Policy

How can we further embed good evidence and insights into the policy development cycle.

The vision statement should begin with the APS duty to uphold the rule of law, and to encourage and promote human rights for all Australians.

“Good evidence and insights” must be grounded in human rights; governments must be held genuinely accountable through strong compatibility statements against all legislation and we must grow a rights culture understood by all.

Human rights, and the legal duty of the Australian government, and the APS, to encourage and promote human rights, seems not to be noted?. 3 points: Australia is the only democracy without a human rights charter of some description; there is vast evidence that countries with human rights charters are making good social decisions and seeing improved outcomes as a result; there is a move among States to introduce human rights charters despite governments’ rejection of a national charter – Victoria, ACT, Queensland now have their own charters incorporating international law and other States have strong lobbying movements.

Lived Experience in policy must be underpinned by emerging, rigorous methodology to create understanding of people within complex situations. “Good evidence and insights”, again demonstrable in other countries achieving positive outcomes cannot be achieved through APS methodology of New Public Management Paradigm i.e. excessive quantification, and managerialism unsuited for public sector.

If we respected the rule of law, and had a rights culture, we may not now be having royal commissions into the disability sector and aged care; if we had a culture that recognised human rights and embedded ethics, the banking sector may not have become quite such the debacle that it is..

APS Review asked “how the APS could embed a practice like the Wiltshire Test?”

The Institute of Public Affairs’ advocacy of the “Wiltshire Test” underlines that evidence-based policy is often not practiced (often with the expected consequences). See https://ipa.org.au/ipa-today/evidence-based-policy-research-project

However: • The IPA examples represent high-profile decisions made by ministers – it is difficult to untangle the extent to which they were well advised by public servants. • It is not clear that all Wiltshire criteria are relevant. Most of the criteria make sense. However, while public consultation, a published green paper / white paper and legislation may be desirable (or even essential) for some issues – but not all. • Assessment of whether the criteria have been fulfilled is inevitably subjective. How much analysis, consultation or communication is enough?

In any organisation, the behaviours of the top leaders help set the climate for the organisation as a whole. Should ministers be prepared to subject themselves to greater discipline, this could have positive impact on the organisation as a whole. The key to this is insisting on evidence-based policy be presented to them, and making decisions that reflect the available evidence. Specific actions could include: • Publication of the cabinet submission and new policy proposal templates (which should reflect the Wiltshire criteria (or a similar model) • Publication of the Guidelines for the Preparation of Cabinet Submissions and the Budget Process Operational Rules. • Publication of the outcomes of Cabinet meetings with a summary of the material presented and a self-assessment against the Wiltshire criteria (or a similar model). • Authorise the ANAO to audit compliance with these processes.

Looking forward is a great idea, we would be concerned if this was done before looking at the present. One of the issues in smaller, remote areas is there does not seem to be recognition of the present circumstances and the more people "look to the future" the outliers get left further behind.

Examples of this are telecommunications strategy (don't have any in 6 out of 9 communities); CDP work potential on communities; and funding models for human services that are "one size fits all" and do not work in remote areas.

Need a view that includes the present and the future - and first to drive equity of services across Australia or acknowledge where some services will not be provided.

I really think that proper HR and talent management is a big part of the puzzle. So many issues around not anticipating emerging challenges and trends come from public servants who've been around for too long. These "policy experts" often just want to work 9-5, don't want to change, and despise talent management and moving away from the status quo. Younger staff tend to be better at this dynamic work as they're excited about their work, they're innovative and open to new challenges and experiences. They are however often shut down by rigid hierarchical structures, poor appreciation and cronyism.

I'm unsure about the best mode to integrate the Wittshire Test into practice. It could integrated into the New Policy Proposal (NPP) drafting process for each policy agency. Or, an independent centre or hub like the Productivity Commission or Audit Office could review adherence. If the latter route it taken, greater awareness of standards for policy quality control, or the particular standard being enforced (like Wittshire), beyond that enforced within the organisation, would be needed.

The academic literature on promoting evidence-based policy suggests that regular reminders to 'do' evidence based policy is helpful. Yet, we don't have any networks or groups that perform that function, unlike the 'What Works' network in the UK, which is highly effective, and has a nice nexus with the promotion of outcomes based practice (the What Works Centre for Well-being for instance).

Given the opportunity, I'd start such a network myself within the APS as proof of concept. Sadly, another issue we face is that people with ideas such as these, have no established route within the public service to get the idea up. Either I can 'cold email' someone higher up the food chain and hope they aren't annoyed enough for it to bite me. Or, I can ask my line managers who may be concerned that I'm not focussed on work in their solo. Or, I can wait a decade or so till I'm in a position of greater seniority or have built enough rapport with more senior government officials to propose the idea.

If this issue is solved, I think many of the policy process issues can be solved from more enterprising public servants.

Government could justify how they meet the Wiltshire Test for every policy, and publically justify why they have not, when they have not.

A most difficult question to answer. But suggest 1st focus on each individual policy or policy change proposal. 2nd ask terse focussed questions. 3rd develop a focus group of knowledgeable expert persons in area (rather that a broad church) to assess responses and advise

i.e. keep in short and focussed and for the most part keep it clear of politicians and politics - deal with that after you have the best answer or solution

The idea of a centre for strategic futures is a good one. The APS must feel responsible for the future and become more forward looking. Indeed, Ministers expect this of us. They expect the APS to be able to draw on considered views and longer-term perspectives in order to rapidly fashion the best possible advice and policy for the Government of the day. One might say, to be responsibly responsive. A strategic futures centre could provide desperately needed endorsement for forward thinking.