Speech
Commonwealth Association of Public Administration and Management
2009 Annual Conference
Plenary Session Address
Wednesday 28 October
Mr Terry Moran AO
“Can government respond and meet expectations: how can we work together to deliver our goals?”
Opening Remarks
Good morning to you all and thank you to Lynelle Briggs, and the Commonwealth Association of Public Administration and Management, for inviting me to address this plenary session today.
I would like to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we meet – past and present, near and far.
I would also like to acknowledge our many international guests and the long list of distinguished colleagues and speakers who have participated in earlier sessions.
In particular, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to share the microphone, so to speak, with the Reverend Tim Costello.
As is noted in the conference materials, Tim is recognised as one of Australia’s leading voices on social justice issues.
He has spearheaded public debates on gambling, urban poverty, homelessness, reconciliation and global poverty.
I hope that our combined reflections today will provide new food for thought regarding the relationship between government and the community sector – both in Australia and in the countries each of you represent.
The topic we have been asked to address – “Can government respond and meet expectations?” – is one I have given much thought to during my career.
It is also one of the key issues for consideration by the recently established Advisory Group on Reform of Australian Government Administration, which I chair.
The answer to the question is clear: the government can respond IF it puts the citizen at the centre of what it does AND works effectively with others.
As in many other countries, the community sector – or the third sector as it is often now called – makes an enormous contribution to the Australian community.
The community sector is – in anyone’s language – a significant driver of economic activity in Australia.
The ABS satellite accounts for 2006-7 show that the most “economically significant” not for profit organisations together contributed $43 billion to Australia’s GDP and accounted for 8% of employment.
There are around 60,000 of these “economically significant” community sector organisations.
It is also a major generator of social capital. Governments around the world are thinking about how to nurture and grow this crucial commodity.
The community sector generates social capital by involving people – volunteers, paid employees and citizens – in activities that they – and their communities – perceive to be worthwhile.
People involved in community sector activity derive meaning from their contribution and feel that they are able to make a difference.
And perhaps most importantly, they form bonds – relationships – with others around them.
These bonds form the fabric of the communities in which they work. And they strengthen and expand the capacity of the members of those communities.
The community sector is also a significant service delivery provider for government.
In Australia one only has to think about the way community organisations responded to the Victorian bushfires in February of this year, to appreciate the ability of the community sector to deliver what is needed on the ground.
And it is this last point that I intend to focus on today.
Exploring the strengths and weaknesses of government – or public – administration, compared to those of the community sector.
Government has – traditionally at least – approached the development of policy and the delivery of services in a structured and systematic way.
The strength of government lies in the design of standard entitlements that are universal in their application.
For consistency of delivery, government operates within the constraints of formal rules and extended hierarchies.
These are a natural and necessary part of government – as it works to ensure that individuals are treated equally – but they do inhibit innovation and flexibility.
Governments have a habit of putting the program or entitlement at the centre of the service delivery model, rather than the citizen.
Government also has a tendency to operate in silos. This perhaps is a relic of an earlier time, when the policy challenges faced by governments seemed less complex than those we wrestle with today.
However, it is clear that there are limitations to the effectiveness of this approach and governments across the world have been trying to address them.
In Australia we have thought a lot about “whole of government” approaches to complex policy problems, while in the UK they call it “joined up” government.
And finally, to design and deliver its programs and entitlements, government generally employs officers who possess a relevant qualification.
These officers are expected to approach their responsibilities with objectivity and independence.
The community sector, on the other hand, looks very different. There is a mix of paid employees – often highly qualified individuals – but also many others and volunteers.
Passion for the cause – a shared commitment to the well being of the communities in which they work – is perhaps the characteristic that most unites those who work in this sector.
Community organisations are also deeply connected to the people they serve.
They put the citizen at the centre of their work.
Their relationships with individuals, with families, and with communities are strong and enable these organisations to deliver a tailored service to meet each individual’s needs.
