Consensus-Building
#15Key Findings
In the category of consensus-building, Australia falls into the sample’s middle ranks (rank 15).
Australian governments regularly draw on experts to inform policymaking, but academic influence is limited. Populist pressures have diminished respect for experts in some sectors.
Union and business-sector influence depends on the government’s political complexion, and is not institutionalized. Complex CSO-led commission recommendations are often diluted when translated into party policy proposals. The powerful fossil-fuels lobby undermines environmental-movement influence.
The government has developed and published significant quantities of data about its activities in various sectors. This is available for public scrutiny. Some gaps exist, for example with regard to political donations.
Australian governments regularly draw on experts to inform policymaking, but academic influence is limited. Populist pressures have diminished respect for experts in some sectors.
Union and business-sector influence depends on the government’s political complexion, and is not institutionalized. Complex CSO-led commission recommendations are often diluted when translated into party policy proposals. The powerful fossil-fuels lobby undermines environmental-movement influence.
The government has developed and published significant quantities of data about its activities in various sectors. This is available for public scrutiny. Some gaps exist, for example with regard to political donations.
Graph View
Graph View
To what extent is the government successful in effectively harnessing the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes?
10
9
9
The government is able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
8
7
6
7
6
In most cases, the government is able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
5
4
3
4
3
Only rarely is the government able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
2
1
1
The government is not able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
Australian governments regularly draw on experts to inform policymaking through various mechanisms. Experts feature prominently in committee hearings preceding new legislation, providing detailed submissions. They may also work directly with government agencies, with departments like Foreign Affairs and Defence using grants programs to select qualified academic teams to conduct research on their behalf. Much interaction between government officials and academic experts occurs informally through person-to-person relationships.
The government funds national grants programs through research councils like the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian Research Council. The selection criteria for the projects funded by these councils typically include some consideration of a “national benefit” that aims to align funded research with the national priorities as determined by the government.
However, academic influence on government decision-making is limited, especially in economic and social policy domains, with technical advice more readily accepted. The Productivity Commission is an exception, drawing on expert advice for inquiries and reviews.
Although the government is able to draw on relevant expertise, recent years have seen the rise of populist pressures that have diminished the standing of and respect for experts in some sectors and among some influential figures in politics. For example, despite unanimity among experts on the desirability of a carbon tax, there is still no price on carbon in Australia.
A recent development promising increased scientific evidence in policy is the establishment of the Australian Centre for Evaluation within the Department of Treasury in late 2023. This center aims to enable high-quality policy evaluation across federal government operations by providing advice and bringing together representatives from government departments with relevant experts.
Citations:
The Treasury. 2023. “Australian Centre for Evaluation.” https://evaluation.treasury.gov.au
The government funds national grants programs through research councils like the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian Research Council. The selection criteria for the projects funded by these councils typically include some consideration of a “national benefit” that aims to align funded research with the national priorities as determined by the government.
However, academic influence on government decision-making is limited, especially in economic and social policy domains, with technical advice more readily accepted. The Productivity Commission is an exception, drawing on expert advice for inquiries and reviews.
Although the government is able to draw on relevant expertise, recent years have seen the rise of populist pressures that have diminished the standing of and respect for experts in some sectors and among some influential figures in politics. For example, despite unanimity among experts on the desirability of a carbon tax, there is still no price on carbon in Australia.
A recent development promising increased scientific evidence in policy is the establishment of the Australian Centre for Evaluation within the Department of Treasury in late 2023. This center aims to enable high-quality policy evaluation across federal government operations by providing advice and bringing together representatives from government departments with relevant experts.
Citations:
The Treasury. 2023. “Australian Centre for Evaluation.” https://evaluation.treasury.gov.au
Graph View
To what extent does the government facilitate the participation of trade unions and business organizations in policymaking?
10
9
9
The government is able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government is able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
5
4
3
4
3
The government is rarely able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
2
1
1
The government is not able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
There is limited institutionalized involvement of capital and labor in policymaking processes. Businesses and trade unions influence policy through informal means, such as meetings with government officials and the movement of individuals between government and private sector employment. In the case of unions, influence is to a considerable extent confined to periods when the Labor Party is in power, noting that unions have significant input into the preselection of Labor candidates. Otherwise, informal mechanisms include meetings between government officials and the leaders of these private sector organizations, and the movement of individuals between government employment and employment in private sector organizations. While the latter may have some beneficial impact in terms of knowledge transfer between sectors, there has been concern that such movement may undermine governance in the public interest (for instance, because it may mean that the private firms which frequently recruit government employees may be able to draw on the connections of these persons to advance their firm’s interests). This phenomenon has been described as the problem of the “revolving door” between government and the private (and especially corporate) sector (Centre for Public Integrity 2023).
