Search

Digital technologies have enhanced the capacity for organisations across many sectors to produce, publish, and disseminate research in a variety of formats, and a great deal of it is sought and used in public policy and practice‐related research, yet this diversity is often overlooked in studies of research use. While the need for diverse research sources and formats for public policy and practice is increasingly acknowledged, there have been few studies which articulate and categorise what this diversity looks like in practice, and how research is filtered and selected based on genre, source, and other facets. This article reports on a large‐scale online survey and semi‐structured interviews with research users across multiple sectors in Australia on the materials they access and use for policy and practice work. The results indicate that research users are active information seekers who require online access to diverse genres and formats produced by a range of sources and sectors. However, respondents also faced many barriers to research use, including the cost of subscriptions for academic journals, discoverability of reports and data, poor management of publications by organisations including government, and the time required for filtering and evaluation. Based on these findings I argue that policy research requires a far greater variety of genres and sources than is generally recognised with implications for the way research use and the research publishing system is understood and managed in Australia. Points for practitioners: Policy research and implementation requires diverse online sources and resources from multiple sectors, including reports, discussion papers, evaluations, and data, produced by organisations (grey literature), as well as journals and books.However, this paper finds there are major barriers to discovery, filtering, and access to diverse research publications for practitioners, resulting in poor productivity and policy outcomes.To improve the use of evidence for policy and practice, we must invest in efficient discovery, access, and management systems for diverse research publications. Summary at a glance Research publications used for public policy and practice in Australia are far more diverse, dynamic, and multisector than is generally recognised with implications for the way we understand and manage the research publishing system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Australian Journal of Public Administration is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

There is a growing interest in how policy processes can better incorporate the values of the communities they serve, yet policymakers face numerous challenges when they seek to embed values into policies. This paper builds on existing values research to develop a bespoke policy values framework for Australia, based on the popular notion of a 'fair go'. While the fair go is often associated with a narrow set of equality and procedural justice values, we show that it has a much wider range of historical and contemporary meanings, which taken together provide a useful starting point for understanding policy values important to Australians. We apply our framework to two policy domains—housing and immigration—to show that it offers an effective heuristic to help policymakers understand key value priorities and conflicts in these policy areas. The paper provides theoretical insights regarding the role of values in policymaking and offers a practical tool for use when designing, implementing, and evaluating policies. Points for practitioners: Community values should inform public policy decision‐making in a democracy. However, incorporating values into policy is difficult because of the wide range of different values to consider, the need to manage tensions and conflicts between values, and the time pressures often faced by policymakers.The popular and enduring notion of the 'fair go' embodies multiple value positions, which cover a range of different values that matter to Australians, making it a good basis for an Australian policy values framework.Our fair go values framework is designed to serve as a heuristic for policymakers when designing and evaluating public policies. It is not intended as a comprehensive guide to value debates in all policy areas, but offers a starting point for quickly appreciating the key value priorities and conflicts in relation to a policy issue. Policymakers should wherever possible follow up with detailed research to understand the complex value debates of different policy issue areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

JobKeeper is a short‐time work subsidy implemented between March 2020 and March 2021 in Australia during the COVID‐19 pandemic to reinforce the resilience of the labour market. As a job retention (JR) program, JobKeeper supports businesses, protects jobs and employment relationships and secures income of Australian workers. Drawing on microeconomic and macroeconomic evaluations of the JR programs published in other countries in a pre‐pandemic period, this paper studies how the generosity, responsiveness, governance and eligibility criteria of JobKeeper may shape its efficiency and equity. We show that expected benefits of JobKeeper may be limited by some negative economic effects of short‐time work subsidies. Locking employees in their current position potentially crowds out more efficient matches on the labour market. These displacement effects may slow down economic recovery. As a wage subsidy, JobKeeper distorts the relative wage and employment prospects between eligible and non‐eligible workers. These substitution effects can increase the dualization of the Australian labour market and institutionalise lay‐offs inequities for workers holding a temporary visa. Finally, we argue that subsidies for part‐time work also generate incentives for working time reorganisations that should be evaluated. JobKeeper is a short‐time work subsidy to reinforce the resilience of the Australian labour market during the pandemic. This paper studies how the generosity, responsiveness, governance and eligibility criteria of JobKeeper may shape its efficiency and equity. We analyse how expected benefits of JobKeeper may be impacted by displacement, substitution, deadweight effects and work reorganisations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nearly a decade ago, the Australian Federal Government introduced a Digital Service Standard (DSS) for new and redesigned government services. This was an opportunity to encourage digital services and disruptive innovations to help the government improve citizens outcomes, and indeed there was a significant uptake in the digital services assessments offered by the program with key government agencies across health, human services, taxation, and education on board. However, by the 2020s the number of publicly visible assessments had significantly reduced. The initial broad adoption and recent reduction in numbers present an opportunity to explore the effectiveness of this government innovation management program that was ahead of its time. This paper reviews the impact of the DSS in fostering public service innovation and presents lessons learnt from the program. To perform this analysis, this research evaluates to what extent the DSS applied common private sector innovation management approaches of Innovation Process Management and Innovation Portfolio Management in the public sector. It also looks at the impact of these programs in encouraging specific types of modern digital innovations. The analysis draws on DSS assessments from 2015 to 2021 and considers how the program demonstrated public sector innovation leadership. This paper proposes a framework to improve the DSS by tailoring its approach for new and existing services, adopting specific standards to encourage incremental and disruptive innovations, and promoting more transparent reporting and funding of innovation management programs. This evaluation found that the DSS exemplifies Innovation Process Management in its use of stages and gates, and Innovation Portfolio Management in its use of targeted assessment criteria across innovation portfolios of various government agencies. The analysis also identified design limitations in the DSS as a whole of government innovation management approach due to its limited uptake in multiple large agencies and lack of specific standards to encourage different types of innovation. The impact of this research is to increase the adoption of the DSS and increase the innovation outcomes delivered by this government program. We conclude by reflecting some of the unique considerations in applying private sector innovation management practices in the public sector. Points for practitioners: Innovation management techniques are emerging but remain immature in the public sector.Australia has shown leadership in Government Innovation Process and Portfolio Management.Government must remain committed to innovation management programs and sharing the outputs of these programs.Government Innovation Management Programs should build in flexibility to encourage different types of innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reviews the discussion paper `Towards a Best Practice Australian Public Service,' by the Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service.

The Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) has, since its inception, prioritised policy relevance in its research. Drawing on an impact narrative approach, this paper presents a case study of the contribution of AHURI research to the development of a specific policy initiative: the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator function of the National Housing and Finance Investment Corporation (NHFIC). The paper will explore the development of this policy initiative through a series of research projects and publications, and highlight processes of dissemination and engagement with the policy and practice community. This will reveal the value of a strong evidence‐base, and effective knowledge transfer mechanisms in the development and implementation of policy. It will also demonstrate the utility of a policy impact narrative approach in the evaluation of research impact, particularly in relation to policy development processes subject to the vagaries of politics. This policy impact narrative presents a case study of the contribution of the research and policy engagement practices of the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) to the implementation of a policy initiative. AHURI research on institutional investment in social and affordable housing refined and tested this model for financing community housing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a post‐COVID‐19 world, innovation stimuli and well‐aligned policies will assume even greater importance as various sectors seek to recover lost ground and to generate new opportunities. Collaborative partnering in innovation research and development (R&D) between private industry and higher education has increasingly emerged over the last decade as a leading key performance indicator for government policy development, and higher education research funding allocations. Recalibration of R&D‐related policies and incentivisation will require careful consideration, with constructive lessons to be learned from outcomes over the last four decades. This paper presents findings from a new study of stakeholder perceptions as to the National Innovation and Science Agenda's impact on innovation partnerships, and synthesises outcomes from two prior studies. It then examines a newly proposed innovation policy framework, Stimulating Business Investment in Innovation (SBII), set against a background of the shifting mix of paradigms that have comprised Australian innovation policy over the last 40 years. It argues that, following the SBII, any proposed change of policy direction will face significant challenges in its implementation, requiring a fully committed and comprehensive embrace by Government of the new APS engagement framework and greater levels of deliberative democracy. Industry–research partnering is a key performance indicator for government policy and research funding. This Paper synthesizes three studies on innovation, set against the shifting mix of paradigms in innovation policy over the last 40 years. Policymakers must embrace the new engagement framework, and deliberative democracy, when adopting new innovation policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The problem of regulatory accumulation has increasingly been recognised as a policy problem in its own right. Governments have then devised and implemented regulatory reform policies that directly seek to ameliorate the burdens of regulatory accumulation (e.g. red tape reduction targets). In this paper we examine regulatory reform approaches in Australia through the lens of policy innovation. Our contributions are twofold. We first examine the evolutionary discovery process of regulatory reform policies in Australia (at the federal, intergovernmental, and state levels). This demonstrates a process of policy innovation in regulatory mechanisms and measurements. We then analyse a new measurement of regulatory burden based on text analytics, RegData: Australia. RegData: Australia uses textual analysis to count 'restrictiveness clauses' in regulation – such as 'must', 'cannot' and 'shall' – thereby developing a new database (RDAU1.0). We place this 'restrictiveness clauses' measurement within the context of regulatory policy innovation, and examine the potential for further innovation in regulatory reform mechanisms. This paper examines the political economy of regulatory reform in Australia. We analyse regulatory reduction mechanisms and measurements as a process of policy innovation. We introduce RegData: Australia – a new project aimed at quantifying regulation using textual analytics – as an input into further regulatory reform innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Cape York Welfare Reform (CYWR) initiative aims to reduce 'passive dependence' on welfare and restore 'positive social norms' to revitalise cultural and social networks and support economic engagement in Indigenous communities in the Cape York Region of Australia. Critics of the initiative and, in particular, its income management (IM) policies have associated it with a broader neoliberal reform agenda that delineates social 'problems' from their historical and structural context. This paper discusses key qualitative findings from a strategic review of CYWR, paying particular attention to the ways in which Cape York IM (CYIM) straddles both Indigenous and settler social norms, while perpetuating neoliberal conceptualisations of welfare 'dependency'. We situate these findings within the existing literature on Australia's other IM models and also consider them in relation to subsequent government responses to the review and associated policies. We argue that CYIM represents a unique initiative, the subtle nuances of which have been largely ignored or misunderstood by critics. Further, we conclude that any extension or revision of this initiative should be considered with respect to deep and wide‐ranging consultation of the Indigenous communities subject to CYWR. However, such consultation has not been the standard practice in Australian contexts. The paper presents the qualitative findings of a Federal Government review of Cape York Income Management (CYIM). We argue that although CYIM shares a common ideological foundation with Australia's other IM policies, it is also distinct from these alternative forms of IM, particularly in terms of its evolution, high‐level of targeting, and delivery mechanism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]