Governor’s Address in Reply extract – Performance Indicator Proposal

Governor’s Address in Reply | Preformance Indicator Proposal Extract | 24 June, 2021  

It is the responsibility of our Chamber and every member here, to play a role in delivering the Tasmanian community with confidence in the governance of this state.  With that in mind, members here may recall that I and others in this place, including you, Madam Deputy President, have previously called for measurable benchmarking and progress indicators to be developed and incorporated systematically within key government processes, such as the state budget.  I previously raised the need for such a genuine and transparent policy progress reporting mechanism to enable meaningful monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the PESRAC recommendation.  I called for that last year.

The challenges and opportunities facing Tasmania in this brave, new post-pandemic world, present us with a once in a century opportunity to redefine all aspects of our social, economic and sustainability circumstances and priorities.

We have opportunities to shift the leavers pulled by government to address in a meaningful and long-term manner intergenerational inequalities.  We have discussed some of these opportunities to some extent in the Chamber last year and earlier this year.  We have stressed in those discussions how the manner of delivery of such reforms can be as important as the reforms themselves in strengthening public confidence if they are transparent, have integrity and demonstrate good governance.

The post COVID-19 focus on redefining and rebuilding Tasmania makes it very timely for the state now, as a matter of urgency, to develop and commit to a rigorous set of public policy priority benchmarks and progress performance indicators.  Such a benchmarking and progress indicator system, prioritising transparent monitoring and reporting mechanisms, would encourage community confidence in the rationale for, and the delivery of, identified policy priorities and outcomes.

Importantly, a systematic performance monitoring and reporting approach should break our current reliance on short-term action or spending lists in isolation from any accountability mechanism, evaluating actual progress in addressing long-term entrenched challenges.

Let me put that much more plainly.  It is very easy for the Government to do three things that give the impression of progress, while in no way holding themselves accountable to making an actual difference in solving the biggest challenges faced by our state.  See if these three things sound familiar.

First, the Government says it is investing record amounts in a particular area of policy.  It sounds impressive but it is completely meaningless in terms of actual achievement of outcomes.  One dollar more than last year is a record investment.  It is a meaningless statement.  It is the outcomes of that investment that they are committing to achieve that become the meaningful measure of the Government’s success, not the claim to record investment of and by itself.  A commitment to accountable outcomes is what the Government must be putting on the record, not crowing about record investments.

The second thing that might sound familiar, is when the Government says it is adding X number of new positions to an area of public policy.  Might be teachers, might be police or the like.  Sounds impressive, sounds like a very good thing, but in itself it is completely meaningless in terms of accountability to achieve actual improvement in outcomes – its progress in achieving meaningful outcomes and improvements that the Government must be held to account for in the area into which those new positions are being added.

The third common sleight of hand to give the impression of progress that is often used by government is when it says it will establish a new special role or an entity to take lead responsibility for this policy area or identify issues.  Those announcements sound impressive.  It is a new commission; it is a very special new role with an impressive title but in and of themselves they are completely meaningless in terms of accountability to actual improvement of outcomes.  What progress on achieving meaningful outcomes and improvements will the Government be held to account for in establishing that shiny, new, often impressively titled role or entity?

We could almost play bingo with this Government using these three hollow tactics to appear effective.  In each of those all too familiar refrains from government what we get is a description of activity without an accompanying commitment to achieving an outcome.

Activity is so appealing, is it not?  It looks and sounds impressive.  It is easier to have a big list of activities to tick off and crow about than to be held to account for progress on the outcomes of those issue areas.

This very familiar pattern, continuing unchecked, is why we can have a government merrily making announcements, for example, of planning to build impressive-sounding numbers of social houses year after year while across that self-same period of time, we see our social housing waitlist blow out to historic levels.

Ticking off a list of activity is easy.  Being accountable for making change, for making progress on outcomes that we seek and prioritise as a community, is all too often completely avoided by this Government.  This is why I believe that the opening of a new parliament, reflecting a newly re-elected government is a timely place and opportunity to again reiterate the need for a comprehensive whole-of-government meaningful set of progress performance indicators which are set with community input and are independently auditable.