They are, it is often said, engaged with their constituents in a way that is not easy for government, especially at the regional or national level.
And, the community sector is highly flexible and innovative in its approach.
Community organisations are often guided by local knowledge rather than by prescriptive rules.
They can respond to specific circumstances, amend and change their approach “on the go” and experiment with new ideas, much more easily than can government.
Conscious of these strengths and weaknesses, the Australian Government has been thinking a lot about its relationship with the community sector.
The government can learn a lot about service delivery from the community sector.
In particular, the community sector’s focus on the needs of citizens is of central interest to governments in Australia and elsewhere.
As the Prime Minister highlighted recently, a strong relationship with the community sector is essential if the government is going to achieve its stated objectives.
In delivering the Sambell Oration address to the Brotherhood of St Laurence on 16 October, the Prime Minister observed:
“the challenge ... is to harness personal responsibility with the support of the enabling state. To equip disadvantaged Australians with the capacity over time to take responsibility for their own lives, and to do so with programs which harness the combined resources and commitment of governments working wherever possible in creative partnership with the community sector and the private sector.”
Social inclusion is a key objective for the current Australian government and – with this objective in mind – it is pursuing a number of initiatives to strengthen its relationship with the community sector.
The government is working with COAG to reduce red tape for third sector organisations to harmonise fundraising legislation across the states and territories.
The Henry Review of Australia’s Future Tax System will also look into the impacts of the tax system on not for profit organisations.
And the Productivity Commission’s draft report on the contribution of the not for profit sector was released earlier this month and contains a number of recommendations for further reform in this area.
Recognising the important advocacy and policy capacity of the community sector, the Government has removed the “gag” clauses from government contracts with community sector organisations.
The goal is to reinvigorate community sector advocacy capability.
This is an important step because many community organisations serve – at the micro level – as representatives of individuals who require assistance in dealing with life’s vicissitudes.
Small organisations also band together to push government to do better.
And larger organisations – such as that which Tim represents – have their own policy and research capacity which enables them to engage directly and deeply with government on the development of social policy and programs.
In my view, government needs to find new ways to tap this capacity – to engage earlier and more fully with community sector organisations.
And, this is something I am personally working on through the Advisory Group on Reform of Australian Government Administration.
The Advisory Group on Reform of Australian Government Administration
The Prime Minister, in announcing the formation of the Advisory Group I now chair, set out his aspiration for the Australian Public Service (APS) to become the best public service anywhere in the world.
He reiterated that the APS needs to develop a culture of innovation in policy development and renew its efforts in the delivery of citizen centred services.
The Advisory Group discussion paper – published just a few weeks ago – identified five characteristics of high performance to frame the discussion about reform of Australian government administration:
These are:
- having a values-driven culture that retains public trust;
- providing high-quality, forward-looking and creative policy advice;
- delivering high-quality programs and services that put the citizen first;
- providing flexible and agile responses to changing realities and government priorities; and
- being effective and efficient in all operations.
Working with the community sector offers government an opportunity to strengthen its performance in relation to each of these five characteristics.
The third characteristic – high quality, effective programs and services focused on the needs of citizens – is one that many countries are thinking about.
This is clear from the degree of international interest in this CAPAM event.
The central organising principle of efforts currently underway in the UK, in Canada and in Australia – just to name a few – is the idea that government products and services should be designed from the citizen’s perspective.
Instead of from the perspective of the public service organisation that will oversee or deliver the product or service.
But there are a variety of barriers to citizen centred government...
It can be difficult to develop a full and accurate picture of the public’s needs and expectations.
Citizens’ expectations are diffuse and varied, and the needs of specific individuals change over time and with location.
And, as my colleagues from Singapore and Botswana observed on Monday, citizens’ expectations are growing!
To make matters harder, most policy is made a long way from the citizens it serves and services are designed a long way from the citizens they will be delivered to.
