Why it isn't easy: An Example

Tom Richman asked for publishable ideas regarding public service changes which might enable more progress to be made in development of transport systems.

Suggested changes to get better management of growth and infrastructure in SEQ are in Growth Management in SE Queensland.

Basic concept: regarding the Public Service (a) unclog the Public Service to create a system based on experienced people's initiative rather than formal process (b) align the planning process with the normal functioning of agencies and (c) create some sort of (regional) framework which gives coherence to the work of diverse organisations - and allows alignment with land use. The suggestions also deal with various non Public Service issues.

Specifically: action in relation to the Public Service generally is suggested to:

• restore something like a Westminister tradition;
• remove internal secrecy of routine Cabinet documents;
• give control of organizational development to line managers;
• break down the centralised / politicised strategic planning process;
• develop more realistic process for integrated planning / budgeting;
• simplify regulatory processes; and
• clarify true position of state budget;

However these suggestions are highly qualified - as they rely on memory about practices, and on impressions gained from contacts and media reports. Also there are many ways in which the Public Service has been changed in recent years (eg commercialization and corporatisation; subject to supposedly integrated budgeting and planning; arrangements related to infrastructure including PPP systems) and these would need to be either reinforced (as there will be some good ideas that have been put into effect) or reviewed. There is also the federal Auslink arrangement which represents a particular ideology, and seems to undermine the ability of states to take effective initiatives.

Producing a statement that is not highly qualified (ie to suggest what actually could be done as a practical alternative) would take a lot of work - basically (a) networking to give a reality check to impressions; (b) studying official documents on existing systems; and (c) scanning literature on current good practices - in relation to both public service and contextual issues. Without a solid reality check any definitive proposal would be vulnerable to attack - eg "There is a mistake about (this or that), so obviously the whole thing is rubbish".

Work is needed

Credible proposals about complex policy options can not be 'top of head' ideas developed in committee, but are a real job. This is almost never done in Queensland, which (combined with Public Service politicisation) explains why the 'wheels are falling off' many public functions.

The Crime and Misconduct Commission recently identified systemic failure in child protection by the Families Department. This was arguably due to politically-favoured managements who lack relevant knowledge / experience and to financial constraints, and seems just an extreme example of similar dysfunctions endemic in the Public Service (eg see Review of Child Protection Proposals). The community has to be prepared to itself invest time, organisation and money (and not just for better growth management and infrastructure development) if it is to get government that works.

What could be done

To develop a practical proposal the Property Council and allies could (for about $200,000):

• adopt a clear goal for a 9 month project (eg propose enhanced regional 'architecture', and suggest better organisational machinery to achieve it);
• undertake a brief scoping study to firm up the project, and solicit support;
• establish a task force with technical secretariat, and members responsible for leading: research (as below); funding; media / corporate / government relations; Forum (as below);
• make all project information publicly accessible;
• identify stakeholders - then obtain inputs, build network, inform about project and formally invite them (individually or as cross-functional groups) to develop initiatives to achieve project goals for presentation at Forum;
• commission research to consolidate available knowledge (eg on strategic regional context, regional architecture, current organisational / governance issues, feasible financial options, global best practices, ways to move forward);
• release research results publicly, canvas stakeholder reactions and add them to public data;
• produce and release an interim Task Force report;
• stage Forum on stakeholders' suggested practical initiatives to achieve project goals - about 3 months after interim Task Force report;
• produce and release final Task Force report to stakeholders and governments on best options emerging from Forum

The intent of the above process is to get experienced stakeholders who gain access to all relevant information to work simultaneously and collaboratively on initiatives to address the project goals. This is 80% of the battle in creating a situation in which those goals become likely to be achieved in practice. The regional and organisational issues have been studied to death - so there is a vast amount of existing information which can be drawn upon. Someone somewhere already knows how to solve many aspects of this problem, while creative solutions to the rest can emerge if practical organisational or investment initiatives are sought from well-informed and experienced stakeholders in an apolitical environment.

As the state government has claimed 'we have the situation under control', while many other stakeholders have said 'no you don't' and both the Opposition and Government have now put forward nonsensical electioneering proposals for doing better, such a project might best be presented politically as a way to enhance existing concepts and systems.

John Craig

January 2004