I have been investigating models in place elsewhere for policy delivery, monitoring, evaluation and accountability reporting frameworks and I can report that in this regard Tasmania is falling well behind other jurisdictions, nationally and internationally.  We were doing so even before the 2020 pandemic and definitely since.

The common element of different interstate and international models is a shift to budgetary reporting mechanisms focusing on policy outcomes rather than just financial inputs and outputs.

As the model in Victorian states, and I quote:

Good public policy and service delivery must demonstrate its value to the community.

In the past, government has measured what it does and not necessarily what it achieves.  Often government focuses on outputs (what activities, products or services it is providing) and how much it costs to provide them.  Just monitoring and reporting on outputs does not provide evidence of the impact of our work.

Focusing on outcomes instead of outputs allows us to better identify what we want to achieve for Victoria.  It connects our work with communities, experts and service delivery sectors.  It also provides flexibility and enables us to communicate what we want to achieve in a way that is meaningful for Victorians.

What an interesting and refreshing approach from the Victorian Government, and indeed in 2019 the Western Australian Government released its set of 12 key priorities in the Our Priorities: Sharing Prosperity program.  It claims to set ambitions and accountable targets that, and I quote:

… will require a sustained focus and in some cases, the development of new and innovative approaches.

Currently the Western Australian Government acknowledges that this program has been temporarily suspended in light of COVID-19 as a priority focus.  Ideally, a meaningful policy progress framework would incorporate the necessary flexibility to be able to revise and adapt with the purposes of that revision and learning important lessons.

Let us talk about Queensland.  They also have a Financial Accountability Act 2009 which requires that the government prepares and tables in its Legislative Assembly a statement of the government’s broad objectives for the community.  These priorities are also made publicly available on the government website, along with an individual letter from the premier to each minister outlining each minister’s portfolio priorities in accordance with those published government key priorities.  They are referred to as the Premier’s Ministerial Charter Letters.  It is expected that the government provides regular status updates against those objectives that have been put forward as their accountable priorities.

I was interested to look at the New South Wales model, because it is quite comprehensive.  In 2015, the New South Wales Government launched 12 initial Premier’s priorities.  They were subsequently updated to the current 14 priorities announced in 2019.  These 14 policy areas are designed to deliver on key transformational goals, and those goals are defined as – a strong economy; highest quality education; well-connected communities with quality local environments; putting the customer at the centre of everything we do; and breaking the cycle of disadvantage.

These are not empty words.  The model in New South Wales for each of the 14 policy priority areas lays out measurable baseline interim actual and target indicators that are reported on publicly, and made available online.  New South Wales has a Premier’s Implementation Unit – the PIU – to monitor and report on progress with input from the agencies responsible for delivering the specified targets.  The Premier receives monthly progress updates, and reports are provided to the Premier and Cabinet every six months.

This approach is also reflected in the New South Wales state budget process and papers, with the 2018-19 budget papers outlining a shift to outcome budgeting rather than the more reductionist output and particular line items spend focus.

Significantly, the New South Wales progress policy performance model is independently auditable.  In 2018 the New South Wales Auditor-General conducted a progress and measurement of Premier’s priorities performance audit on the initial 12 priorities which made improvement recommendations.  Importantly, social change advocates such as NCOSS, have seen an improvement in policy delivery and accountability.  In speaking with them directly, I heard that groups like NCOSS utilise those articulated priority areas to advocate for the social issues that are their priorities.  It gives them a common language to talk with government, particularly when it comes to targets, data collection and making measurable progress.

No system is completely perfect, and these New South Wales key goals and the 14 policy priority areas may not be the ones that would be relevant for us here in Tasmania.  However, the point is that in other jurisdictions substantial progress is being made and significant acknowledgment is given to the fact that you cannot merely make a list of activities to be ticked off.  You have to commit to delivering accountable outcomes.  Those models from other jurisdictions demonstrate it is possible to implement models that can be evaluated and reported against, enabling a more transparent accountability mechanism with which the broader community and all stakeholders and policymakers – not only government and members of parliament – can engage.