With this very fact in mind, the Community Response Task Force was established during the global financial crisis (GFC) to assist the non profit sector to engage directly with the Government on the impact of the crisis on vulnerable Australians.
Further, public interaction with government is not linear. Governments are multi-layered and multi-faceted, which can create confusion and blur a direct response to the individual needs.
The need for transparency, equity and accountability in government administration leads us to rely on institutions and process.
But this reliance can obscure the specific objective, citizen or problem.
Finally, government’s ability to take risks is constrained. In some respects this is quite proper – governments spend tax payers’ money and their actions can have a significant impact on citizens’ well being.
But our aversion to risk also has a negative impact on government’s ability to innovate.
With these challenges in mind, it is clear that the community sector is central to the successful implementation of a citizen centred approach to government.
The community sector brings unique strengths and abilities to the table that government does not have – but which in many countries, Australia included – government is striving to develop.
By working together with the community sector, government can:
- improve citizens’ experiences as service recipients; and
- learn new ways of doing business that can be incorporated into existing government models.
A number of characteristics of the community sector are worthy of note in this context.
The community sector has an exceptional capacity to be flexible, innovative and to develop strong relationships that give citizens a sense of ownership.
It can also help government to deliver “joined up” services.
You will recall that I pointed earlier to “flexible and agile responses to changing realities and government priorities” as a key characteristic of a high performing public service.
As I noted earlier, community sector organisations can respond quickly to the needs of citizens – on a day to day basis – by designing comprehensive support packages that respond to the needs of specific people.
The community sector is also generally well connected and nimble enough to change what they provide as the needs of the wider community change.
And, crucially, the community sector can reallocate resourcing much faster than government.
Funded by FaHCSIA, the Reconnect program is a good example of how flexible community organisations can be.
Reconnect funds community services to work with young people who are at risk of homelessness.
Homelessness is caused by a range of factors including unstable accommodation, family breakdown, and domestic violence. Our responses need to be equally as diverse.
Reconnect involves a comprehensive assessment of the homelessness risk factors for young people and provides a very broad tool kit of responses to address the specific problem.
One such response is brokerage funding. Brokerage funding can be used to:
- ‘buy-in’ mental health services the young person needs to live at home with their family;
- purchase school books or uniforms to make sure the young people stay engaged with their school when they are in temporary accommodation; and
- purchase translation services so the young person can receive counselling or deal with legal issues.
This flexibility is what makes Reconnect one of our most successful community sector partnership programs.
Turning to innovation...
As I noted earlier “providing high-quality, forward-looking and creative policy advice” has been identified as a key characteristic of a high performing public service.
Developing new ideas for how services can be delivered is one thing government struggles with.
As all of you would be aware, governments are often hesitant to try new things. We are good at incremental changes to programs, but don’t do so well at completely rethinking service delivery.
It is clear that on the government side, there remains much to do in this area.
But we know that one of the community sector’s strengths is its capacity for innovation.
I have touched already on two possible explanations for the community sector’s strength in this area.
Large community organisations have their own research and policy development capacity and are not constrained by the rules and systems that can limit government’s capacity to innovate.
And almost all community organisations have the advantage of being “close to the ground.” They can see and understand the specific circumstances of specific individuals and respond to them.
The Innovation Fund is a great example.
This $650 million fund was established through the Jobs and Training Compact to create jobs and skills by building community and social infrastructure.
172 projects, put forward by non-government organisations, have been funded under the scheme.
These organisations came up with creative ways to increase jobs and skills and address priority issues for their communities.
For example, there were projects on recycling of e-waste, building the skills of disadvantaged young people by building wildlife corridors, and working with refugees to make designer clothing out of recycled materials.
When we give the community sector the opportunity to come up with ideas, we are able to support place based solutions for citizens with complex needs.
A sense of ownership is one way to build public trust. And “having a values-driven culture that retains public trust” is another key characteristic of a high performing public service.
Through their relationship with the local community, community sector organisations are able to create a strong sense of ownership of both space and ideas in a way that government can’t.
