I am delighted to be contributing to the Australian and New Zealand School of Government’s ANU Lecture Program.
The creation of ANZSOG and indeed the Graduate School of Government at the University of Sydney where I teach is an indication that public administration is returning to its rightful place as an essential element in the study of government and politics.
Politics is not just about theory and policy it is also about administration and implementation. Systems have to be administered and policies implemented.
The way this has been, could be and ought to be done is a matter that warrants serious theoretical and practical investigation.
The study of public administration has broadened its horizons as governments have come to expect their heads of department not just to administer but to manage change and create value. This has paved the way for new terminology, in this case ‘public management’.
For those who practise public management the emergence of Graduate Schools of Government has been timely. They have complemented the wonderful work of our institutes of public administration and the innovative thinking associated with our schools of public policy today. To be involved in the public sector is to be at the cutting edge of some of the most creative thinking associated with political and social inquiry. If you want a demonstration of this, look up the website of the Strategy Unit in the UK Cabinet office.[1]
We are interested in systems and outcomes, processes and outputs, and strategies and operations.
The long-standing debate about ends and means has been given new meaning as we explore the relationships involved more intensively.
That public servants themselves have been given the opportunity to reflect on these matters through their participation in graduate programs augurs well for the future.
Of course I come to these discussions after 20 years as an elected representative in a State Parliament, three years of which were as a minister and five years as a premier.
Public servants were always there – informing and advising, helping and counselling, worrying and warning, planning and arranging, and occasionally (and I emphasise occasionally), scheming and obstructing.
Without them the system simply couldn’t work. They are part of an equation that involves both the political and the administrative arms of government. Neither can be properly understood without the other. It is all about relationships. As indeed is politics in general: government and people, public and private, commonwealth and state, state and local, executive, legislature and judiciary, cabinet and caucus, etc.
Many factors can influence the way these relationships develop from straightforward events to longer-term tendencies associated with social, economic, environmental or technological changes. I say ‘influence’ because in the end politicians have to interpret and respond to these events and tendencies. The way they do – and how successful they are – is a major factor in determining the type of public management we have.
When we reflect on this we should always remind ourselves of the words of John Maynard Keynes:
The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.[2]