Check against delivery
[INTRODUCTION]
In past lives I have orchestrated campaigns and lobbied inside political parties and governments for what I will describe as political or policy positions to be adopted or prioritized. That is, these were voluntary campaigns, they weren’t professional.
I have worked in a range of industries regulated to varying degrees, in corporate and regulatory strategy and more explicit lobbying directed across the political level and bureaucratic and regulatory agencies.
And now I am the regular recipient of advice, policy pitches and more explicit lobbying, so I have some insight from both sides of the fence about what is successful or otherwise.
Given Andrew and Geoff are speaking today as well, I will focus on the perspective of a Member of Parliament, noting much of what I say applies to all MPs, Government and opposition, ministry or shadow ministry or backbench.
[WHAT IS ‘REFORM’?]
Given the theme of the conference, I can’t help but think that we may need to have a quick chat about what the word “reform” means, to us, and to the wider community.
When I was at Melbourne Uni a couple of decades ago I was taught it was synonymous with the so-called neo-liberal “economic rationalist” agenda. Needless to say that description was not intended as a compliment.
A decade earlier “reform” usually referred to legal and policy changes in the social or cultural fields.
In recent years, I think the word has been used much more loosely, sometimes simply as a synonym simply for ‘the change that I want’. Too often absent of the explanation of the problem and how the proposal addresses it.
And as a segment of the public recoils from the word, we cannot simply assume it is always a positive place to start a conversation.
So what do we want it to mean when we undertake serious policy discussion and debate?
Critically, it has to mean something to those outside the stakeholder/bureaucrat/decision maker triangle. I will refer to this group politely as the “stakeholder community” in this address today.
As I hope will become apparent, I think addressing the divergence between this group and the wider public is a key challenge for any reform agenda, any serious engagement in policy.
To me, a starting point is that reform is likely a somewhat difficult change, not easy to achieve and that probably involves some political and economic sacrifice by a significant number of people or organisations.
Critically, it also refers to a process, not just a policy agenda or outcome.
Reform is not simply announced to the public and interested groups, it shouldn’t come out of nowhere nor simply be dropped on the table as a take-it-or-leave-it option.
Reform is also about engagement and debate.
It doesn’t have to have agreement from all, but all have to have had an opportunity for input, to have their say.
Just as the old saying goes that good policy is good politics, and I firmly believe that, good process is good policy too.
The process elements of reform are critical to generating consent from direct stakeholders and the public, particularly where policies are tested electorally as they inevitably are.
Where so-called reform has failed in recent years, I think the faults can be put down to actors and policies rather than the people and electorate, in whom I retain enormous faith.
[THE ENVIRONMENT TODAY]
To understand who succeeds in providing advice to policy makers and what constitutes advice that will be heeded, one needs to understand the environment decision-makers operate in.
Commentators, observers and academics talk about the faster media cycle, and while I don’t want to go into that in great detail today, I think we can take it as a given that it has had an impact in a number of ways.
There is much greater demand for content across all platforms, so it is easier to get media attention for an issue, proposal or problem.
It is particularly easier to get media attention in Canberra, where 24 hour news can also drive other coverage, and of course it is the only place where 200 journalists directly and regularly compete with each other.
This has had a particular effect of bringing more issues to the attention of the Commonwealth, an issue I will address further in a few minutes.
However, this new media cycle and these factors don’t necessarily mean a greater level of engagement with the public, although they can too easily provide that illusion.
Eyeballs and ears now have a lot more sources of news, and in my view are increasingly sceptical.
One should not see media coverage as a proxy for public penetration of an issue in the same way they might have 20 or 30 years ago.
I think making this assumption is a regular mistake of those proposing a particular policy.
Importantly, in my view, politicians are fairly good at knowing the difference between penetration amongst the stakeholder community and genuine public penetration.
As well as the amount of media content, there is simply so much information (of varying qualities) available to and provided to politicians and decision-makers.
The number of commissioned reports, public and private, that come through even an MP’s office is quite extraordinary. It is difficult to keep up in even a few select areas. Ministers and Shadow Ministers can easily be swamped.
In essence, just as there is an avalanche of media, there is now an avalanche of information. Sifting it and then judging and prioritising it is the most important skill one can have.
This avalanche of information also leads to a different type of debate.
No longer can we assume that everyone starts with the same “facts”.
Whether debating the impact of the Renewable Energy Target, education spending, subsidies to the car industry or even the level of tax paid by the mining industry, looking carefully at the differing arguments you will often see not only different values or priorities underlying them, but a difference in asserted or assumed facts – e.g. the cost, the pay-off, the alleged or assumed value, the tax paid.
So before a debate or discussion can actually happen, sometimes the facts need to be agreed upon.
