Putting the citizen at the centre of public service

Australian Public Service Commissioner Lynelle Briggs gave what I feel is a landmark presentation at the John Curtin Institute of Public Policy on 21 May. In signalling what I take to be a move away from designing and delivering programs on an inputs/outputs basis, Lynelle Briggs declared that a “new paradigm has emerged” about “putting the citizen at the centre of public service”. Public sector effectiveness ought now be measured in how well programs address the needs of those to whom it is being delivered. This posting provides a summary of my take on the presentation, and suggestions about possible implications for government agencies.

Leading

A key challenge for the public service is to become public facilitators. A key challenge for the public is to take on responsibility and to express their values and preferences to government. In both cases is requires a more open culture of decision-making. Recognising that increasingly complex problems are beyond the ability of governments to manage alone, being open to the knowledge and experiences of citizens, and to sharing data and intelligence across the public service, will improve the effectiveness of the public sector. As noted in the presentation:

“Innovation in the first decades of the 21st century is more open and pervasive, characterised by skill in collaborating and making connections so that knowledge flows and grows, and so becomes available to meet customer and community needs”.

Taking an open, facilitative approach means allowing for some managed risk and to be accepting of failure as a result. As Lynelle Briggs said “We have to try new things, and we have to learn and move on. Our accountability and responsibility regime needs to let us do that”.

A number of best practice solutions were identified. Lynelle Briggs would like to see them all in place. In particular, I would like to see:

• a greater focus on systems thinking and collaborative policy and program design as a critical capability to be developed and valued. As part of this, we need to understand the impact of complexity and the fragmentation of services and related requirements on citizens
• use of communities of interest across public sector agencies
• better sharing of data and intelligence across the public service.

Implications for government agencies

One immediate take-away in the formation of 2009-10 business and operating plans is for citizen engagement processes to be integrated into business outcomes and service inputs (eg. training and development).

In terms of service delivery, there are two aspects for government to consider. One is in the effectiveness of information and education awareness programs. The other is in the effectiveness of service delivery.

There is scope to review the effectiveness of processes and procedures to see how well they meet the needs of citizens rather than how well they are tailored to meet the structures of government.

Beyond that, the Netherlands e-Citizen charter referred to by Lynelle Briggs provides guidance on the practice of citizen engagement and what citizens can expect from it, through principles covering things like choice of communication method – an important issue in considering what collaboration tools to use. The question to ask is, what relationship do you want? Then select the right tools and processes.

Australian Institute for Public Policy

A new public policy think tank is being set up by the Australian Federal and Victorian State Governments in partnership with the University of Melbourne. The institute is to be modelled on the Brookings Institute in the United States. Dealing with domestic and international issues, topics are to include energy policy, climate change and Australia’s role in the region.

Andrew Leigh suggests that, in an increasingly crowded think tank space, the institute would be best placed to “…carve out a domestic policy niche, looking at urban policy, crime policy, health policy, schools policy, innovation policy, IT policy, etc.” While not decrying from the view that domestic policy debate on these issues are worthwhile, I note that the Brookings Institute research covers internet policy. As a ‘global network of networks’, and given the rapid rise in social and economic importance of the internet internationally as well as in Australia, I would suggest the AIPP may well have a role there too. The issues transcend domestic, regional and international public policy debate.

A recent policy brief from the Brookings Institure is of interest – Using the Media to Promote Adolescent Well-Being (Donahue, Haskings, and Nightingale). The authors advocate using the media to “…provide positive messages that counteract the negative and potentially damaging messages to which they are so frequently exposed”.