Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about the South Australian Royal Commission into child protection. Given the recent appalling revelations of a Families SA officer abusing children in their care, and the apparent failure of the Department or system to respond and protect kids, who could grumble about an independent inquiry to find out what went wrong and to stop it happening again?
Well, my grumble is more about the way the Royal Commission was set up.
When the government announced the inquiry, it called for public submissions on the draft Terms of Reference – because as we know, the government does not “announce and defend” anymore.
Well, various groups and concerned individuals put in submissions suggesting changes, including broadening the inquiry to look at ways to keep kids out of state care in the first place, and also to look at what happened to all the previous inquiries into the child protection system – lest we re-invent the wheel or repeat past failures.
But 3 days after public submissions closed, the final Terms of Reference were announced – with almost no changes. There was a tinkering with some legalese, and the insertion of 6 words requiring a consideration of resources and the financial achievability of any recommendations.
It is not clear if this last change was a small recognition of the various submissions calling for a cost-benefit analysis in light of the huge cost and unknown benefit of police screening of workers and volunteers, or whether the change in wording was simply a common sense request not to recommend 24/7 guard details and video surveillance.
Either way, there was no widening of the terms of reference to consider the broader context of child protection, nor any acknowledgment that we have been here before.
Ultimately, if the government wants a narrow inquiry that addresses specific issues quickly, that’s legitimate – but don’t go through the farce of public consultation if you already know what you want.
“Consult and ignore” is no better than “announce and defend”.
The state government has a Stronger Together partnership with the community sector, they have the Better Together principles allegedly underpinning all government community engagement, and there is now even a Charter of Citizen Participation proposed in the new planning system reforms.
But frankly, these all amount to nothing if the community input is simply ignored, or if there is no explanation of why the government chose to proceed the way it did.
It is simply public servants ticking boxes that they have consulted, and I am too old and grumpy to be bothered with that game.
If you want an example of how such consultation should be treated, check out SACOSS’ last submission in relation to the ACNC.
I am Greg and I am grumbling.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 2 September 2014
Greg's Grumbles can be heard on Radio Adelaide during SACOSS' Small Change program - 6pm every Tuesday night. 101.5FM or online.
Showing posts with label consultations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label consultations. Show all posts
Tuesday, 2 September 2014
Tuesday, 5 August 2014
46. Advisory Committees
Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about the State Government plan to abolish a raft of advisory committees and boards across all government areas. The committees have now been asked to show cause why they shouldn’t be cut.
The government says it is getting rid of bureaucracy and allowing citizens direct access to government. Who could complain about that? Well, I could!
The idea that having experts or stakeholder representatives on committees advising government somehow stops people having access to government is bizarre. It blames committees for separate processes of poor government engagement with the community, and it misunderstands the role of those advisory boards and committees.
The fact is that such committees can be useful, and often the only chance different stakeholders get to sit around a table to try to arrive at a common position.
That is potentially good both for policy development and for better community understanding of issues.
The real problem with such committees is that this potential is systematically sabotaged. The relevant government department usually controls the agenda and most of the information flow to the committee, and takes up most of the meeting time proferring its own advice or doing show-and-tell presentations on uncontroversial issues.
The committees are usually chaired and peopled by those handpicked or approved by Ministers and departments, ensuring the committees are “reasonable” (Humphrey Appleby would say “sound”) rather than representative.
Participants may be further prevented from reporting back to their constituencies by government-imposed confidentiality requirements, and there is a pervasive culture that avoids conflict or hard questions by not making formal decisions. Despite rules requiring majority decision making, votes are almost never taken.
General discussion and opinion substitutes for policy advice, and committee minutes – written and vetted by the department – simply note briefings and discussion with no actual decisions or outcomes.
So, having gutted and undermined the ability of these advisory committees to give independent and robust advice, the government now says they don’t work and should be abolished.
But here’s a radical idea, why not try to make them work by actually giving them independence and real questions to deal with – and expect actual decisions and advice, not just discussion and noting of government briefings.
Of course, that’s hard – and challenging. You might get different, and maybe even uncomfortable policies put forward. Perish the thought – much simpler just to abolish the committees.
I am Greg and I am grumbling.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 5 August 2014
The government says it is getting rid of bureaucracy and allowing citizens direct access to government. Who could complain about that? Well, I could!
The idea that having experts or stakeholder representatives on committees advising government somehow stops people having access to government is bizarre. It blames committees for separate processes of poor government engagement with the community, and it misunderstands the role of those advisory boards and committees.
The fact is that such committees can be useful, and often the only chance different stakeholders get to sit around a table to try to arrive at a common position.
That is potentially good both for policy development and for better community understanding of issues.
The real problem with such committees is that this potential is systematically sabotaged. The relevant government department usually controls the agenda and most of the information flow to the committee, and takes up most of the meeting time proferring its own advice or doing show-and-tell presentations on uncontroversial issues.