The relationships between government, trade unions and business depend on the political complexion of the government. In general, the Liberal-National Coalition is regarded as being more pro-business and, as noted, Labor is closely associated with the union movement. However, these generalizations mask a large degree of consensus and important parallels between governments of all stripes in the Australian context. Most importantly in this regard, the Labor Party has generally been a strong defender of the fundamentals of the market economy, and therefore is open to business in a political sense. More radical left-leaning critics claim that business has often preferred Labor to form government because it is more able to keep the unions in check, thereby reducing the costs of industrial action (De 2023).
Citations:
Centre for Public Integrity. 2023. “Closing the Revolving Door.” https://publicintegrity.org.au/research_papers/closing-the-revolving-door/
De, P. 2023. “Labor’s Connection to Trade Unions – For Better or Worse?” Redflag. https://redflag.org.au/article/labors-connection-trade-unions-better-or-worse
The relationships between government, trade unions and business depend on the political complexion of the government. In general, the Liberal-National Coalition is regarded as being more pro-business and, as noted, Labor is closely associated with the union movement. However, these generalizations mask a large degree of consensus and important parallels between governments of all stripes in the Australian context. Most importantly in this regard, the Labor Party has generally been a strong defender of the fundamentals of the market economy, and therefore is open to business in a political sense. More radical left-leaning critics claim that business has often preferred Labor to form government because it is more able to keep the unions in check, thereby reducing the costs of industrial action (De 2023).
Citations:
Centre for Public Integrity. 2023. “Closing the Revolving Door.” https://publicintegrity.org.au/research_papers/closing-the-revolving-door/
De, P. 2023. “Labor’s Connection to Trade Unions – For Better or Worse?” Redflag. https://redflag.org.au/article/labors-connection-trade-unions-better-or-worse
To what extent does the government facilitate the participation of leading social welfare CSOs in policymaking?
10
9
9
The government is able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government is able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
5
4
3
4
3
The government is rarely able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
2
1
1
The government is not able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
Social welfare organizations are regularly consulted on social policy development through engagements with parliament and executive agencies. The effectiveness of this engagement varies, depending on factors like the governing party’s manifesto and public opinion. The CSOs in this area frequently have so-called peak bodies that actively lobby governments in order to highlight their concerns with government action (or inaction). Social welfare CSOs have been prominently involved in Royal Commissions, which are large resource-intensive investigative efforts that follow formal processes and normally yield extensive recommendations. Recent Royal Commissions in this area include the Royal Commission into the Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, and the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety.
Royal Commissions have been established to investigate major policy dilemmas and their conclusions and recommendations are usually taken seriously, informing the future debate and long-term development of policy in that area. These commissions provide social welfare CSOs with a significant opportunity to contribute their views as witnesses. Consider, for example, the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, which presented its final report, entitled “Care, Dignity and Respect’” in March, 2021. The commission received statements from more than 600 individuals and organizations, with many of these contributions coming from those involved in the aged care sector through CSOs (Royal Commissions 2023).
The issue of aged care had been a long-standing policy problem. However, the commission report helped keep the issue prioritized in the political agenda, with both parties issuing significant reform proposals in advance of the federal election in 2022 that were aligned with the commission recommendations. While the social welfare CSOs that actively participated in the influential Royal Commission were able to shape policy development through this mechanism, there have also been problems. To begin with, the Royal Commission has been criticized for giving insufficient weight to the views of the community sector. One such organization, Aged Care Crisis, which submitted a lengthy position paper to the Royal Commission, argued that the commission was too narrow in its approach to the sector’s problem. In particular, it didn’t give serious thought to challenging the dominance of private sector players in aged care provision (Aged Care Crisis 2023). This CSO believes that a community-sector-led approach is necessary to address some of the sector’s fundamental problems.
CSO influence is further diluted when commission recommendations are translated into policy proposals by political parties. For instance, while the commission produced nearly 150 recommendations, the Labor Party presented a five-point plan for aged care during the election. Although Labor’s commitments incorporated several of the Royal Commission’s recommendations, their proposal fell short of the comprehensive vision advanced by the Royal Commission. Additionally, this vision itself did not fully meet the expectations of several CSOs in this sector. As one commentator put, these “five points alone won’t undo decades of neglect, nor will they encompass the sweeping changes the royal commission recommended” (Holland-Batt 2023).
