A thought for Andrew Laming

Andrew Laming is the LNP member for Bowman in the Australian Parliament. Checking my stats, I found a visitor from Andrew's site. Checking, I found that Andrew had listed one of my posts, The Rudd Stimulus Package - Andrew Laming's view, under the In the Press segment on his web site.

I was very pleased. Let me explain why.

Back in February 2009, More economics 101 - the economics of Malcolm Turnbull looked at the differing economic approaches of the Rudd Government and the opposition. I said then that I was not especially interested in the differing rhetoric of the two sides, just trying to understand the variations in the economics.

This post drew a long and thoughtful comment from Andrew, so thoughtful that I actually turned it into a guest post without inserting my own views. This was the post listed above. Andrew then, rightfully, included it in his In the Press segment.

Now from my experience it is fairly unusual for a politician to treat a blog post sufficiently seriously to engage in discussion. As a blogger, I am obviously pleased. However, I also have a thought for Mr Laming.

He clearly has ideas. He is also prepared to support individual causes such as home birth. I wonder whether it might not be worth his while to do more writing.

I wonder whether Mr Laming is aware of the case of the NSW Parliamentarian Davis (Bill) Hughes. First as a back bencher and then as Leader of the NSW Country Party, he found it a little difficult to get publicity in the Sydney media. However, he did not respond with a multiplicity of press releases of that short form we love so well. Instead, he focused on more substantive material.

He did not get immediate publicity, indeed he wasn't seeking it. What he did do, was build a reputation with journalists as a thoughtful man who actually had something to say.

Later, when he wanted publicity he got it because he had built a reputation.

Just a thought.       

Paul Kelly's The Hawke Ascendancy

I use the term train reading to describe the reading I do travelling to and from work. This applies even where the travelling is by bus!

The thing about my train reading is that, quite consciously, I use it as an opportunity to read things that I might not otherwise look at. Inevitably, this translates into a series of posts under the train reading banner.

My present train reading is Paul Kelly's The Hawke Ascendancy: A definitive account of its origins and climax 1972-1983 (Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, paper back edition, 2008). I originally bought this book as a present for my wife because I knew that she would be interested; she worked as one of the advisors to Minister John Button, a key player in the events of the time.

Originally published in 1984, the book itself is a  gripping account of the rise to power of Bob Hawke as leader of the Australian Labor Party and then, from March 1983, as Australian Prime Minister. It is also the story of the rivalry of three men: Hawke, Liberal leader and PM Malcolm Fraser and Bill Hayden, leader of the Labor Party before Mr Hawke. I found the book especially interesting because it is entwined with elements of my own life, providing a very personal perspective. 

I will write about some of the personal elements in due course in a post on my personal blog. Here I want to deal briefly with two professional elements: the way in which our differing positions affect  our perceptions, along with the rise of professional campaigning and what it means.

I have spoken before about the way our position in an organisation affects our views.

For the individual manager, I have emphasised the need to manage up and sideways as well as down. In so doing, I have also emphasised the need to understand the perception from the other side.

For the senior manager, I have emphasised the need to recognise that their perception of the world is almost certainly not shared, or shared only in part, by their staff. They actually need to know what their people think, not just assume.

How does this fit with Paul Kelly's book? Well, for part of the time I was a player in events.

In 1976, for example, I was an acting branch head in the Commonwealth Treasury when Malcolm Fraser decided to split the Department into two. In my acting role, I attended the last drinks put on by Secretary Sir Frederick Wheeler for senior staff of the combined department. I still remember Sir Frederick's distress and anger.

Later I was Assistant Secretary Economic Analysis in the Department of Industry and Commerce. Here my role was to act as a sort of Treasury in Exile for our Minister Sir Philip Lynch, a former treasurer who still wished to play an economic policy role. When Paul Kelly talks about the mining boom of 1980 and the way it affected policy, I was there as one of the official players.

By contrast, at other times I was a mere external observer, back at University undertaking post grad studies. Here I saw events from afar.  

Reading the book, I realised just how little I knew of certain developments, but was also struck by the way my varying positions affected my perceptions of the time. 