The committees are usually chaired and peopled by those handpicked or approved by Ministers and departments, ensuring the committees are “reasonable” (Humphrey Appleby would say “sound”) rather than representative.
Participants may be further prevented from reporting back to their constituencies by government-imposed confidentiality requirements, and there is a pervasive culture that avoids conflict or hard questions by not making formal decisions. Despite rules requiring majority decision making, votes are almost never taken.
General discussion and opinion substitutes for policy advice, and committee minutes – written and vetted by the department – simply note briefings and discussion with no actual decisions or outcomes.
So, having gutted and undermined the ability of these advisory committees to give independent and robust advice, the government now says they don’t work and should be abolished.
But here’s a radical idea, why not try to make them work by actually giving them independence and real questions to deal with – and expect actual decisions and advice, not just discussion and noting of government briefings.
Of course, that’s hard – and challenging. You might get different, and maybe even uncomfortable policies put forward. Perish the thought – much simpler just to abolish the committees.
I am Greg and I am grumbling.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 5 August 2014
Tuesday, 8 July 2014
42. Post-ACNC Regulation of Charities
Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about the government's consultation on the replacement arrangements planned for when it abolishes the national charities regulator, the Australian Charities and Not for Profit Commission (the “ACNC”)
Comments on the proposed arrangements are due by 20 August, but the Options Paper the government is seeking responses to says this feedback will inform public consultations in July and August.
Now that could be an innocent stuff up, but when their submission template (which doesn’t work, BTW! [at least when this Grumble went to air]) contains a list of stakeholder categories that shows no understanding of the scope of the charity sector you really have to wonder.
Curiously, the “Centre for Excellence,” which the government previously touted as taking over the education and support functions of the ACNC is not mentioned at all, while predictably the regulatory functions will revert back to the tax office and ASIC.
I have grumbled before that getting advice and processing of applications was slow under the ATO, and that the ATO has been used as an attack dog by governments concerned about charities asking difficult questions.
And when it was in charge, the ATO did not even have an up-to-date public list of charities, despite their entitlement to significant tax concessions. And now that public database, built by the ACNC, is to be mothballed.
But of course the Bill to abolish the ACNC has not gone through the Senate yet. When a Senate Committee recently conducted an inquiry on the bill, over 80% of respondents (and almost all the charities responding) said they wanted the regulator retained.
Yet the government members of the committee just ignored all the research and reasons put forward by the vast majority and wrote a report supporting the abolition – and so we have this latest consultation.
And no doubt there will be charities and not-for-profit organisations lining up like sheep to comment on the new proposal. You know the format: “thank you so much for the chance to comment on this important proposal”; “we appreciate the government’s intention to support charities”, etc etc.
Bah, bah.
Well, here is my submission:
I don’t want arrangements made to replace the regulatory body that came about after years of poor regulation, bookshelves full of government reports recommending the establishment of such a purpose-built regulator, and a broad public consultation to design a better system.
And why should I take time and effort to comment on your proposal when you have not listened to a word that the vast majority of our sector has said about the ACNC and sector regulation.
I am Greg and I am grumbling.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 8 July 2014
Comments on the proposed arrangements are due by 20 August, but the Options Paper the government is seeking responses to says this feedback will inform public consultations in July and August.
Now that could be an innocent stuff up, but when their submission template (which doesn’t work, BTW! [at least when this Grumble went to air]) contains a list of stakeholder categories that shows no understanding of the scope of the charity sector you really have to wonder.
Curiously, the “Centre for Excellence,” which the government previously touted as taking over the education and support functions of the ACNC is not mentioned at all, while predictably the regulatory functions will revert back to the tax office and ASIC.
I have grumbled before that getting advice and processing of applications was slow under the ATO, and that the ATO has been used as an attack dog by governments concerned about charities asking difficult questions.
And when it was in charge, the ATO did not even have an up-to-date public list of charities, despite their entitlement to significant tax concessions. And now that public database, built by the ACNC, is to be mothballed.
But of course the Bill to abolish the ACNC has not gone through the Senate yet. When a Senate Committee recently conducted an inquiry on the bill, over 80% of respondents (and almost all the charities responding) said they wanted the regulator retained.
Yet the government members of the committee just ignored all the research and reasons put forward by the vast majority and wrote a report supporting the abolition – and so we have this latest consultation.
And no doubt there will be charities and not-for-profit organisations lining up like sheep to comment on the new proposal. You know the format: “thank you so much for the chance to comment on this important proposal”; “we appreciate the government’s intention to support charities”, etc etc.
Bah, bah.
Well, here is my submission:
I don’t want arrangements made to replace the regulatory body that came about after years of poor regulation, bookshelves full of government reports recommending the establishment of such a purpose-built regulator, and a broad public consultation to design a better system.
And why should I take time and effort to comment on your proposal when you have not listened to a word that the vast majority of our sector has said about the ACNC and sector regulation.
I am Greg and I am grumbling.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 8 July 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)