…That we would do
We should do when we would…
Hamlet Act 4, scene 7
The release of the Thodey Review of the Australian Public
Service, Our Public Service, Our Future, (link here) on a
Friday 12 days before Christmas is not designed to attract sustained attention to
the important issues dealt with. The Prime Minister’s media release (link here) indicates
that ‘The Government agrees with the majority of the independent panel’s
recommendations and I have asked the heads of the public service to take these
forward’. The Government’s response, Delivering
for All Australians, addresses each recommendation (link here).
This post presents a provisional reaction to the key
recommendations of the Review that relate to Indigenous Australians and then
comments on the Government’s formal response. For ease of reference, I have set
out relevant extracts of the Review recommendations and the Government’s
response at the end of this post.
While there is a temptation to focus solely on the
Government’s response, it seems to me that it is important to give serious
consideration to the Review itself. These types of documents potentially have long
half-lives, and in the long term are potentially influential for good or bad.
First some contextual issues. My initial response is that
the Report’s recommendations are well meaning, worthwhile, but ultimately
underwhelming. While there are numerous references within Thodey’s report to
the 1976 Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration (the
‘Coombs Royal Commission’), even a quick comparison of the two documents makes
clear that the Coombs’ report was much more thorough, comprehensive, deeply
argued and ultimately persuasive. This is even more particularly the case in
relation to Indigenous policy issues.
The Thodey Report correctly concludes that implementation
processes will be crucial if the Report is to have an impact. Yet in too many
instances, it seems that the Review Panel have failed to understand the
inherent complexity of what they are recommending, and thus left us with ‘feel
good’ recommendations that if implemented, would ultimately fail.
The Government’s response in relation to the relevant
recommendations discussed in this post is desultory and vague. While they claim
to have endorsed a majority of the Review recommendations, it is clear that any
recommendation for substantive change or that might threaten the status quo
has been rejected or downplayed. This is consistent with the current playbook
on virtually all policy: ramp up the rhetoric, create the appearance of some
action somewhere (to avoid accusations of inaction), and continue business as
usual. See below.
While virtually all activities of the Australian Public
Service (APS) indirectly affect First Nations citizens, the Thodey Report’s
chapter four is of most direct relevance to First Nations citizens. That
chapter makes a strong case for stronger partnerships with ‘people [ie citizens
generally] and communities… including [emphasis added] place based
solutions and working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’. Thus,
recommendation 8 does not mention
Indigenous peoples. The core element in recommendation 8 is:
Secretaries
Board to develop a Charter of Partnerships to promote an open APS and guide
external engagement and collaboration.
The proposed Charter of Partnerships is designed ‘to set
clear expectations – for Government, the APS, and the community – on how the
APS will work with its external partners’. It is to be developed in
collaboration with the APS’s partners, including Indigenous peoples (p.119).
The Report then makes the point (correctly in my view) that partnerships rely
on openness and transparency, and that this ‘will require real cultural change
in the APS’ (p.120).
This is sensible and I support it. The overarching analytic
framework is one of dealing with all communities and people, particularly disadvantaged
citizens, and including Indigenous communities within this framework. A strong
case can be made for such a framework (as opposed to a stand-alone Indigenous
specific framework), although there is no discussion of the alternatives to the
frame adopted by the Report. The ‘mainstream’ framework is just adopted.
The Report also recommends that the Government commission a
review of privacy, FOI and record –keeping that accepts without question arguments
from within the bureaucracy regarding the importance of protecting records of
deliberative processes. The review panel fails to address at all the counter
view that blanket protections of advice to government can also hide both poor
quality advice from bureaucrats and allow governments to blame bureaucrats for
decisions that are taken for political reasons. There is a case for a much more
nuanced approach to this issue if we believe ‘open government’ and trust in
government is important.
The Government response to recommendation 8,
labelled misleadingly as ‘agreed in part’ is essentially to reject it, and
maintain the status quo. In rejecting the proposed Charter of Partnerships
framework, the suggestions for external involvement of the community (including
First Nations interests) in developing the proposed Charter is ignored, as is
the suggestion that an accountability framework be developed to ensure the
Charter is implemented effectively. The suggestion of a review of the privacy
and FOI legislation is just rejected outright.