I have also written a fair bit on organisational change, most recently in Scoping the decline in organisational performance. As part of this, I have looked at the professionalisation of politics, and the way that this has adversely affected public policy. Many of these posts have been on my personal blog where I can be more opinionated, less objective.

As I write, NSW Parliamentarian Joe Tripodi has announced his intention to resign. Mr Tripodi is a NSW Labor numbers' man, part of the group that has effectively controlled the party and has led it to almost terminal decline. He is, in fact, the fifteenth NSW Labor Party Parliamentarian to announce retirement in recent months. Everybody knows that this Government will go in next March's elections, but the scale of retirements is still staggering.

In his book, Paul Kelly reports approvingly of the strength and professionalism of the NSW right. He also reveals clearly the way in which opinion polls plus qualitative research including focus groups affected policy and approaches. Mr Hawke became leader because polls showed that he had the best chance of winning.

Reading the book, I was struck not by the rise of professionalism in politics, but by the way each of the key protagonists had different views and values.

Each was an ambitious man, each wanted to win, but their views and values affected their approach. Professional political approaches including market research set a context, but the outcomes were determined by the interaction between individuals and the market research. This is very different from an environment where the market research itself comes to set, to control, the political and policy agenda.

I will finish here. I know that I will have more to say later.

The case for reform in Australian public policy – measurement and child welfare

In The case for reform in Australian public policy – introducing measurement I referred to the rise of the modern obession with measurement.

All Government policies and programs now come with cascading and generally very simple numeric perfomance measures. It seems so reasonable: if we don't measure, how can we assess perfomance?

As it happened, yesterday's Age carried an example of  the type of problem that can arise. I quote:

A scathing Ombudsman's report has identified gross deficiencies in Victoria's child protection service, with workers manipulating figures to cover up children neglected by the system.

The problem is that the performance measures become an end in themselves. Where, as is often the case, the figures are simplistic or even unachievable, then manipulation of results to meet targets or conceal the failure to meet targets can and does occur.

To my mind, this has now become something of a cancer eating away at the heart of Australia's system of public administration. Sounds extreme? Perhaps, but there is an increasing volume of evidence to support my position.

Note to readers:

This is one of a month long series on the need for reform in Australia's approach to public policy and administration.

Consider yourself the judge or jury as I present the evidence. Most posts will be short, introductions to other writing. My argument is that we now have a systemic pattern of failure. You have to decide whether or not I am right and, if so, what you think that we should do about it.

If you want to follow the whole series through, you can click reforming Australian public policy on the side bar. This will bring the whole series up. Alternatively, if you want to follow the whole series through from the first post, click here and then click next at the end of each post.

Next

The case for reform in Australian public policy – a methodological note

Now that I have started this series, I have been thinking about the difficulties involved in demonstrating beyond doubt the need for change in approaches to public administration and public policy. We can see this if we look at my preliminary posts.

My focus to this point has been on unforeseen consequences, although other issues are already creeping in.

Consider the NSW child welfare case.

I have no doubt that the near collapse of the system as a consequence of mandatory reporting was unforeseen. No Government in its right mind would deliberately inflict such pain on itself. But could the result have been foreseen? After all, unforeseen results are common in public policy. I actually think that it could have been checked through the normal practical operational analysis that should be done in advance of such changes.

Whether this case was unforeseeable or simply unforeseen does not, of itself, support my case that there is a systemic problem that crosses Australian jurisdictions and requires major change to overcome. A few case studies does not make a case. They may be isolated examples of failure. Rather, I have to show that there is a pattern of behaviour and of results.

In doing so, I have to disentangle, categorise and simplify, a variety of interacting variables.

Staying with the unforeseen case, there is a difference between an unforeseen and an adverse effect. An unforeseen effect could in fact be positive. An adverse effect may not be really unforeseen. A Government may argue that you cannot make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, that the illegal detention of Australian citizens is a price worth paying to protect our borders. In this event, we have a new set of arguments. Did we in fact want an omelet? Did we have to break the eggs? Could we have achieved the same result in a different way?

I also have a problem in explaining how things work to a lay reader who does not understand the system and may indeed be part of the problem!

