The increasing use of consultants by Australian governments has had widespread and profound impacts on public life (see Croakey’s coverage of this issue here and here), one of which is a de-valuing of the expertise and knowledge that lies in the communities being targeted by government policies and programs.
In the article below, David Crosbie, CEO of Community Council for Australia, describes how the “cosy relationship” between consultants and public servants has influenced policy making in Australia and makes a powerful argument for the role of the charitable and the community sectors in developing authentic policies that result in real and sustainable public benefits.
This article first appeared in The Community Advocate, the newsletter of the Institute of Community Directors Australia (ICDA), and is re-posted here with permission.
David Crosbie writes:
When groups of highly paid people from the public service and major consultancy firms sit in expensive offices sharing PowerPoint presentations and agreeing with each other, it doesn’t mean something is changing for the better.
The cosy relationship between senior public servants and consultants is not just about money, although no one can doubt that money is a primary motivation within the big four consultancy firms.
The amount of taxpayer money given to the big four firms for management advisory services has increased by more than 1,270 percent in a decade, according to new analysis from the Centre for Public Integrity.
“In 2012 the federal government spent $44 million on these services, which include audits, project management and strategic advice. In the past financial year, the bureaucracy spent $605 million, with the largest share of that money going to KPMG,” reported the Guardian’s Australian edition.
A lot of this government expenditure is related to audits, and the Department of Defence is one of the biggest spenders, but we also know that part of the increasing expenditure is about government drawing on major consultancy firms to support policy development and implementation.
Missing charity and community expertise
Whatever the actual figures are, governments are clearly more comfortable spending money on expensive big four consultancies in the development of policy input than they are in seeking expert input and advice from charities, community organisations and academics.
This is reflected in the marketing of consultancy firms’ services to government. For example, this is a blurb from one of the major firms:
Good policy development requires sound processes, evidence and insights. Our consultants help you develop policy by analysing evidence, engaging with stakeholders to understand their issues, to generate, develop and test new policy solutions, and to support implementation…
Our consultants work with you to consider key decisions, including identifying the most effective way to implement policy to achieve the desired outcomes and identifying the right organisations and people to be involved.”
We rarely see charity and community group expertise marketed in this way.
Part of the success of consultancy firms in this area is that together with the public service, they have developed a shared perspective on what makes good policy.
It is difficult to accurately characterise or generalise about this shared consultancy and public servant perspective, but it is often more about ticking the boxes and meeting perception requirements than about delivering public benefit.
Senior government policy makers tend to define good policy as a set of words we can all agree to. While keeping everyone onside can be a political goal, the problem with policy where everything is still possible, where the words rule nothing out, is that it is useless policy.
Safe, all-encompassing, everyone-agrees policy requires no change, no improvement, no shift in anyone’s behaviour.
A lack of action
In most areas of public policy, the problem is not about knowing what needs to be done, but about the lack of action consistent with what is known to be required.
A spin-off from the safe-set-of-words approach to government policy is the window-dressing approach.
The goal of window-dressing policies is to be able to say the government is actively addressing an issue of concern without actually doing anything to address the issue of concern.
Whether the government is considering options for the future, planning to become involved in an area, keen to address problems moving forward, looking to prepare a report, or aware of the issues and seeking solutions, all these statements mean nothing if nothing is actually being done.
In most areas of public policy, the problem is not about knowing what needs to be done, but about the lack of action consistent with what is known to be required.
The need for authenticity
In a public forum this week I was asked a question about how I defined good government policy, especially given government policy failures like Robodebt.
My response was to talk about authenticity, and there is one critical element that tells me whether policy development and implementation is authentic: prolonged engagement.
Good policy needs to be informed by experience, and that can be facilitated in many ways. Ideally there is engagement from those whom the policy will apply to, but that rarely happens.
Involvement of those affected by policy often occurs long after policy goals and parameters have been set. If consultations do occur, they tend to be rushed and shallow.
Most good government policy is about delivering some form of public benefit.
This can be economic, social, health, well-being, productivity or environmental, but whatever the benefit of the policy is intended to be, without ongoing monitoring, measurement, and evaluation it is difficult to argue the policy is authentic.
Just as engagement is important in the initial policy development, it is ongoing engagement over time that is the key to effective policy implementation and evaluation.
Prolonged engagement is also critical to continual improvement. Being prepared to engage with communities, using expertise to monitor and measure outcomes and impact, and modifying activities as required to better achieve policy goals should all be fundamental aspects of any good government policy.
A story not being told
Serious and prolonged consultation with communities, particularly disadvantaged communities, should generally be outsourced from the public service and big consultancy firms, and allocated to those who know and are engaged with their communities.
In most cases this will be charities and community organisations.
The story of government expenditure on consultancy firms is partly a story about the acceptance of superficial policy. It is also a story about government failure to recognise the immense value charities and community organisations can offer in developing authentic policies that result in real and sustainable public benefits.
That part of the consultancy story is not being told.
See here and here for recent Croakey articles on the role of consultancies in Australian public life.
