| Abstract: | Abstract: State governments in Australia have been regarded essentially as service deliverers, with the result that the specialist heads of public organizations, although technically competent, have rarely questioned the need for their activities. Nor does the argument that such questioning is the responsibility of the politician take account of the inertia of the existing system; an analysis of the activities which the Tasmanian government has undertaken over the past six years—including those of statutory authorities—shows a fair degree of stability. Thus we should consider building into the State's existing organizational arrangements some means of evaluating existing programs and new proposals. Such policy analysis should widen the narrow focus of the advice currently offered by public servants. Although there have been some moves in this direction in Tasmania (particularly in the Premier's Department), it has not been reflected in the structures of the public service generally. A survey of 22 government departments showed that only eight had officers concerned with evaluatory planning, and only three departments were engaged in innovative and initiatory planning. Other directions in which Tasmania's public organizations could move with benefit include an increase in lateral recruitment; breaking down the rigidity of the promotion appeals and classification systems; introducing flexible management and budgeting procedures throughout the service as a whole; and continually reviewing the structure and functions of public organizations. The questions that have been raised by recent inquiries into State and Federal government administration, namely coordination, efficiency, economy, effectiveness, decentralization and participation, have not stressed sufficiently the key issue for the public services of the 1980s, which is the nature of the relationship between the politician, the public service and the community. |
