The extent of whole-of-government activity depends critically on the function of the department. Some departments are inevitably involved constantly in whole-of-government activities: the central agencies themselves and other agencies with specific coordinating roles (for example, the Attorney-General’s and Foreign Affairs departments). Departments with wide responsibilities, such as the Health department, also find themselves with substantial overlapping interests with other agencies.
The extent also varies with the style and interests of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of the Department of PM&C. Prime Minister Howard made considerable use of task forces chaired by his department, often involving external players. He also engaged people to direct task forces overseen or supported by a reference group of secretaries chaired by his department.
Some secretaries of the Department of PM&C, such as Peter Shergold, have a naturally collaborative style that encourages more frequent and free discussions among secretaries. Others, such as Moore-Wilton or Mike Keating, took a more directive approach to address the government’s agenda and their own perspective on it. Whatever the personal style of the Secretary of PM&C, forums of secretaries frequently play a critical role in setting the future policy agenda of the government, and for redirecting policy. Constructive examples in my time that I was involved in as secretary included discussions on housing reforms and the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) microeconomic reform agenda in the mid-1990s (under Mike Keating), discussions on population ageing and the importance of workforce participation and productivity rather than just outlays on health and welfare (under Moore-Wilton, influenced by Ken Henry from the Treasury) and discussions on Indigenous programs (under Shergold). Less positive examples include policies on asylum seekers and illicit drugs in Moore-Wilton’s time, though I must concede that the Howard Government felt well served by the advice received.
As Table 4.5 illustrates, not all of the cases I was personally involved in proved successful in the end—but not for want of extensive involvement by secretaries and other officials.
Table 4.5 The never completed 1995 housing reform agenda
In 1994, I was encouraged by Mike Keating to explore possible reforms to housing assistance programs as part of the then COAG agenda on microeconomic reform and the wider use of competition in the provision of government services.
I initially opened discussions among Housing department CEOs suggesting a new approach to the Commonwealth–State Housing Agreement. I was keen to see the imposition of market rents and the introduction of transparent income-tested rental subsidies to replace the existing formulae for rents (based on income but with open-ended subsidies). I also wanted to explore the possibility of narrowing the differential between social security rental assistance for those not in public housing and the effective subsidies for those in public housing, as an alternative approach to addressing the never-reducing queues for public housing.
The state housing CEOs were mostly sceptical, favouring their traditional approach of publicly owned housing stock with rents set at no more than 25 per cent of household income. The minister, Brian Howe, had also originally supported this approach but recognised the Commonwealth could never afford to provide the capital needed to meet outstanding need, and realised the subsidies for public housing in some locations were unsustainably high, encouraging tenants to stay longer than they needed to and limiting access to others.
Keating and the senior COAG officials supported the use of market rents and more commercial management of the housing stock, but were keen to go further to clarify federal responsibilities for housing. With some support from Victoria and South Australia, we developed more radical options under which the Commonwealth would take full responsibility for rental assistance, including subsidies to public housing tenants, and the states would take full responsibility for managing the stock and policies to promote lower rental housing in the private housing sector. Howe supported this approach as long as it could maintain and extend current subsidies to social security recipients in rental housing in either the public or private sectors.
The benefits were not only greater efficiency in the management of public housing but wider access to low-rent housing, greater equity in housing assistance, more choice and the potential to break-up public housing estates, which in many places had become centres of crime and social disadvantage, limiting opportunities for escaping poverty. There would also be better accountability through clearer division of federal responsibilities.
Keating engaged the Treasury and Finance departments in the process, encouraging them to help address the necessary transfers in funds between the Commonwealth and the states arising from the states receiving market rents and the Commonwealth taking full responsibility for rental assistance.
Housing ministers accepted the proposals in principle and cabinet also agreed. COAG endorsed the proposals in November 1995 and Prime Minister Keating announced the reforms in December 1995 in the ‘Community and Nation’ policy statement.
Sadly, for political reasons I do not understand, the Howard Government dropped the proposals in mid-1996. The problems of public housing estates, queues for public housing and inadequate rental assistance for many social security recipients remain.