Table of Contents
The concept of an entrepreneurial public organisation has been commonplace for some time, but it is unusual for a major public service agency to be perceived as operating in the market to secure existing core work as well as to seek new business. Centrelink was concerned with market share and with competition in the public and voluntary sectors, and even with extending operations to the private marketplace. This imperative derived from the government injunction to operate more like the private sector and reflected the in-vogue dictums of the 1990s about new public management and entrepreneurial government (Halligan 2003).
This chapter provides the perspective of the agency in its dealings with the other main stakeholders, reflecting an organisational imperative: the entrepreneurial model. Entrepreneurial advocacy includes building legitimacy for initiatives, shaping mandates for action, mobilising support and investing them with political support (Moore 1995). The dimensions covered here are: extending policy roles, expanding business horizontally, positioning within the Public Service and expanding out from the formal structure through governance processes to the community.
Centrelink originally emerged from a combination of agendas and opportunities after the election of a new government committed to rationalisation and cutbacks. In the process of formulating options that would be accepted by the government and given organisational form, those proposing its creation were constrained by the new government’s philosophical and political expectations and the interests of existing departments. The concept was then shaped by a compromise with long-term consequences for operations and relationships between client departments and Centrelink (Halligan 2004).
The continuing constraints and parameters for this new public organisation, as outlined earlier, covered changing reform agendas and expectations and contradictory imperatives. These imposed different types of discipline on Centrelink. The new government that created Centrelink was otherwise pursuing the most intense neo-liberal policies since the reform era began as it sought to address the budget deficit and to review the management and financial activities of government, including what efficiencies might be achieved. Reform was characterised by marketisation and outsourcing that included an intensification of cutbacks and promotion of the private sector over the public sector. This agenda was supplanted in the early 2000s as its limitations were exposed and refinements became necessary (Halligan and Adams 2004).
At the same time, the policy framework took a dramatic new direction midway through this period as mutual obligation was mainstreamed by the government and welfare reform produced significant changes with ‘Australians Working Together’ (AWT) designed to establish a new balance between incentives, obligations and welfare assistance.
There were also constraints resulting from the ambiguity underlying the Centrelink concept and potential conflicts among the different imperatives. The combination of models that could be discerned in these organisational imperatives allowed for different interpretations, in particular, about the relative importance of managerial dimensions as expressed through purchaser–provider principles and partnerships. (Halligan 2004).
These differences were also established by the bureaucratic politics attendant on the entrance of an interloper. In contrast with Britain and New Zealand, where ‘agencification’—the separation of policy and delivery—was implemented across the civil service, in Australia, Centrelink was the exception.[1] As a delivery agency, it dealt with a wide range of departments but was excluded from their club, although performing work that several of them had recently undertaken.
Centrelink was, however, an innovation of a government that conformed to the premises of the time. The ambiguity and conflicting imperatives also provided scope for initiative. Through advocacy and smart practices, opportunities could be turned to advantage providing organisational longevity could be ensured.
The original mandate was as a one-stop delivery agency providing services to purchasing departments in social security and unemployment, but Centrelink’s unconventional character also provided a platform from which to position itself within the APS. The positions advocated, in addition to the one-stop shop, were the ‘provider of choice’ for the Commonwealth, ‘inclusive service delivery’ covering those who were marginalised and disadvantaged (Vardon 2000c), the gateway for electronic communications and the ‘premier broker’ (Tannahill 2000).
In the following discussion, Centrelink’s positioning is examined through cases in different operational spheres and different types of inter-agency interaction: one is about competing for policy and contributions to the process; a second considers positioning within the Public Service; the third examines the process of employing entrepreneurial and advocacy skills to consolidate and expand the agency’s role while evolving a distinctive service delivery focus; and the final case is about the elaboration of a community relationship.
[1] A few other cases existed, such as the Australian Taxation Office, but it was not a product of the move towards new-style executive agencies, but simply a conventional pragmatic solution to implementation.