The chapter then moves onto a discussion of ‘Solutions with
communities’ where it argues for and recommends ‘that the APS develops, for
Government consideration, a whole of government policy framework for place
based investment’ (p.126). Again, this is a mainstream recommendation, targeted
at disadvantaged communities generally and not just Indigenous communities. Of
course, given the over-representation of Indigenous communities (especially in
regional and remote areas) amongst the most deeply disadvantaged Australians,
this discussion is highly relevant to First Australians.
While the review panel recognises that it would be ‘a
considerable change to the status quo’,
its level of analysis around the potential implementation challenges is quite
shallow. It does suggest a progressive rollout, which begs the question, what
about those communities that are not being included. It also tentatively
proposes ‘shared accountability between ministers for placed base approaches’
(p126) which in my experience is a recipe for non-accountability and
non-delivery. The review panel also correctly notes that:
If Australian Government and
state and territory agencies work in isolation on place-based approaches,
communities will continue to receive fragmented support and governments
will continue to duplicate effort and resourcing [emphasis added].
Recommendation
9
recommends that the Government commit to establishing a place based investment
framework to address intergenerational and multi-dimensional disadvantage. In
my view, the recommendation is conceptually correct, but as framed in the
Report (see full recommendation below) suffers from at least two fundamental
flaws. First, a progressive roll out leaves inequity and deep disadvantage unaddressed
in those communities that miss out.
Second, it fails to acknowledge or analyse the fundamental
budget management reality that place-based approaches are fundamentally at odds
with portfolio-based appropriations. Ever since ATSIC and its regional
councils, the Department of Finance has resisted all approaches to move to
pooled place-based appropriations. The problem is exacerbated when state and
local government jurisdictions are brought into the equation (as they must if
it is to work).
I am a supporter of place-based approaches. In my
experience, they can be implemented and made to work by engaged and energetic
bureaucratic entrepreneurs operating with ministerial support. But eventually,
either the bureaucratic entrepreneur or the Minister changes and the place
based arrangements default to the status
quo ante. The Review should have – but hasn’t - engaged with these issues
which require legislative or institutional buttressing if they are going to
work. In short, the odds of this recommendation being implemented (despite its
inherent merits) are very low. Of course, there should be more emphasis on local
engagement and community involvement, but governments must be careful not to
raise expectations beyond what they can deliver and sustain.
The Government response to recommendation 9 is
again labelled ‘agreed in part’ whereas the substantive response is to ignore
the Review recommendation and indicate that the hard working Secretaries Board
will tweak current approaches and undertake a ‘cross-portfolio analysis on
lessons learned and success factors for place-based approaches, including
opportunities to expand this work.’ There is no time frame for this work to be
undertaken, and no guarantee that it will be published.
Having made the case for stronger more robust partnership
framework, and a place based investment framework, only then does the review
panel address Indigenous Australians.
‘Solutions with Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander peoples’ (p.129)
This section builds on the previous sections on the
proposed Charter of Partnerships and a framework for place-based investment.
The text and analysis is carefully crafted to hit the key issues of concern to
the majority of Indigenous citizens, and on a first read, the review panel appear
to have made a strong case for substantive partnership with Indigenous
Australians. An aspiration I share.
However on closer reading, the text is subtly qualified and
caveated such as to undermine the likelihood that real change will ensue. Let
me start with the core elements of Recommendation
10 that is titled Work in genuine
partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. I have
added the underlining for emphasis:
•
Government and APS to recognise the importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander peoples making decisions on matters affecting their lives and
communities, and support their full participation in the social and
economic life of Australia.
•
National Indigenous Australians Agency and PM&C to lead the APS’s
application of the framework for place-based investment and the Charter of
Partnerships in working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples,
including to:
promote joint decision-making with communities on
design and implementation of policies and services
adopt flexible funding arrangements that cater
for different opportunities and needs across communities, and
delegate authority for investment
decisions to regionally-based APS employees.
The first paragraph is easy to support, but almost
impossible to disprove in terms of its implementation. It involves no
substantive policy change, and is arguably (at least formally) existing
government policy. A cynic might say it is motherhood.
The second paragraph recommends the adoption (or actually
the promotion) of joint decision making, commonly referred to as ‘co-design’.