Citations:
Royal Commissions. 2023. “Aged Care Quality and Safety.” https://www.royalcommission.gov.au/aged-care
Aged Care Crisis. 2023. “Aged Care Crisis and the Royal Commission.” https://www.agedcarecrisis.com/resources/make-aged-care-accountable/aged-care-crisis-and-the-royal-commission
Holland-Batt, S. 2023. “A five-point plan alone won’t undo decades of neglect for Australia’s aged care sector.” The Guardian June 10. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/10/a-five-point-plan-alone-wont-undo-decades-of-neglect-for-australias-aged-care-sector
Royal Commissions have been established to investigate major policy dilemmas and their conclusions and recommendations are usually taken seriously, informing the future debate and long-term development of policy in that area. These commissions provide social welfare CSOs with a significant opportunity to contribute their views as witnesses. Consider, for example, the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, which presented its final report, entitled “Care, Dignity and Respect’” in March, 2021. The commission received statements from more than 600 individuals and organizations, with many of these contributions coming from those involved in the aged care sector through CSOs (Royal Commissions 2023).
The issue of aged care had been a long-standing policy problem. However, the commission report helped keep the issue prioritized in the political agenda, with both parties issuing significant reform proposals in advance of the federal election in 2022 that were aligned with the commission recommendations. While the social welfare CSOs that actively participated in the influential Royal Commission were able to shape policy development through this mechanism, there have also been problems. To begin with, the Royal Commission has been criticized for giving insufficient weight to the views of the community sector. One such organization, Aged Care Crisis, which submitted a lengthy position paper to the Royal Commission, argued that the commission was too narrow in its approach to the sector’s problem. In particular, it didn’t give serious thought to challenging the dominance of private sector players in aged care provision (Aged Care Crisis 2023). This CSO believes that a community-sector-led approach is necessary to address some of the sector’s fundamental problems.
CSO influence is further diluted when commission recommendations are translated into policy proposals by political parties. For instance, while the commission produced nearly 150 recommendations, the Labor Party presented a five-point plan for aged care during the election. Although Labor’s commitments incorporated several of the Royal Commission’s recommendations, their proposal fell short of the comprehensive vision advanced by the Royal Commission. Additionally, this vision itself did not fully meet the expectations of several CSOs in this sector. As one commentator put, these “five points alone won’t undo decades of neglect, nor will they encompass the sweeping changes the royal commission recommended” (Holland-Batt 2023).
Citations:
Royal Commissions. 2023. “Aged Care Quality and Safety.” https://www.royalcommission.gov.au/aged-care
Aged Care Crisis. 2023. “Aged Care Crisis and the Royal Commission.” https://www.agedcarecrisis.com/resources/make-aged-care-accountable/aged-care-crisis-and-the-royal-commission
Holland-Batt, S. 2023. “A five-point plan alone won’t undo decades of neglect for Australia’s aged care sector.” The Guardian June 10. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/10/a-five-point-plan-alone-wont-undo-decades-of-neglect-for-australias-aged-care-sector
To what extent does the government facilitate the participation of leading environmental CSOs in policymaking?
10
9
9
The government is able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government is able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
5
4
3
4
3
The government is rarely able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
2
1
1
The government is not able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
The environmental movement has grown and become more active in recent years, engaging with governments and influencing public opinion on climate change. This has pressured governments to address environmental issues, evidenced by the growing success of the Greens party. However, the fossil fuels industry’s influence, including significant contributions to major parties, remains a barrier to decisive action.
It should be noted that the environmental movement is not a unified whole. There are significant divisions within it (Pearse 2023). Some segments such as the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), a large environmental charity, tend to adopt a relatively pragmatic and incremental approach to reform. They believe it is best to “take what you can get” as a step toward greater progress. Other actors in the environmental movement, including the Greens political party, believe more in transformative change and are inclined to reject what they perceive to be “weak” changes. These tensions have sometimes weakened the coherence and effectiveness of the environmental movement (Pearse 2023).
Tensions were apparent in the divisions within the environmental movement during the 2023 debate about the Labor government’s environmental “safeguard” mechanism. The proposal included a commitment to require large industrial emitters to reduce the intensity of their emissions by 4.9% a year to achieve a reduction of 205 metric tons of greenhouse gas by 2030 (Karp 2023). While the ACF urged the Greens to accept the government’s initial proposal, the Greens held out for a stronger measure that included a commitment to no new coal and gas power stations. The Greens eventually supported the bill following negotiations with the government, securing some compromises. Most notably, these include the introduction of a declining total cap on emissions, which will mean that the total emissions permitted under the scheme will decrease over time.