In my view, these are all reasons for a larger gap between the views, interests and priorities of the public and what I have described as this ‘stakeholder community’ than I have ever seen.
It is also a reason far greater scepticism, some might say cynicism, of the public towards some of these debates.
Finally, I have to say that it is hard to describe the sheer scale of people and organisations who come to Canberra seeking public funds for a project, program or policy priority.
I don’t mean to be dismissive of many with good intentions, but it is nothing short of overwhelming.
In particular, the number of people bringing issues that are simply outside the responsibility or historical expertise of the Commonwealth to Canberra is extraordinary and seemingly constantly increasing.
Just because an issue is important, does not mean it is a Commonwealth responsibility to act, or as is usually requested, spend money on it.
Indeed, since the second Williams case, it may not even be within Commonwealth authority to act.
I cannot help but think that one of the reasons more and more local and state issues are being brought to Canberra is simply because of the ability to garner media coverage.
Of course, as a federalist in principle, what sometimes seems an increasingly lonely perspective, I am always suspicious that the fact that it is easier to lobby one government than eight is a driver of something being an alleged “national” problem as well.
[WHAT DOESN’T WORK]
Before I turn to what I think will work, let me go through a quick list of things to avoid when attempting to influence politicians or decision-makers.
Avoid corporate or organisational mantras.
Too often I have agreed to a meeting where I get the corporate talking points and introduction, about the social responsibility programs they undertake or the importance of their contribution to Australia. In my past life, I have even organised meetings where I said the same thing.
Quite frankly, people are often saying these things to make themselves feel better, or to hit some internal metric.
Unless it is the specific purpose of the meeting, or a brief explanation of some unknown facts is necessary to demonstrate expertise, avoid it and get to the point.
The same applies to NGOs.
Avoid the typical mass email campaigns.
I upset the Progress 2015 conference earlier this year when I outlined I never even saw them. We have junk mail filters.
Your argument will stand on its own two feet or it won’t, a confected email or social media campaign won’t persuade a decision maker.
More substantially, don’t confuse the budget and the economy, intentionally or otherwise.
Particularly in areas of public sector service delivery, there is a constant and intentional blurring or confusion between the budget and the economy.
By this I mean the claims that however-many billion will be the economic return or alleged productivity gain for a specific budget investment.
I can’t help but think this is also done to get media attention.
I do not intend to disregard the broader concept of an economic return, but don’t confuse it with the budget.
Government has a broad responsibility for the former, but a strict responsibility for the latter.
I can’t balance the budget or fund spending or get a proposal through ERC with a promised gain in 2030.
This relates to my next point, and I will be blunt.
Crap economic models. And I am being polite when I say crap.
Too often I sit through a claim that a government “investment” (for it is never called spending) will deliver some extraordinary rate of return.
Sometimes this includes alleged invoice tax receipts from the jobs allegedly created, sometimes it doesn’t.
But it never seems to include the economic loss due to extra taxation, nor the increased public sector borrowing costs from borrowing to fund the spending.
The models never stand up to scrutiny, and while they might grab some temporary attention, they don’t influence important decisions.
I have a personal example of this when I met with one of the senior executives of one of Australia’s car manufacturing companies a few years ago. They were pitching the case for ongoing government support, the extension of the car subsidy program. And it was put to me that if I invested $100 million I would generate a $700 million economic return for Australia. I didn’t get much a response when I said: for that sort of rate of return could I invest one billion and get seven billion back? Because it was too good to be true. Confronting some of these assumptions is very important.
Again, I don’t mean to sound dismissive, but grabbing attention isn’t the same as influencing a decision maker in a very crowded field.
[WHAT DOES WORK]
So, what does work? More importantly, what will work?
We have lived through the greatest boom since the one that build this city, my home town. It likely won’t happen again in my lifetime.
I think those seeking to influence public policy, in particular to claim public resources for their agenda or proposals (including my colleagues) need to adopt a different approach that reflects this.
While I never met him, I am a fan of the original Modest Member, Bert Kelly, and even had the privilege of writing the column named after him for a while.
One of Bert’s key messages through all his work was that there was no such thing as a free lunch, everything had a trade-off.
Well, I think there is an important message here for those seeking to influence public policy, as it usually involves public resource allocation as well.
Don’t just come with ideas for new programs, come with ideas as to where resources can be redirected from.
In an era where the fixed Commonwealth appropriations are rising faster than revenue, wages or inflation, then every new program requires new resources, indeed so do many existing ones.
The most influential suggestions will be those that assist overcoming this critical hurdle.
In my former portfolio of education, there were endless proposals for new programs and new initiatives.
Given school education funding has had significant increases in recent years across state and commonwealth governments of both persuasions, further constant ongoing increases are simply not feasible.
