Contestability in public services - an alternative to outsourcing

The public don’t like monopolies. And they are suspicious of them in the public sector as well as the private sector. Sometimes there is no other way of organising the production and delivery of goods and services, but we all know from experience that monopolies are generally unresponsive to the needs of customers and service users, and they pay too much attention to the convenience of management and staff. On the other hand, we are also worried about the use of competition and outsourcing in the delivery of public services. The public want social services to be delivered by people who are motivated by a desire to serve. They worry about the profit motive. And they are concerned that public servants may be outwitted by commercially-savvy contractors. This paper argues that there is a middle way between monopoly and market-testing. It is possible to use performance benchmarking and the prospect of prompt intervention in case of underperformance to drive increased efficiency and effectiveness, while also recognising the importance of a public service ethos, and the value embedded in many of the systems, processes and relationships through which these services are currently delivered. That middle way is contestability

Arthur Phillip: Commodore of the Fleet

The transportation of convicts to New South Wales in the early years of settlement was a great deal more challenging than has generally been recognised. Arthur Phillip's success in bringing a convoy of eleven ships, including six transports carrying more than 750 convicts, on a voyage of eight months duration across the globe means we need to rethink his contribution to fitting out and managing Australia's First Fleet

Can Parliament cope? Towards a new era in public accountability. by Gary L. Sturgess

It is unsurprising that the buzzwords of the 1990's - in business and in government - are "quality", "intregity" and "accountability"

Faultlines in post-industrial society

In the past national governments were expected to meet citizen’s material needs by providing physical and economic security, and the significant faultlines in society followed the divisions between rich and poor. Today people focus on past-material needs and we face a multitude of faultlines marked out by special interest groups and minority parties. But two major questions lie behind this multitude of faultlines. The first concerns community. Should we identify with the national community or with a number of different types of communities? The second concerns individualism and the growing politics of rights. Should we define democracy as a system of representation within a nation state or as a set of individual rights? If we are to maintain social cohesion we need to find ways of answering these questions

Faultlines in post-industrial society

In the past national governments were expected to meet citizen’s material needs by providing physical and economic security, and the significant faultlines in society followed the divisions between rich and poor. Today people focus on past-material needs and we face a multitude of faultlines marked out by special interest groups and minority parties. But two major questions lie behind this multitude of faultlines. The first concerns community. Should we identify with the national community or with a number of different types of communities? The second concerns individualism and the growing politics of rights. Should we define democracy as a system of representation within a nation state or as a set of individual rights? If we are to maintain social cohesion we need to find ways of answering these questions. Copyright. Monash University and the author/