In demanding that the Tasmanian Government link drivers licenses to school attendance, the Tasmanian opposition obviously felt that it was playing to public opinion. The rise of issues politics, the increasing tendency to play too often short term public reactions, is one of the core reasons why we now have a systemic public policy problem.

I will be discussing this a little later in the series, again using case studies to illustrate my points. For the moment, I simply note that it adds to the difficulties in bringing about real change.

Postscript on drivers licenses

Just a personal postscript on the drivers license issue.

Youngest is working part time at the airport in Sydney, starting at 5.30am. This morning she drove.

Both daughters started to learn to drive under the fifty hour regime. When the NSW Government changed the rules from 50 to 120 hours, those who already had their learner's permits stayed on the old regime, but had to acquire their license within a certain time frame.

Eldest busy with university, sport and an active social life let her permit lapse. With parents, public transport and boyfriends with licenses, she did not need to drive herself. Now she is on the 120 hour regime, regrets not moving forward, but is kind of stuck for the present.

There is still a boy thing about cars in that boys are more likely to make the effort. In a very odd way, this has reinforced an old gender stereotype, boys who drive, girls who are driven.

On the way to the airport I asked youngest how many hours she now had up. She said twenty two. She has to get to fifty and her provisional license by 21 December or go onto the 120 hours. So there is now a fair bit of pressure.

At twenty two hours and expressed in skill terms, youngest is not ready yet to get her license. She can drive without turning my already grey hair greyer, but the skills aren't automatic.

Part of her problem is that her driving practice has been sporadic. As she said, you have to do it in solid blocks. A second problem is that she is learning on a manual.

On the way to the airport, I told her about the attempted car-jacking that failed because those doing it could not drive a manual - see A problem with gears. She laughed, and said that she must tell her friends, all of whom are learning on automatics.

Under the old regime, you got your license and then drove without restriction. There were a lot of crashes in my age group because people could drive, but actually pushed outside the envelope set by their skill sets and judgement. We now have quite restrictive provisional license requirements intended to address this problem.

In theory, the whole system was meant to be output (skills) focused. Once you got to a certain skills point, then you got you license. However, there were then restrictions on what you could do for a period to allow skills to build through practice.

In practice, the whole system has become quite rigidly time and input based. It is now actually easier and a lot quicker to get an unrestricted pilots license than a NSW drivers license.

Note to readers:

This is one of a month long series on the need for reform in Australia's approach to public policy and administration.

Consider yourself the judge or jury as I present the evidence. Most posts will be short, introductions to other writing. My argument is that we now have a systemic pattern of failure. You have to decide whether or not I am right and, if so, what you think that we should do about it.

If you want to follow the whole series through, you can click reforming Australian public policy on the side bar. This will bring the whole series up. Alternatively, if you want to follow the whole series through from the first post, click here and then click next at the end of each post.

Next

The case for reform in Australian public policy - NSW child welfare

In my last post in this series, The case for reform in Australian public policy - rivers of grog, I used a post by Bob Gosford to introduce the concept of unforeseen side effects. This post provides the next example.

It seemed like such a good idea at the time.

NSW had a problem with child abuse. To help overcome this, the NSW Government introduced rules making it mandatory for professionals such as doctors to report suspected child abuse.

Such a sensible idea. The only problem is that no one foresaw that the consequent volume of calls would bring the NSW child welfare system to its knees.

You see, there was no effective way of triaging the volume of calls to allow for effective follow up. Just as bad, the resource demands and pressures created actually reduced the capacity of the NSW Department to do its ordinary job.

The end result was scandal and a commission of inquiry.

Those interested can find further information in the following posts.

• 11 November 2007. NSW - Problems in Child Welfare looks at problems and a history of the early evolution of the NSW child welfare system.
• 2 January 2008. Australia - failures in public policy points to some of the reasons why child welfare had become a mess.
• 12 February 2008. Musings - Inflation, Volunteering, Child Welfare and Educational Standards includes a discussion of child welfare issues.
• 4 October 2008. Child abuse in Australia - a case of misused numbers? looks at the abuse of child protection statistics.
• 26 November 2008, Wood Commission Report into the NSW Child Welfare System provides a link through the report itself.