When groups, virtually all well-meaning even when we disagreed, would make proposals I would ask for ideas where resources could be redirected from, firstly within the education portfolio, then related but external sources, for example social services.
And while I received some very good ones, the fact no one would publicly say so itself illustrated the lack of commitment to this principle.
Should we reconsider money directed towards lower class sizes in recent years being redirected to those who need extra assistance now that we have a much better idea of the geographic burden of learning disabilities?
Too often a new program is dressed up as uncontestably “good” and the source of funding ignored to avoid a debate.
Some may argue for extra sources of additional revenue for government, but those who argue for this need to be cogniscant of the fact that this principle is a key demarcation line in politics.
Such questions will become more important, and those who engage in them will have more influence.
Secondly, I would suggest that as well as dealing with the resource question, the most successful proponents will engage in the debate around prioritisation.
By this I mean where do we prioritise our efforts both in time and money?
For larger groups with competing internal interests, this is critical, as I can recall examples of the same body sending different people up to Parliament House to lobby on different issues, seemingly unaware of what the other hand was up to.
When government faces limited additional resources, rapidly rising fixed expenses, and seemingly endless claims, then prioritisation is a key way in which interests can align and agreement can be facilitated.
Thirdly, complexity.
Please don’t claim there are silver bullets, be honest about where doubt lies in proposals and help develop the means to test and refine them.
I used to say to people that came to me with ideas of how to fix the education system: there have been smarter people than me in this job before me, if it were that easy someone would have already have done it.
Finally, I suggest being frank about gains and sacrifices.
While it is particularly true of parts of the corporate world, it is also true of NGOs and others, one shouldn’t hide where one stands to gain from a particular outcome.
It always helps to be honest. We will assume it if you don’t tell us.
If you really want to prove your bona fides though, illustrate them by pointing out the sacrifice that you will bear.
It is not unheard of, and can be very successful to generating support from other stakeholders.
[CONCLUSION – PROCESS]
Finally today I want to turn to the issue I concluded my introduction on – the importance of process.
It is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a reform agenda to succeed.
While a good process won’t guarantee good policy, it rarely comes about otherwise.
And by process I mean both internally, in developing positions within and amongst organisations, and externally in relations with others and government and then how an argument for a position moves beyond stakeholders into the public domain.
Process that appears fair, to have provided opposition for conflicting voices and isn’t afraid of debate internally and externally, generates consent from the public.
It generates active support from stakeholders.
But we cannot get carried away with discussions amongst ourselves.
Even this week I have heard calls for more decisions to be taken and announced more quickly.
Whether it is the new media cycle or just the busier nature of decision making that I described above, too often the consent of the “stakeholder community” is seen as a proxy for consent of the wider public.
When the divergence between these two groups is dismissed or forgotten, or agreement just assumed, proposals go off the rails.
A few recent examples illustrate this:
WorkChoices
-It had the wide support of the governing and successful party, for many it was a long-held tenet.
-It had wide support from related interest groups, and opposition came from expected quarters.
-However, proponents underestimated the resources, commitment and desperation of the opposition – it was seen as existential to them.
-There was assumed public consent as the economy was strong, risk to many was perceived as low, and the issues, but not the specific proposals, had been in public debate for many years.
-The fact that the economy was strong was actually a problem – people wondered why it was necessary.
-The public response was firm and categorical, and a new line in politics was created which my side of politics has respected.
CPRS
-There had been explanation of problem – climate change.
-But the consensus broke down at the next step – how this particular solution addressed that.
-Proponents mistook the support of ‘stakeholder community’ for public support, whereas public opinion was unformed on this key question and over the role and required sacrifice of Australia – this was assumed not addressed.
-Similar to WorkChoices, the opposition was under-estimated, some corporates felt this included dismissal of the degree to which it felt its viability was threatened.
-The arrogant dismissal of opposition to the problem NOT the solution as “deniers” fed public skepticism and a showed a lack of willingness to debate.
Mining Tax
-This was a solution to a problem no-one knew existed.
-I opposed it on a policy level as well – but the dismissal of rather than engagement with opposing arguments for a policy only indicates weakness.
-It came as a surprise to the public.
-And the proponents underestimated the threat felt by the industry and the lengths to which they would go.
If I could conclude now and leave you with two key messages:
Credibility is more important than simple attention. They are not mutually exclusive but they are not one in the same.
Secondly, the divergence between what I call the ‘stakeholder community’ and the public.
I believe it is greater than ever, and most politicians are very grounded in their communities.
Too often we mistake agreement between Canberra stakeholders for community support.
Many of the errors in recent years have flowed from this.
The way we debate ideas, the way the media works, the way we talk to each other has changed, but the mistakes we have made in recent years have been ours, I do not think they have been the error of the public.
(ENDS)