Public Management in Public Sector Services †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Public Management in Public Sector Services. Answer: Introduction: The article focuses onpublic management in public sector service of Australia. The article commences with Kennett government reforms in the Victoria Public Service and then goes on to describe the reforms put forward by the Howard Government in the Australian Public service. Australia has a wider public sector controlled by larger number of government organizations outside core public service for performing different functions along with providing varied services to the community. Organizations of such stature include the public utilities that provide electricity, transport and services related to water supply. Other organizations of the public sector include the organizations that undertook operating outside the framework of public service including the non-commercial public broadcasting organizations, research institutions and the education supported by government. The article shows how the Kennett government undertook reforms to ensure that the Australian people were able to cut b ack on the social spending ensure privatization of the public assets and prevent attacks on the worker wages and conditions. Between the year 1992 and 1999, the Victorian State Government guided by Jeff Kennett led to implementation of a widespread public service restructuring program observed by Australia, a portion of it is engaged with the major changes taking place in the organization and the operations of the local government. The article also draws an insight into reforms of public sector reforms proposed by the Howard Government that led to the improvement of the workplace relations thereby ensuring a rise in productivity and the living standards of the Australian people. Factors Influencing the Public Sector Reform by Kennett Government Three factors led to influence the public sector reform agenda put forward by Kennett government. These involved the support for the ideas of public choice, concerns for the state budget and the initiatives for micro economic reform at the national level (Aulich, 1999). The key factor that underpinned the reform agenda of the public sector by the Kennett government remained in the acceptance of the public choice ideology under the successive party led governments throughout 1980s. During this time, government in the highly developed industrial countries slowed down the public sector growth and hence reduced the fiscal deficit through the applications of the public theory that assumed that with the procedure of decision-making, it is necessary for the individuals in maximizing their utility through behaving in self-interested and rational manner. However, for attaining the outcomes there were funding cuts in the public sector, expansion in themanagement approaches of the private sector, privatisation of the various public instrumentalities, application of mechanisms of the pseudo market for delivering public goods (O'Flynn, 2007). The second key force acting as the motivating factor for the public sector reform agenda undertaken by Kennett government was the financial circumstances faced by the public sector finance of Victoria during the period that led up to the elections(Guthrie, 1998). The Kennett government initiated investigation into the finances of the public sector through the appointment of the Victorian Commission of Audit (VCA). The Kennett government mentioned that the audit would ensure the Victorian public with a comprehensive and accurate statement of the state of finances of the state. The VCA published its final report in the year May 1993 and had two volumes (English, 2003). The first volume comprised of the financial matters while the second volume showed the means by which the government ran. The Victorian economy also faced two additional problems. The first resulted from a higher number people moving towards the other states that rose from 5,799 in the year 1985 to about 30,081 in the ye ar 1993 (English Guthrie, 2001). The financial debts were the second problem that resulted due to the failure of Victorian Economic Development Corporation along with collapse of Tricontinental. Such economic conditions became quite notable in the brokerage market of the world. The state government ratings downgraded to AA from the AAA mark. To restore the finances of the state, the VCA put forward various recommendations to Kennett government. The primary amongst them included the reduction of the debt of the state sector through privatizations and sales, reduction of the spending levels and the increase of taxation. The third factor that influenced the Kennett government for undertaking the reforms in the public sector remained in the prevailing political and public discourse on the microeconomic reforms (Jones Kettl, 2006). The Kennett government came to power during the time when there persisted a need for micro-economic reforms especially in public sector by State and the Federal governments throughout the Australia The Approach of the Kennett Government The Kennett government put forward a highhanded approach where the government asserted its right of reforming the sector of the local government and demanded it to be followed by the local council (Smith, 2004). However, the Kennett government also thought on line that acceptance by the local council was difficult unless compelled. As the Kennett government had large majorities in both houses of State Parliament, the policies implemented had a smooth passage in becoming a law. There was subsequent reduction for any kind of debate or consultation. The Kennett government also led to the removal of the right of individual councils in appealing the proposals for restructuring via Supreme Court. This prevented costly and unnecessary litigation. Under the Kennett government, the policy measures passed in the Parliament at quite a rapid rate. This led to the reduction of the opportunities for scrutiny or consultation from the stakeholders. In a matter of simply 15 months, the Kennett govern ment restructured and dismissed the local councils into the larger units headed by the newly appointed chief executive