Note to readers:

This is one of a month long series on the need for reform in Australia's approach to public policy and administration.

Consider yourself the judge or jury as I present the evidence. Most posts will be short, introductions to other writing. My argument is that we now have a systemic pattern of failure. You have to decide whether or not I am right and, if so, what you think that we should do about it.

If you want to follow the whole series through, you can click reforming public administration on the side bar. This will bring the whole series up. Alternatively, if you want to follow the whole series through from the first post, click here and then click next at the end of each post.

Next

The case for reform in Australian public policy - rivers of grog

Yesterday in We need to reform Australia's approach to public policy I said that I was going to dedicate writing on this blog for one month to just one topic, the need for reform in Australia's approach to public policy and administration.

Consider yourself the judge or jury as I present the evidence. Most posts will be short, introductions to other writing. My argument is that we now have a systemic pattern of failure. You have to decide whether or not I am right and, if so, what you think that we should do about it.

My first piece of evidence is Bob Gosford's How Canberra keeps the NT’s “rivers of grog” flowing. Bob lives in the small township of Yuendumu, 300 kilometres north-west of Alice Springs on the southern fringes of the Tanami Desert on land owned by people of the Warlpiri and Anmatyerre language groups.

In considering this piece of evidence, look at the way in which policies designed to be "tough" have in fact had the opposite effect.

This is an example of what are called unforeseen side effects. To some degree these are inevitable in public policy. The challenge is to find ways of minimising them, or of identifying and correcting them once they do occur.

Note to readers:

This is one of a month long series on the need for reform in Australia's approach to public policy and administration.

Consider yourself the judge or jury as I present the evidence. Most posts will be short, introductions to other writing. My argument is that we now have a systemic pattern of failure.

You have to decide whether or not I am right and, if so, what you think that we should do about it.

If you want to follow the whole series through, you can click reforming public policy on the side bar. This will bring the whole series up. Alternatively, if you want to follow the whole series through from the first post, click here and then click next at the end of each post.

Next post

We need to reform Australia's approach to public policy

Back in September Economic planning for the longer term - introduction was meant to be the start of a new series. Two months later and I have still to get going, although I have written a fair bit of related material in the meantime.

So much has been happening.

In The Rudd Government's longer term success or failure - straws in the wind I tried to set out some of the process challenges that I thought the Australian Rudd Government had to meet. In a very short post, Ken Henry inspires Ross Gittins' four big bugs, I reported on a senior Australian economic commentator's deeply pessimistic view of the future.

In Saturday Morning Musings - a change in writing direction I provided an initial report on the thinking that I had been doing about my own writing. As part of this, I have decided to dedicate writing on this blog for one month to just one topic, the need for reform in Australia's approach to public policy and administration. This will give me a chance to pull together past writing, as well as set out new ideas.

This is quite a complicated topic, in part because so many people are locked into current thinking.

I hope that you will find the series at least interesting.

Next Post

Turnbull soars then crashes

I have just listened to Australian opposition leader Turnbull's response to the latest Rudd Government budget. I insisted youngest listen with me. She is not a coalition supporter. 

The first half of Mr Turnbull's speech  was frankly magnificent. Sharp, incisive, some new ideas combined with critical analysis. Youngest was saying that this was the best speech by a politician she had seen. She also commented in the growing discomfort in the body language of ALP members. Then he (Mr Turnbull) lost it.

The dividing line came in Mr Turnbull's remarks on the medicare levy.

The proposal to oppose the Government's change in the rebate and instead compensate by increasing taxes on cigarettes may or may be right. After all, I am a smoker. But what was meant to be an example of an alternative view became instead the end of substance. From this point, rhetoric ruled.

What a missed opportunity. If Mr Turnbull had continued with the same analytical approach mixed with human example, he would have carried the day. In some ways, it would not have mattered what he said. If he had announced cuts, explained problems, presented choices, people may have disagreed , but they would have respected him. And in the lead up to the next election, that's really what counts.

Instead, this all vanished. He let the Government off the hook. He became another polly. I have never seen such a clear case of defeat snatched from the mouth of victory.