.     

Governing disorder: the Australian Federal Police and Australia's new regional frontier

Abstract

The Australian Federal Police has in recent years become an important actor in both the implementation and design of Australian-led state building interventions in Australia's near region of Southeast Asia and the South Pacific. The article focuses on the recent expansion of the Australian Federal Police as a way of understanding the emergence of a new partly (and strategically) deterritorialized, ‘regional’ frontier of the Australian state. Within this new frontier, whose fluctuating outlines the Australian Federal Police not only polices but also to a considerable extent shapes and reshapes, as one of the primary expert agencies on identifying and managing transnational security risks, Australian security is portrayed as contingent on the quality of the domestic governance of neighbouring states, thereby creating linkages between the hitherto domestic governing apparatus of the Australian state and those of other countries. This allows for the rearticulation of the problems affecting intervened states and societies – indeed, their very social and political structures – in the depoliticized terms of the breakdown of ‘law and order’ and the absence of ‘good governance’, which not only rationalizes emergency interventions to stabilize volatile situations, but also delegitimizes and potentially criminalizes oppositional politics. The Australian Federal Police, however, does more than merely provide justification for intrusive state transformation projects. Its transnational policing activities open up a field of governance within the apparatus of intervened states that exists in separation from international and domestic law. The constitution of such interventions ‘within’ the state leaves intact the legal distinction between the domestic and international spheres and therefore circumvents the difficult issue of sovereignty. As a result, police and other executive-administrative actors obtain discretionary ordering powers, without dislodging the sovereign governments of intervened countries.     

Regulating non‐government schools: Explaining success and failure

The challenge faced by governments in the regulation of powerful private actors has allegedly intensified in recent years. This study explores the means at the disposal of governments, and their effectiveness, with respect to the regulation of private actors that demonstrate considerable independence and political efficacy. It is argued that a modified ‘Contextual Interaction Theory’ (CIT), which focuses on the interaction between generic policy instruments (carrots, sticks, and sermons) and target group attributes (motivation, information, and power), and is augmented by a consideration of a separate institutional dimension, offers a useful analytical framework for understanding both the challenge faced by governments and the options for dealing with it. This framework is applied to a study of the introduction of ‘new accountability’ to Australian and Israeli non‐government schools. The use of the standard CIT lenses helps explain Australian success and Israeli government failure in the introduction of new accountability. Australian success is attributable to a judicious mix of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ instruments that favorably impacted target group information and motivation. In Israel, in contrast, policy instrument mixes failed to alter the main target group's oppositional stance. Institutional engineering, however, could provide a promising way for Israeli policymakers to enhance policy instrument effectiveness, by influencing target group power and motivation.     

New Governance,Green Planning and Sustainability: Tasmania Together and Growing Victoria Together1

Bridgman and Davis (2000:91) have argued that ‘ideally government will have a well developed and widely distributed policy framework, setting out economic, social and environmental objectives’. This article compares and evaluates two such frameworks or plans, Tasmania Together and Growing Victoria Together, in terms of their potential to promote sustainability. It argues that they are very different exercises in new governance, aimed at reconnecting with community priorities and at redirecting macro‐policy setting away from a preoccupation with economic priorities, respectively. Nevertheless, both plans have the capacity to ‘green’ state planning, in Tasmania in terms of more purposeful benchmarks, and in Victoria in terms of enhanced sustainability emphasis in the macro‐policy setting. The article encounters tensions in its review of the plans between deliberation and planning, policy empowerment and policy progress, and policy institutionalisation and politicisation as means of achieving policy change. It finds that whilst Tasmania and Victoria are re‐engaged states that are reinventing state policy, as yet they are failing to meet the governance challenges of sustainability.     

Working with Complexity: Community Engagement and the Murdi Paaki COAG Trial 2002–2007

Achieving improvements in indigenous health and education and reducing the incidence of crime and domestic violence in indigenous communities has proved heartbreakingly difficult. The Murdi Paaki COAG trial in western NSW aimed to break this pattern of failure by tailoring flexible Commonwealth and State government support to indigenous communities, working within a framework of shared responsibility. In this article we assess the trial as a policy strategy by comparing outcomes and patterns of outcomes across the sixteen communities. We found that the strategy worked best where ‘good enough’ governance was aligned with flexibility, rather than with control. This way of working is difficult for governments as it can be a slow process, and requires stability in the policy and engagement framework to deliver results. More broadly, our findings confirm the usefulness of complexity theory to illuminate and to explain the evolution of process in administrative contexts involving networked governance.     

The Council for the Australian Federation: A New Structure of Australian Federalism

In October 2006, state premiers and territory chief ministers gathered in Melbourne for the first meeting of the Council for the Australian Federation (CAF). This little‐heralded event marked the beginning of the first formalised structure for state and territory only collaboration since Federation. This article describes the genesis and creation of this new structural response to ongoing state concerns about the trend to an increasingly centralised pattern of Commonwealth‐state relations. It identifies the intended functions of the Council, which include: acting as a mechanism for coordinating approaches to negotiations with the Commonwealth; operating as a clearing house for policy ideas in Australia and internationally; harmonising regulatory frameworks; and developing improvements to service delivery in areas of state responsibility. Informed by interviews with key players involved with its establishment and documentary sources, this article assesses CAF's performance during its first 18 months of operation. It explores the hopes and aspirations of key CAF stakeholders, and some of the issues that have confronted the fledgling organisation. Personnel changes among the cohort of state and territory leaders, and the election of a federal Labor government in November 2007 have altered the dynamics of CAF. The article argues that CAF's emergence is an attempt by sub‐national governments to develop new capacity and leverage to address the asymmetries that characterise contemporary Australian federalism. However, there are questions about CAF's future, particularly about state and territory governments' capacity to pursue collaborative agendas given the pace and scope of Kevin Rudd's ‘new federalism’ reforms and the demands it is placing on their policy and administrative systems.