Citations:
Pearse, R. 2023. “Pragmatism versus Idealism? Behind the Split between Environmental Groups and the Greens on the Safeguard Mechanism.” The Conversation April 6. https://theconversation.com/pragmatism-versus-idealism-behind-the-split-between-environmental-groups-and-the-greens-on-the-safeguard-mechanism-203139
Karp, P. 2023. “Labor Agrees to Absolute Cap on Emissions to Secure Greens Backing for Safeguard Mechanism Climate Bill.” The Conversation. March 28. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/27/labor-agrees-to-absolute-cap-on-emissions-to-secure-greens-backing-for-safeguard-mechanism-climate-bill
It should be noted that the environmental movement is not a unified whole. There are significant divisions within it (Pearse 2023). Some segments such as the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), a large environmental charity, tend to adopt a relatively pragmatic and incremental approach to reform. They believe it is best to “take what you can get” as a step toward greater progress. Other actors in the environmental movement, including the Greens political party, believe more in transformative change and are inclined to reject what they perceive to be “weak” changes. These tensions have sometimes weakened the coherence and effectiveness of the environmental movement (Pearse 2023).
Tensions were apparent in the divisions within the environmental movement during the 2023 debate about the Labor government’s environmental “safeguard” mechanism. The proposal included a commitment to require large industrial emitters to reduce the intensity of their emissions by 4.9% a year to achieve a reduction of 205 metric tons of greenhouse gas by 2030 (Karp 2023). While the ACF urged the Greens to accept the government’s initial proposal, the Greens held out for a stronger measure that included a commitment to no new coal and gas power stations. The Greens eventually supported the bill following negotiations with the government, securing some compromises. Most notably, these include the introduction of a declining total cap on emissions, which will mean that the total emissions permitted under the scheme will decrease over time.
Citations:
Pearse, R. 2023. “Pragmatism versus Idealism? Behind the Split between Environmental Groups and the Greens on the Safeguard Mechanism.” The Conversation April 6. https://theconversation.com/pragmatism-versus-idealism-behind-the-split-between-environmental-groups-and-the-greens-on-the-safeguard-mechanism-203139
Karp, P. 2023. “Labor Agrees to Absolute Cap on Emissions to Secure Greens Backing for Safeguard Mechanism Climate Bill.” The Conversation. March 28. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/27/labor-agrees-to-absolute-cap-on-emissions-to-secure-greens-backing-for-safeguard-mechanism-climate-bill
Graph View
To what extent does the government publish data and information that empowers citizens to hold the government accountable?
10
9
9
The government publishes data and information in a manner that empowers citizens to hold the government accountable.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government publishes data and information in a manner that empowers citizens to hold the government accountable.
5
4
3
4
3
The government rarely publishes data and information in a manner that strengthens citizens to hold the government accountable.
2
1
1
The government does not publish data and information in a manner that strengthens citizens’ capacity to hold the government accountable.
There is a large body of published data and information about government activities across various sectors. The government generally leads in developing and publishing these data sources. The plethora of data has led some governments, including Victoria’s, to create centralized platforms that provide a one-stop shop for data across different government functional areas (Data Vic 2023). Policymakers use this data to inform policy design and refinement processes, researchers to understand deep patterns in policymaking, and the media to ground their stories. It is also available for scrutiny by interested citizens.
Despite the generally high level of information provision, there are areas with critical weaknesses. For example, Australia follows strict rules about cabinet confidentiality, limiting information availability about important cabinet deliberations. Additionally, there are significant gaps in political finance transparency at the federal level. Political donations data is only released for relatively large donations, meaning the source of small- and medium-sized donations is usually unknown. Furthermore, this information is only available several months after the donation has been made, limiting its usefulness for citizens in making informed voting decisions and assessments of parties and candidates (Haines 2023).
Citations:
Data Vic. 2023. “Discover and Access Victorian Government Open Data.” https://www.data.vic.gov.au
Haines, H. 2023. “Real Time Disclosure of Political Donations Bill 2023.” https://www.helenhaines.org/media/real-time-disclosure-of-political-donations-bill-2023/
Despite the generally high level of information provision, there are areas with critical weaknesses. For example, Australia follows strict rules about cabinet confidentiality, limiting information availability about important cabinet deliberations. Additionally, there are significant gaps in political finance transparency at the federal level. Political donations data is only released for relatively large donations, meaning the source of small- and medium-sized donations is usually unknown. Furthermore, this information is only available several months after the donation has been made, limiting its usefulness for citizens in making informed voting decisions and assessments of parties and candidates (Haines 2023).
Citations:
Data Vic. 2023. “Discover and Access Victorian Government Open Data.” https://www.data.vic.gov.au
Haines, H. 2023. “Real Time Disclosure of Political Donations Bill 2023.” https://www.helenhaines.org/media/real-time-disclosure-of-political-donations-bill-2023/