Local services like youth drop in centres allow young people to be part of the decision making about what services are on offer, what the drop in centre looks like and when it will open.
Centrelink – on the other hand – is not able to offer citizens this degree of ownership of its offices.
Developing these trusting relationships and allowing ownership are central to achieving outcomes for citizens.
I mentioned the importance of social capital earlier. A sense of local ownership offers intangible benefits such as citizens feeling part of the community and a sense of belonging.
A good example is ActNow, an online social network partially funded by FaHCSIA.
The website was co-created by young people who injected their own energy and ideas into the website.
ActNow is for young people who want to be more involved in their communities.
This site has one and a half million unique visits a year.
63 per cent of surveyed visitors to the site reported that ActNow makes them feel like they are a part of a community.
We know that engaging young people is difficult for government and we also know that a sense of community is important for increasing young people’s sense of wellbeing.
So, programs like ActNow create opportunities for government to engage young people on their own “on-line” turf, rather than making young people come to government.
The fifth thing that a high performing public service must do is be “effective and efficient in all operations.”
The community sector is well positioned in this regard also.
It generally has fewer overheads than large government organisations and can play a valuable role in ‘joining up’ service delivery on the ground.
A single point of contact in a local area – for example, a local community organisation – for a particular service provides not only a more user friendly experience but also a more efficient and effective delivery of that service.
For example, in 2007, the Commonwealth funded a National Youth Mental Health Foundation program called Headspace.
Headspace is an integrated service delivery model to provide support to young people with mental health or wellbeing issues.
It brings together services funded by all three levels of government to create a joined up service for young people.
Headspace provides place-based funding to bring existing health practitioners and health services together in a one stop shop.
One young woman who uses the service summed up the benefits of community organisations like these in providing joined up services when she said:
“because everything is done at the one place you feel comfortable. … most other places … you would have to first see [a doctor], get a referral and then go and find a psychologist yourself, and you never have that in-between support. … I think it’s really good the whole set-up. I love it.” (Female, 19 years)
So, there are many reasons for the government to work with the community sector in order to achieve outcomes for communities.
Through its flexibility, its capacity to innovate, its connectedness, and its effectiveness, the community sector can help Australian government achieve the goal set for us by the Prime Minister:
To become the best public service anywhere in the world.
In conclusion...
As in many countries around the world, the Australian Government is saying very strongly and with conviction that collaboration and cooperation with community organisations is no longer a nice extra.
Involving those beyond government is absolutely essential to our work.
Working together will empower us to respond to citizens’ diverse and fluid expectations more effectively and efficiently than either the community sector or government could alone.
The objective now is to refine and enhance the models that govern our working relationships.
We need to harness the community sector’s strengths – flexibility, innovation and connectedness – and deploy them within an appropriately rigorous accountability and performance management framework.
All in the service of our citizens.
And we must keep two other – quite specific – challenges in mind as we work towards this objective.
First, as the community sector’s involvement in direct service delivery on behalf of government expands, we must think carefully about the mechanisms we will use to preserve the community sector’s policy and advocacy capacity.
We must be clear that community sector organisations should remain active and constructive participants in the social policy debate, even while being responsible for the administration of significant sums of taxpayer money.
Second, while government is keen to learn from the community sector, in particular to absorb its natural flexibility and flair for innovation, we must be alert to our influence on the community sector organisations we work with.
The government and the community sector must each strengthen their capabilities such as contract management, system design, and development of “fit for purpose” accountability and performance management models.
But we in government must at the same time guard against the transmission of our more bureaucratic tendencies.
In my position, as the Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, and as Chair of the Advisory Group on Reform of Australian Government Administration, I am optimistic about the future.
I acknowledge the caveats and risks John Wanna identified on Monday when he outlined a framework for thinking about citizen centred government.
But I believe government and the community sector absolutely can work together to achieve outcomes for individuals, families and communities.
Thank you for your time.