However, either deliberately or by oversight, it is framed solely as one part
of place-based frameworks, rather than in terms of joint decision-making in
relation to national level policies and programs. I support greater use of
co-design at all levels of the policy making process, however there are limits
to its application, and these require a process of open discussion if they are
to be accepted by the community. There are also complex issues related to the
operation and interaction of mainstream programs with Indigenous communities
that again require open discussion and explanation if Indigenous expectations
are not to be raised and then dashed. The review in my view could have done
better in elaborating these potential complexities and risks.
The recommendation regarding flexible funding arrangements
is quite vague, but to the extent it refers to pooled funding, it suffers from
the flaws identified above in relation to place based investment frameworks. The
Minister has made funding decisions in Indigenous affairs (particularly in the
Indigenous Advancement Strategy) in secret for the past five years, with
extremely limited delegations to officials. The ANAO has been very critical (link here). The
recommendation for greater delegation thus seems unlikely to be accepted, at
least in the short term, though I would love to be proved wrong on this.
The review also discussed the merits of strengthening
parliamentary oversight, including the possibility that Indigenous community
representatives might participate in some way. The review panel’s recommendation
was merely that the Parliament consider establishing a Senate or Joint
Committee on Indigenous Affairs to oversee Australian Government expenditure
and policies relevant to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
Nevertheless, the fact that this issue has been raised in the review points to
an emerging view that the current oversight arrangements are not working as
effectively as they might. This is a complex issue that required more nuanced
discussion that space permits here, but is an issue that I predict will
continue to gain profile and salience.
Finally, there is a significant fudge by the review panel
in this chapter, and perhaps elsewhere, which derives from its propensity to
talk as if the APS makes most decisions and sets directions, something that is
just not the case. Thus for example, the panel states:
The
ANZSOG First Peoples Team labelled the relationship between the APS and
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as ‘fraught and lacking in
trust’. This is a damning assessment of years of focus on gaps and problems,
not on strengths and assets. Too often, this approach has seen the APS
do things to, not with, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, and
substantially fail to improve social and economic outcomes [emphasis
added; footnote deleted].
This sort of analysis by explicitly focussing on the APS implicitly
assumes that governments and ministers are not responsible for policy decisions
and directions, and the design and funding levels of programs, and in
particular, for setting constraints and parameters that public servants must
apply (either formally or informally). The complexity of this relationship and
the propensity of politicians to play politics is a core reason for the
majority of the trust issues that exist between Indigenous citizens and
government. It is of concern that the review panel have not addressed this
issue head on here (and I suspect anywhere in their report). The resort to
denigrating a ‘focus on gaps and problems’ misconstrues the concerns of
Indigenous peoples about deficit discourse. Again, I think the Australian
public deserved better from the high-level review team. Instead, there appears
to have been resort to ideological fudging dressed up as support for Indigenous
culture.
The Government response to recommendation 10 is
again ‘agreed in part’ and seeks to deflect the review panel recommendation in
three ways. First, by asserting in the first two sentences that the Government
is already working with First Nations peoples; second by referring to the
recent partnership agreement between the National Coalition of Indigenous Peaks
and COAG which is focussed on refreshing the Closing the Gap framework, and
third by claiming that:
The Government is committed to
improving local and regional decision-making and considering options for a
national Voice, and has commenced a process to co-design models and options for
this.
Each of these three claims are factually true, but open to
question in terms of the parameters that are implicitly or explicitly placed
around the various processes. While each of the three claims is positive on its
face, it is the quality of the substantive interactions that will determines
its ultimate impact. The absence of any commitment to underlying transparency
in relation to these processes (for an example see the link here) and much else that the
Government is doing in the Indigenous policy domain, facilitates the potential
‘management’ of each of these processes in ways which do not allow for real
partnership relationships to emerge. For example, how does the selection and
appointment by government of representatives on a committee to develop the
national voice (link here) amount to ‘co-design’?
Moreover, the Government’s decision to not proceed with an
accountable Charter of Partnerships framework, nor a commitment to a place
based investment framework, removes the foundation that the review panel’s recommendation
10 was built on. The bland assertions by the Government along the line that
everything is fine and we are already doing working in partnership must be
taken with a grain of salt. Moreover, it must be remembered that while the
Closing the Gap refresh and National Voice issues are important, there is much
else occurring in the Indigenous policy domain. Where are the co-design
processes in these areas?