officer (Van Gramberg Teicher, 2000). Another striking feature of the policies for reform was the implementation of single frame for the local government. Further, the Kennett government ignored diversity between the local councils primarily in terms of physical size and population, nature of the provided services, the councils financial situation and use of the tendering practices that were competitive. The Kennett Government Reform Policies between 1992 and 1999 The reform initiated by the Kennett government kept few areas of the local government untouched. There were changes in five main policies between the year 1992 and 1999. This involved the amalgamations of the council, financial savings,management of the local council, compulsory competitive tendering and electoral changes (Goldfinch Roberts, 2013). There have been attempts of reforming failed policies but it failed either due to lack of the government control or due to the existence of little interest in reforming the authorities of the public sector. The Kennett government did not lack any kind of apprehension or power and restructured the local government in a dramatic manner. The Kennett government led to the promotion of amalgamation as an instance for the decisiveness of the government in trading with the financial issues of state. During the first year of the operation of the Kennett government, it was expected of the councils for reduction of combined total revenue collected by the preceding local councils by close to twenty percent. During the year, 1995 and 1997, the Kennett government also reduced the expenditures of the local council by around ten per cent. The Kennett government also granted additional powers to ministers for the local government through implementation of the Local Government Act of 1996 for controlling the level of the general council rate (Connell, 2013). This also focused on limiting the spending of the local council. The control of the Kennett government over actions of the local government is extended in managing the new municipalities. The commissioners also had the instructions for ensuring that the newly formed council helped in preparing the business plans for achieving the imposed targets for savings, development of a system of rating for the new council, negotiation and implementation of the bargaining agreements of the staff with the enterprise and in preparing for re-election of the councilors (Aulich, 1999). The new council under the Kennett government also introduced the fixed-term and the employment contracts for the senior officers based on their performance. The Kennett government implemented three primary changes in the electoral basis of the local councils (English, 2003). Firstly, there was reduction in the number of elected representatives for each council that has had a reduction from 21 to 12 through the Local Government Act of 1997. Secondly, the government also ensured standardization of elected council members for three-year term in contrast to the earlier arrangement that implicated a portion of council membership facing the reelection on twelve-monthly basis. The Kennett government also introduced postal voting that replaced the earlier system of maintaining the attendance of the voters at the polling booths. This form of voting focused at increasing the interest and the participation in the elections of the local governments. Under the Kennett government, the local councils remained obligated in following a competitive process of tendering for the activities that accounted for about 20 percent of the total expenditure for ope ration. The Outcome The Kennett government aimed at increasing the efficiency and decreasing the cost of the public sector along with the reduction of its size and scope and reduction of power and pressure of the trade unions belonging to public sector. The reform of the Kennett government expected to help in cost savings and improvements of the efficiencies. The Kennett government also put forward that reforms were necessary as the local councils ran inefficiently and he insisted on overhauling the entire system of the local government so that cost savings trickles down to community. Reforms were also necessary as the Kennett government fundamentally rearranged and redefined the working of public sector thereby leading to a reduction of their role as nonstop provider of the services and goods of the public. Through the reforms, the Kennett government also initiated reducing influence and position of trade unions on local government. Factors Influencing the Public Sector Reform by Howard Government During the first three terms of the office, John Howard resisted the pressures in radicalizing the reform agenda since there was no fixed economic rationale for shifting the gear, as the public were not in a position to be fully receptive for the bigger leap in reform along with the fact that he lacked control of the Senate (Byrnes, 2013). However, by the end of the year 2005, the scenario changed. Firstly, there was a wider awareness of the public in the prospect of the ageing population that coupled with the evidence of the comparatively lower participation rates of the workforce in Australia within the age group of 25 to 54. This acted as a strong economic and fiscal rationale for the governments in addressing the problem of hidden unemployment in Australia. Secondly, by the end of the year 2005, the community values became less friendly to the egalitarian policies of workplace. This reflected changes such as fracturing the solidarity of the worker, the growth of the culture for equity investment, the effects of globalization cumulative in encouraging the competitive individualism and increasing the hostility of the community and the handouts of the government for the able bodied people in the state of buoyant economic conditions. Thirdly, in the year 2004, the coalition gained the control of Senate that paved the w ay for radicalising the reforms. However, in the new cultural and political environment, the Howard government was able to provide a freer rein to the ideological propensities related to the dislikes of the trade unionism and the regulation for worker protection. The Approach of the Howard Government