The fact that the different levels and functions of government are now overlapping raises important questions for our democracy.
What does it mean for democratic accountability?
What does it mean for ministerial responsibility?
What does it mean for public service practice?
One of the essential features of a good system of democracy is proper balance between the centre and the regions and the regions and the localities. As governments join forces to solve problems there is a risk of too much centralisation and standardisation. This can undermine more localised accountabilities, reduce meaningful choice in elections, and stifle innovation in policy and practice.
In Australia the link that is often drawn between national development, nationalism and Commonwealth power makes this an ever present threat to good government.
In order to respond to this potential threat to institutional autonomy, we would do well to incorporate into our debates and ultimately into our system the principle of subsidiarity. This aims to ensure that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen and that serious questions should be asked as to whether action at higher levels is justified in light of the possibilities available at lower levels of government.[8]
The same principle applies when considering relations between the government and the non-government sectors. Sometimes the pressure of incorporation may come at a price that is too high, as various welfare agencies have determined in relation to the Federal Government’s welfare-to-work policies.
When it comes to ministerial responsibility Strategic Government has brought with it a degree of inevitable confusion. In this case I believe it is a good thing because of the simplicities and impracticalities associated with both the Westminster doctrine and the New Public Management revision of that doctrine.
Whilst it was clear that the Westminster doctrine of ministerial responsibility was clearly deficient in the real world of public management, its reverse, most commonly described as ‘Let The Managers Manage’, had a corresponding political deficiency.
Firstly, its radical separation of ministerial power and public sector management was not feasible in a world of marginal seats, targeted lobbying and media aggression. To put it another way, there is often a tension between policy rationality and the inevitable messiness of democratic politics.
Secondly, its tendency to shift blame from politicians to public servants took some of the sting out of democratic accountability. Indeed there was something implausible about reducing ministerial responsibility to effective communication of government policy and the setting of performance targets for which public servants were held accountable.
The changes that have come with Strategic Government see ministers back into the managerial equation. Indeed in some of the jurisdictions which have developed plans, lead ministers have been created to chair collaborative initiatives and given strategy-setting, negotiating, and monitoring roles. However, public servants are still very much in the seat of policy delivery and human resource management, for which there will be clear accountabilities but now we see more balance in the relationship itself and in our understanding of responsibility.
This takes me to my third question about public service practice. It is no longer a case of delivering a particular service. It involves a set of relationships and situations of complexity and even ambiguity. New skills related to public engagement and consultation, project management, managing in a society of diversity, working in teams, developing a multi-disciplinary knowledge-base and planning for the future have all become indispensable even though awkwardly placed alongside our current systems of performance management and public accountability.
The bigger question is whether or not the patterns of accountability and public sector capabilities that are developing in this new era of Strategic Government will be enough. Not only is there a risk of too much centralisation in the system of government there is the related risk of too much power going to government generally. New Public Management required governments to perform fewer functions but to be strong in the way it carried out those functions – what Andrew Gamble called in his book with the same title: The Free Economy and the Strong State.[9]
Strategic Government, on the other hand, is requiring governments to do more and in different ways – facilitating, co-ordinating, partnering and enabling. That being said it is still the State we are talking about and you cannot have states without governments and politicians. Note also the new powers being taken on by the State to ‘protect’ and to ‘educate’. These are powers that can be abused in a society of diversity and robust debate. As a community we need to ask whether we have an adequate system of checks and balances to combat abuse?
In the A.C.T. and Victoria they have asked this question and answered it with new human rights protections in their laws.[10] This is a sensible course of action in a world where the power and authority of the State is bound to expand.