Australia’s structure of government needs to change if ongoing challenges such as housing affordability and climate change are to be handled effectively, says an expert.
“All through the system we see many barriers that need to be tackled if governments want to bring about transformational change rather than just tinkering around the margins,” said Dr Cressida Gaukroger – lead adviser at not-for-profit think tank the Centre for Policy Development.
Gaukroger told GN one such barrier is adversarial budget processes. “When you get departments fighting against each other to try and land funding for individual policy proposals, you end up with a reduced incentive for those departments to collaborate together and absolutely a disincentive for a department to do something which will lead almost exclusively to really positive benefits that lie outside their departmental remit.”
Among the governmental changes needed if Australia is to seriously address the country’s long-term challenges: “invest more broadly, be innovative, think outside of the box, and try and stop problems from emerging rather than treating them once they’ve arisen.”
Unfortunately, when it comes to long-term thinking and developing long-term solutions, the public sector has a high-level of risk aversion, said Gaukroger.
“Public servants are incentivised to stick with business as usual. If something goes wrong they are much less likely to be blamed or held to account if they remain doing the things that people have done for the last series of decades.”
Gaukroger’s comments follow the release of a new CPD report – Embedding Progress: how to align public institutions with a better future – which reviews the successes and failures of governments across the world that have attempted to take a wellbeing approach to policymaking.
As Gaukroger explained to GN: “A wellbeing approach to government puts the wellbeing of people and the natural environment at the heart of decision-making. It focuses on improving quality of life for all – now and into the future.”
A wellbeing government adopts a whole-of-government approach to policymaking, said Gaukroger. For this to work, the silos between government departments and jurisdictions need to be dismantled.
For example, health outcomes shouldn’t be the sole responsibility of the health department – other agencies can sway health outcomes as well. “We know that most of the areas that contribute to quality of life deeply intersect and yet the way that government is broken up into departments often treats them as being completely separate,” said Gaukroger.
Government agencies need to be thinking about the effects their decisions will have on the ability of other departments to pursue their goals, she added. “You might have a fantastic sustainability policy coming from the environment department that’s being undercut by a highly carbon-intensive transport policy.”
Invest more broadly, be innovative, think outside of the box
A good example of a wellbeing government delivering results is Wales. “They legally require all departments and public institutions to work towards wellbeing goals in everything they do. The transport department not only has to think about getting people from A to B, but has to consider health outcomes, sustainability outcomes, equality outcomes,” said Gaukroger.
Even government bodies like sports organisations, hospitals and national parks are beginning to do things differently, “and in innovative ways to generate co-benefits across a range of different areas,” added Gaukroger.
In Scotland, a violence reduction unit was established in Glasgow. It approached knife crime as a public health issue rather than a law and order issue. Investment was funnelled into youth services, home support, and employment services. Funding was provided to support training opportunities for young people.
“The approach focused on the broader wellbeing of those young people, creating a good quality of life so that they had hope for the future and for what they could achieve,” said Gaukroger. “This led to positive outcomes for them, for the community, and for the government – it’s these kind of approaches which are the kinds of things we want to see more of.”
Wales and Scotland are not alone in their endeavours – three-quarters of OECD countries have adopted wellbeing frameworks, as well as numerous jurisdictions across Australia, most notably the ACT.
“Wellbeing assessments are now required for all new policy proposals,” said Gaukroger. “They have a wellbeing team that works with departments early on so that they are able to craft new and better ways of dealing with policy issues that are most likely to have the best outcomes for the people of the ACT.”
Similar thinking is being adopted in other jurisdictions. The Victorian Government, for example, has significantly increased its investment in early intervention initiatives.
Through the government’s Early Intervention Investment Framework, the 2024–25 state Budget allocated more than $1 billion to fund 28 initiatives aimed at improving outcomes across education, health, justice, family violence, child protection, and homelessness.
“This means there are really important policies that were only partially funded or weren’t able to get off the ground that are now taking off,” said Gaukroger. “If you can get ahead of harms before they arise, that leaves better wellbeing outcomes for people. It also frees up more money for government to spend more broadly.”
NSW, South Australia and Tasmania have also adopted wellbeing initiatives. “Everyone understands this is a really valuable way of doing things,” said Gaukroger. “A wellbeing approach to government is about effective government that delivers the best outcomes for the people that it represents.”
Leave a Reply