The Howard Government in the year 2005 made changes in the laws of the federal industrial relation known as the Work Choices (MacDermott, 2013). This government put forward amendments to Workplace Relations Act of 1996 by replacing it with Workplace Relation Amendment Act of 2005 that became effective from 27 March 2006. The Work Changes came into operation on April 2006. This involved a transition from the collective bargaining and regulated award towards the individual contracts. This also involved strengthening the power of themanagement over the remuneration and the deployment of the staff. This included the working time, penalty rates, firing, hiring, and the access to the foreign guest workers. Moreover, all at a once, the Howard Government has made the welfare aspect lesser accessible and much more conditional with imposition of tougher penalties for the compliance of the failures (Legreid, 2017). Such a reform of the government helped in extending the newer rules to the not only the sole parents but also the people with disability who is them forced for looking into the part time and the lower skilled jobs. The Howard government has made welfare more conditional and less accessible with tougher penalties for the compliance failures and an extension of new rule to the sole parents and disabled people for looking into part time and lower skilled work. There also existed the fear of losing the eligibility for the welfare benefits that will make it further difficult for the employed workers in exiting from the unsatisfactory jobs or lead to the rejection of the jobs that is lower paid just in case one is retrenched. Therefore, the ultimate impact of changes in welfare system implies further increment of the probable market authority of the employers in comparison to the vulnerable employees. The Howard Government Reform Policies between 1996 and 2007 The Howard Government implemented welfare to work agenda that took care of the unfair dismissals that provided the managers greater flexibility in the management of the human resources that might have a positive impact on the productivity (Butcher, 2013). According to the impact, relating to the distribution of the market power, the Work Choice and welfare to work agenda has been a fundamental break from the past. Therefore, the reforms undertaken by the Howard government includes: Clawing back of the collective reform Ensuring the increase of the managerial autonomy Transformation of an indirect power into the labor laws with the help of independent arbitrator into direct power that will be under the control of the executive. Complete disempowering of many of the workers by essentially redefining the right for welfare. The outcome The reforms undertaken by Howard Government had direct impact on the employment and productivity as it worked towards providing better flexibility in the management of the human resources thereby leading to positive impact on productivity. The reforms also had an impact on the distribution and the aggregate utility as it will provide a fundamental break from the past and help in reducing joblessness. Conclusion: The essay ends by providing an insight into the reform policies of the Kennett government and the Howard government undertaken for the public sector of Australian economy. The Victorian government underwent extreme reform during the 1990 that coincides with the election of coalition government led by Kennett. Thus, the reforms undertaken by the Howard and the Kennett government also brought in certain policies that provided an impetus for change and improvement within the public service of Australia. Presently, quality people want to work in an ambience of innovation, best practice and excitement. The modern Australian Public Service is that where people know that their achievements will be able to make real difference in the lives of the people. References: Aulich, C. (1999). From convergence to divergence: reforming Australian local government.Australian Journal of Public Administration,58(3), 12-23. Butcher, J. (2013). The national compact: civilizing the relationship between government and the notforprofitsector in Australia.Government-nonprofit relations in times of recession. Byrnes, J. (2013). A short institutional and regulatory history of the Australian urban water sector.Utilities Policy,24, 11-19. Connell, R. (2013). The neoliberal cascade and education: An essay on the market agenda and its consequences.Critical studies in education,54(2), 99-112. English, L. (2003). Emasculating public accountability in the name of competition: transformation of state audit in Victoria.Critical Perspectives on Accounting,14(1-2), 51-76. English, L., Guthrie, J. (2001). Public sector management in the State of Victoria 19921999: genesis of the transformation. InLearning from International Public Management Reform: Part A(pp. 45-59). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Goldfinch, S., Roberts, V. (2013). New public management and public sector reform in Victoria and New Zealand: Policy transfer, elite networks and legislative copying.Australian Journal of Politics History,59(1), 80-96. Guthrie, J. (1998). Application of accrual accounting in the Australian public sectorrhetoric or reality.Financial accountability management,14(1), 1-19. Jones, L. R., Kettl, D. F. (2006). Assessing public management reform strategy in an international context. InComparative Public Administration(pp. 883-904). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Lgreid, P. (2017).Transcending new public management: the transformation of public sector reforms. Routledge. MacDermott, K. (2013).Whatever Happened to Frank and Fearless?: The impact of new public management on the Australian Public Service. ANU Press. O'Flynn, J. (2007). From new public management to public value: Paradigmatic change and managerial implications.Australian journal of public administration,66(3), 353-366. Smith, R. F. I. (2004). Focusing on public value: Something new and something old.Australian Journal of Public Administration,63(4), 68-79. Van Gramberg, B., Teicher, J. (2000). Managerialism in local governmentVictoria, Australia.International Journal of Public Sector Management,13(5), 476-492.