It is also worthwhile to mention New Zealand in this benchmarking of real progress indicators.  Since 2019 New Zealand has released three annual wellbeing budgets.  They are structured around collaboratively produced living standards framework, the LSF, indicators. The intent of these indicators is to underpin the goals from budget to budget, to measure whether financial allocations translate into real improvements for people’s daily lives.  That is a government that is holding itself accountable to not just announce what they are spending and crow about it, but to measure and report on what real improvement in people’s lives those investments are making.  This shift to a wellbeing framework was announced by the New Zealand Government in 2018.  Significantly, when announced it was introduced as a framework and management tool which would:

Assist the government in coordinating a cohesive government work program across portfolios.  The approach seeks a more comprehensive and accurate representation of the issues New Zealanders are experiencing and that the government is responding to.  It aims to provide a broader and more relevant measure of success.

Further, it says this:

At the centre of the Government’s approach is a desire to change the manner in which the Government sets priorities, monitors progress and reports results.  The approach seeks a more comprehensive and accurate representation for the issues New Zealanders are experiencing and that the Government is responding to.  The Government’s aim is to provide greater transparency across priority areas.  What actions have been undertaken to achieve its goals and how have they resulted in change?  This approach provides a more relevant and broader measure of success.

We know all this about New Zealand because part of that government’s commitment to transparency is that it publicly releases Cabinet papers, within 30 days of Cabinet meetings. These papers outline all manner of things that have been dealt with in Cabinet, including this wellbeing approach and the recommendation that it be adopted by Cabinet.

Transparency steps in this manner would be wonderful to see with this Tasmanian Government.  I am not going to hold my breath on it, but we can all live in hope.  Following the 2019 release of the first wellbeing budget in New Zealand, the World Economic Forum held in Davos described that budget as ground‑breaking and said that New Zealand wants to transform its politics to focus on kindness, empathy and wellbeing.

Who here would not agree that Tasmania deserves a similar focus from its government and parliament. However, such efforts need to extend beyond lip‑service and dropping words like compassion into speeches.  Words are empty without clear and accountable actions and measurable outcomes to back them up.

There is a global push for a more purposeful capitalism implementing new metrics. For example, the Guardian reported in 2019 that Lord Richard Layard, a program director at the London School of Economics and the Vice Chair of the UK All Party Parliamentary Group on Wellbeing Economics, also publicly called for wellbeing to replace growth as the main aim of UK spending.  We know this concept of community-developed, shared progress indicators and publicly reported updates on social measures is not entirely alien to Tasmanians.  The community has previously embraced the notion of a transparent system of performance indicators in the format of the former Tasmania Together process, which intended to measure real progress of agreed priorities for the period 2000 to 2020. 

Unfortunately, despite the dedicated and hard work invested into that process we saw it truncated early before its completion.  It was picked up and integrated across operations of some sectors, for example local councils, but we did not see it become entrenched within or shape the state budget process in a transformational outcome focussed manner that we are now seeing in New South Wales and New Zealand.

One critical component of the Tasmania Together project which I consider is a strength is that the key priority areas at the heart of that initiative were identified and driven by a comprehensive community consultation process.  In contrast, many of the examples that I ran through from other jurisdictions reflected more of a political prioritisation process imposed to a large extent from the top down by governments of the day, rather than developed in a collaborative manner up from the community.

I believe that should Tasmania move to catch up with these more modern responsive and accountable outcome-orientated policy progress frameworks implemented elsewhere, we can become global leaders through incorporating that invaluable Tasmania Together experience by ensuring any identified key priority areas are developed in collaboration with the Tasmanian community.  Wherever possible, we should avoid being limited to the top political priorities simply of the government of the day.

I believe that Tasmanians deserve to have this Government invest in their immediate and long-term wellbeing within a transparent and accountable outcomes framework.  Such a framework would deliver public confidence in a genuine commitment to achieving real progress on our entrenched challenges.  I also believe it is incumbent on all of us, as elected representatives and legislators, to assist with that transition to governance that gauges and measures real, long-term impacts of government policy rather than short-term outputs.

I invite other members here to consider how we can more effectively establish an expectation on government to set, measure and report on progress towards important policy outcomes.  I know most of us have areas of particular interest and attention in which we could readily contemplate outcome measurements that would be meaningful when it comes to government accountability.  I look forward to exploring this further.  There is much we can do to assist with this task.

Watch or read Meg’s complete Governor’s Address in Reply speech.