Informing government

Some time ago, the former director of the now defunct federal Futures Commission, Sue Oliver, lamented that:

Australia … has a closed, non-porous policy making system compared with, for instance, the United States and its use of congressional committees. Congressional committees provide a stage for lobby groups and think tanks to bring their ideas, research and advocacy within the political process. No such formal process exists in Australia at government level for reaching out for new ideas or, at the very least seeking to achieve co-operation between … interest groups.

The argument being that Australia has a very executive dominated political system and that governments at both federal and state level in Australia rely heavily on their departments for their advice.

Such views need to be seriously challenged on several counts.

First, the Australian advisory system has never been as closed as many thought. Dr H.C. Coombs, observed in his autobiography, Trial Balance, that, “although it is the convention … prime ministers should and almost invariably do rely upon the head of their department and his colleagues to inform and advise them,” this is, “as a rule as much honoured in the breach as in the observance.”

Further the 1976 Royal Commission into Australian Government Administration (Combs Commission) highlighted the range of advisory sources and devices that had long been used by governments. They were broader than suggested by Oliver’s comment.

Second, there has been a growth in advisory mechanisms since the mid 1970s that owe part of their origin to the election of the Whitlam Labor Government. These developments will be briefly outlined below.

Last, Australia has long used public inquiries - they can be ad hoc, temporary, task forces, committees, working parties, commissions and royal commissions and composed by members drawn mostly from outside government. Such inquiries employ many of the very functions that Oliver complained was lacking in Australia. Public inquiries remain a largely understudied institution, whose existence once appreciated, changes substantially some of the existing notions about Australian policy advisory processes.

While departments and policy units have long been with us, of significance has been the massive increase in ministerial minders and consultants appointed from outside of government.

Listed below is the range of advisory instruments available to government nationally and to a lesser extent they are duplicated across the states.

• government departments and policy units;
• ministerial minders;
• consultants;
• departmental advisory bodies with key sectors (hearing/representative);
• specialised policy bureaux within government;
• statutory advisory bodies located in or near govt - some with regulatory roles;
• inter-governmental bodies - temporary/permanent;
• parliamentary committees; and
• public inquiries.

However, despite the increase in their numbers such advisory instruments do suffer from the flaw that they are very close to executive government and many of their activities and the exact nature of their advice seem outside the realms of public assessment.

These advisory bodies are also usually set up by departments and dominated by representatives of the relevant departmental interest groups. Such bodies although rarely lacking any research resources and operating largely behind closed doors, nevertheless do provide an avenue for outside advice.

Of more interest are those specialised policy bureaux, some of which like the Office of National Assessments (ONA), are established under their own legislation and do research as well as collect information. Others of interest include the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics (ABARE). While the ONA largely gives confidential advice to government, the activities of ABARE are much more public. Such bodies have been dubbed policy research advisory bodies (PRABs) because they provide policy advice based on research and analysis and not just through the collection of information from interest groups.

A further example is the Productivity Commission, previously the Industry Commission and Industries Assistance Commission, which provided independent (albeit from a particular perspective) public advice and extensive use of consultation processes.

There is considerable waxing and waning of these different advisory bodies as governments come to power and new interests and issues emerge. Some get reviewed and abolished (for example, Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs in 1984). Others are modified, amalgamated, or are given renewed mandates as was the case with the Institute of Criminology.

Parliamentary committees have also increased in numbers, especially at a national level, and have probed many important public policy areas, seeking public input and offering advice. However, parliamentary committees, sometimes inevitably, get caught in the cross-fire of partisan debates, and can avoid issues where such sensitivities are especially strong. Their reports do not have the same status of independence or depth of research as other advisory bodies.

In addition, there are a host of other advisory bodies that are on the fringes of government (for example, university funded research centres): a few of which may be described as “think-tanks”, while others are more academic in focus. There are also privately funded research bodies that have contributed to the public debate on certain issues. Further, many interest groups devote considerable resources to research and policy advice, raising the ante in terms of the quality of public debate and government responses.

In addition, consultants have increased in numbers. While many of these are employed directly by departments for a wide variety of tasks, some are employed by ministers to provide advice on a wide range of areas. Some consultancies are secret, while others use public processes of investigation and often even release their reports.

Then there are public inquiries. Not only do public inquiries have a long history in Australia, but also from the mid-1970s there has been a dramatic increase in their use nationally. This upsurge in use has been largely sustained by successive governments of both persuasions, although the Howard Government has been less enthusiastic in their use. This warrants our attention especially as public inquiry use in Australia has increased while in other Westminster democracies, like Canada and New Zealand, their use has declined.

The important issue about public inquiries is that their external membership, clear terms of reference, processes of seeking input from the wider public and public release of their reports perform the activities of congressional committees as suggested by Oliver. Indeed, public inquiries, because of their particular features of external and expert membership have more status and perceived independence than congressional committees and often use more innovative methods in both gaining public inputs and researching issues.

While the public service is seen to have come under increasing government domination; ministerial minders and consultants too close to the government of the day; policy advisory bodies too easily changed; and parliamentary committees compromised by partisan debates, public inquiries remain one of the few independent advisory institutions that still exist in our political system. Indeed, public inquiries, although appointed by executive government have become for some, the “institution of last resort” - able to offer independent and often expert advice, because of their membership and open public processes, and in the case of royal commissions, real powers of investigation. The appointment of royal commissions, with their special powers to investigate allegations of corruption or maladministration particularly highlights this role.

There are few areas of public policy that have not been affected by reports from public inquiries. Financial deregulation was put on the policy agenda, pushed and implemented and later reviewed by three different public inquiries appointed by three different governments over nearly two decades. Public inquiries have exposed government corruption and public service incompetence. Inquires are conducted in public and actively seek participation in all sorts of formal and informal ways from interest groups and the broader community. Unlike parliamentary committees, public inquiry members are often not just experts, but are sometimes representative of key community groups, so providing another channel for participation.

An explanation for this lack of appreciation of public inquiries in the policy advisory game is that they are ad hoc attachments to government. Inquiries are neither part of the formal ongoing machinery of government nor have any constitutional status. That executive government appoints public inquiries has also led to some confusion as to their role and influence.

This is not to deny that public inquiries are not also appointed for politically expedient reasons, but their public nature makes such manipulation harder to hide when compared to other advisory instruments.

In summary, the Australian policy advisory environment is more densely populated with different types and species of policy advisory instruments than many people would realise. Despite growing executive government dominance of some parts of the advisory process, there are still areas where debate, wide-ranging discussion, and alternative views are both sought and countenanced. Some of the policy advisory bodies highlighted above have contributed to this healthy situation.

Nevertheless, the challenge is for “cold” and rational advice not be compromised by government demands for “hot” or more urgent and politically expedient advice. Public inquiries have been particularly important in making the Australian policy environment far more open and porous. They have also provided opportunities for promoting wider inputs into decision making, for injecting more informed advice into the policy development process and for giving governments a means whereby they can reflect on issues, rather than just act.