Finally in relation to recommendation 10, and perhaps
predictably, the Government response made clear that they see no need to change
or strengthen current parliamentary oversight of Indigenous policy and
programs.
This response by government, and indeed the totality of its
response to recommendations 8, 9 and 10, is arguably emblematic of a deep-seated issue
in Indigenous affairs. Across Indigenous Australia, there is a widespread view
that governments no longer retain their former legitimacy and that their policy
and program activities writ large are misdirected at best and punitive at
worst. Perhaps cognisant of this widespread lack of trust and legitimacy, the
review panel made a relatively low key effort to argue for greater engagement
and partnership between government and Indigenous communities. The Government’s
response has essentially been to say “nothing to see here, all’s good, no
action required’. While I suspect that the Government has never been open to an
alternative view, in my view the Thodey led review panel did the nation and
Indigenous Australians a disservice by not articulating in more detail and more
clearly the issues that confront the APS is developing and implementing
policies and programs that impact Indigenous Australians.
Forty three years ago, the Coombs Royal Commission stated:
The realities of power mean
that ultimate decisions about them [Indigenous citizens] and the allocation of
resources to them will finally be made, in present circumstances, by white
decision makers. The Commission is satisfied, however, that unless these
decision makers act in accordance with procedures which give Aboriginals a
substantive and conscious participation in the processes of decision and,
within broad limits, in the decisions themselves, programs will continue to
fall short of their objectives, and resistance, hostility and a rejection of
responsibility will continue to mark Aboriginal attitudes (para 10.5.6; p.337).
It is time that policy analysts, royal commissioners,
evaluators and members of review teams with remits focussed on improving policy
and program outcomes related to Indigenous Australians ceased merely
reiterating that place based and co-design approaches (to use current
terminology) are required, and began to examine why it is that Governments
across the political spectrum have been and continue to be so resistant to
implementing these policy approaches. Might it be that Coombs was on the money
in pointing to ‘the realities of power’?
################################################
Set
out below are recommendations 8, 9 and 10 of the Review
Recommendation
8
Harness external perspectives and capability by working
openly and meaningfully with people, communities and organisations, under an
accountable Charter of Partnerships.
• Secretaries Board to develop a Charter of Partnerships to
promote an open APS and guide external engagement and collaboration.
• All agencies to embed Charter expectations into
individual and agency head performance management and corporate planning and
reporting.
• All agencies to draw on diverse and rich community and
partner insights in advice to Government, including in Cabinet and budget
processes.
• Government to commission a review of privacy, FOI and
record-keeping arrangements to ensure that they are fit for the digital age,
by: ِ supporting greater transparency and disclosure, simpler administration
and faster decisions, while protecting personal data and other information, and
ِ exempting material prepared to inform deliberative processes of government
from release under FOI.
Implementation
guidance
• Establish a cross-agency team to develop the Charter in
collaboration with APS partners, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander peoples.
• Ensure the Charter:
ِ highlights the value of better external
engagement
ِ guides the APS to work openly and
respectfully with partners on policies and programs before and after government
decisions
ِ reflects the importance of seeking diverse
external views, and
ِ sets reciprocal expectations for APS
partners — including engaging with honesty and pragmatism.
• Measure APS adherence through partner feedback, annual
reports, capability reviews and individual and agency head performance
management.
• Consider amending the Public Service Act 1999 to require
the APS to develop a Charter of Partnerships
Recommendation
9
• Government to develop a framework for place-based
investment, based on:
ِ joint decision-making with
communities and other levels of government on designing and implementing
policies and services
ِ flexibility, including through funding
arrangements, to cater for the different needs and opportunities in particular
communities
ِ use of data to support
decision-making and measure progress, and
ِ clear accountability for outcomes, including
shared ministerial accountability where appropriate.
• Government to pilot approach in communities with
entrenched disadvantage or complex needs and strong community leadership.
• Agencies to appoint regionally-based SES as APS Community
Partners to work with local communities and other jurisdictions, with delegated
authority for investment decisions where appropriate.
• Secretaries Board to ensure APS makes place-based data
available to help understand local needs and opportunities and measure
progress.
Implementation
guidance
• Build on existing collaborations with communities,
governments and other partners in finding tailored solutions to achieve local
priorities.
• Include an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander community
in initial pilot areas.
• Adapt framework in light of results of the trials.
• Consider pooling discretionary grants funding from across
portfolios to allocate to community-led initiatives to achieve jointly-agreed
objectives.
Recommendation
10
Work in genuine partnership with Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander peoples.
• Government and APS to recognise the importance of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples making decisions on matters
affecting their lives and communities, and support their full participation in
the social and economic life of Australia.
• National Indigenous Australians Agency and PM&C to
lead the APS’s application of the framework for place-based investment and the
Charter of Partnerships in working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
peoples, including to:
ِ promote joint
decision-making with communities on design and implementation of policies and
services ِ adopt flexible funding arrangements that cater for different
opportunities and needs across communities, and
ِ delegate authority for investment decisions
to regionally-based APS employees.
• APSC and relevant agencies to work with Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander employees, the Indigenous SES Network and Secretaries
Board to improve recruitment and development of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people in the APS.
• Secretaries Board to ensure cultural competency training
remains a core part of APS professional development.
• Parliament to consider establishing a Senate or Joint
Committee on Indigenous Affairs to oversee Australian Government expenditure
and policies relevant to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
Implementation
guidance
• Secretaries Board to ensure the APS works in effective
partnerships with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, including
responding to and supporting future changes in Indigenous Affairs.
• Improve recruitment pathways and develop Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander people for EL and SES levels.
• Provide cultural competency training for all APS
employees. All SES officers to complete training by end-2020.
Government
Response to recommendations 8, 9 and 10
Recommendation
8: Harness external perspectives and capability by working openly and
meaningfully with people, communities and organisations, under an accountable
Charter of Partnerships
Agreed
in part.
The Government expects the APS to better understand the
needs and expectations of all Australians, and to work effectively with them.
This is an integral part of good policy, implementation and service-delivery.
Rather than agree a new framework like the proposed Charter of Partnerships,
the APS will apply the recently-agreed APS Framework for Engagement and
Participation to support genuine collaboration with Australians in designing
better services and finding solutions to policy problems. Application of this
Framework will be monitored through individual and agency-level performance
processes. Building on existing tools, the Board will pursue two new
initiatives to better understand the needs of Australians – an APS-wide survey
of business (to be trialled in 2020 for Government consideration before being
rolled-out), and an APS-wide analysis of complaints hotspots. Agencies will use
these data and insights to inform its advice to Government. The Government
notes the proposal for a new wide-ranging review of privacy, FOI and
record-keeping arrangements. The Government’s principal focus is to ensure that
agencies effectively implement current requirements, addressing practical
problems where required. Any further reform to these arrangements would be
considered separately to the Government’s response to the APS Review.
Recommendation
9: Use place-based approaches to address intergenerational and
multi-dimensional disadvantage
Agreed
in part.
The Government is already pursuing place-based approaches
in a number of regions, including in responding to natural disasters (e.g.
through the National Drought and North Queensland Flood Response and Recovery
Agency) and other initiatives like regional and city deals in places like the
Barkly Region, Darwin, Townsville, Western Sydney, Geelong, Launceston, Hobart
and Adelaide. Rather than develop a new framework, the Secretaries Board will
first undertake cross-portfolio analysis on lessons learned and success factors
for place-based approaches, including opportunities to expand this work. As
part of this analysis, the Board will consider how regionally-based Senior
Executive Service (SES) can better work with local communities and other
jurisdictions. The Board will also consider how to best use different data
sources in place-based work.
Recommendation
10: APS to work in genuine partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander peoples
Agreed
in part.
The Government and the APS are committed to improving the
lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. The new National
Indigenous Australians Agency is working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander communities around Australia, and with other portfolios and state and
territory governments, to ensure Government policies, programs and services address
the needs of different communities. The Government is
committed to improving local and regional decision-making and considering
options for a national Voice, and has commenced a process to co-design models
and options for this. The Council of Australian Governments and the
National Coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peak Organisations
have agreed to a formal Partnership Agreement to finalise the Closing the Gap
Refresh and provide a forum for ongoing engagement throughout implementation of
the new agenda. The Government notes the recommendation that Parliament
consider establishing an additional parliamentary committee on Indigenous
Affairs. The establishment of parliamentary committees is a matter for the
Parliament. The Government considers that the current arrangements are
appropriate.
