There is a lot of criticism expressed on OLO about the quality of government regulation of all sorts of laws, from the police to departments that administer environmental and water regulations and the like. This involves all levels of government right across the country.

A lot of regulatory management is pretty poorly done, compared to the ideal situation. But we need to consider a couple of things;

How bad is it really, compared to no regulation or to a considerably tighter and more socialistic regulatory regime and...

How can we make it significantly better?

This thread follows on from discussions on the ‘Ideas the engine of new growth’ thread. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8284

“What you are suggesting is ‘compromise and mediocrity’ can produce an acceptable solution or stand-in for acceptable performance.” http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8284#129920

No I’m not Col. I’m saying that if something is less than ideal, it is still a lot better than nothing. Let’s face it; precious few services are ideal or even of particularly high quality, right across the gamut of health, education, civil and criminal law, environmental protection, etc, etc. But in just about every instance, no service or a lesser level of service would mean a worse service.

Of course no one wants as a first choice to be involved in a struggle that by all indications will be a mediocre effort to do a job due to restricted resources, but there are many good people who are only too happy to have the opportunity to do what they can within the restrictions rather than not be given the chance to do anything, and have to just sit back and watch bad things happen as a result of a lack of regulation or service.

That’s pretty straightforward.

“If it cannot be achieved properly, it is better it not be attempted…”

Well we do indeed have a fundamental disagreement here.

“Remember, government and the civil servants are there to serve the needs of the tax-paying electorate, not to direct them.”

Serving the needs of the community most definitely mean directing people to do certain things and preventing them from doing others.

*Where outside of the public service would you find a much better standard of commonsense or intelligence, or managerial capability?*

To transfer your question from the other thread, Ludwig.

I can't comment on the particular Dept where you work, for I know
nothing about it. What I can comment on, is the many sectors
of Govt that I have dealt with and there is enormous variation.

I think there is actually a similar kind of pattern, to do with
human behaviour. Anywhere where there is a reasonable amount
of competition, like in small business, I've seen some bad
management, but they usually go broke. I've also seen some
amazingly good management, efficiency, common sense and intelligence,
unlike anything I have seen in large institutions.

Some of the most efficient companies that I have dealt with,
have been those who operate in the export sector, for they have
to compete on a global basis, which raises the level of competition
substantialy.

I've dealt with large corporations who deal mostly locally. If they
are in a sector, where there is little competition, they can be
as bad as the Govt sector, when it comes to waste and bad management.
For instance I had some severe run ins with Ansett at the time,
for I felt that the sector that I was dealing with was more then
useless. They eventually went broke, which vindicated my point :)

With Govt Depts I have yet to come across a Dept which is subjected
to any kind of serious stress, as occurs in the private sector.
Some of these people have never lived in the real world, they
don't understand how private enterprise functions. If we ran
businesses like they run their depts, we'd go broke pretty quickly!

I think that Govt needs to be able to fire people who are useless
and have no aptitude for a job. But then these days, they can't
even do that in the private sector, so they use contractors to
avoid the problem.

“What I can comment on is the many sectors of Govt that I have dealt with and there is enormous variation.”

Yabby, yes there is a huge spectrum.

The natural tendency is for us to project bad experiences onto the whole section, department, public service, company, etc, and think the worst of that whole section or organisation.

I was like this with the police as a result of a small number of really quite horrible experiences scattered over a lot of years. But I’ve had good experiences too, and I can now see that there is indeed a lot of good, as well as a very dodgy element, in our police force.

I’ve also battled over the years to hold a more balanced view with respect to my local council, having thought very poorly of them for a long time... although our recent ex mayor certainly deserved absolute condemnation!

In fact, if we get anything other than very good service or the exact outcome that we want, we strongly tend to think poorly of regulators and managers.

There is certainly a strong pattern of human behaviour there.

continued

Alright so companies that are operating within a strongly competitive regime tend to have much better management practices than those who can afford to take it easy and let the profits role in without too much effort and with a fair bit of room to move as far as efficiency goes.

Well, the same sort of behaviour exists in the public service, except that the motivation is not profit, it is outcomes. This takes us back to resources. If the resources are good and the desired outcomes can be reasonably be achieved, then the management regime, motivation and commitment will follow.

If it is all ominous right from the start, then there is not much motivation at any level to maximise efficiency.

I don’t think that injecting stress into government departments is the answer to making them perform a whole lot better. The answer is resources and goals or outcomes.

In answering my question, you have not suggested the privatisation of some or all public services. I thought you might advocate this, given that you see great value in competition and the profit motive for engendering maximum efficiency.

I take it that you feel that privatising the police force or the policing of fishing or building or land-clearing regulations or whatever would not be a good idea?

*Well, the same sort of behaviour exists in the public service, except that the motivation is not profit, it is outcomes.*

Ludwig, there are plenty of people in private enterprise whose
goal is outcomes, for they enjoy what they do. In fact most
entrepreneurs that I know enjoy what they do, or they would
not have the passion and devotion to do it well. Profit is
essential or the business closes its doors. It's also sometimes
used as a measure of the outcomes. But it is certainly not
the only goal that is being worked for.

Lets even take an extreme example. Do you think that Rupert
Murdoch, who is close to 80, does what he does, just for money?
When is he going to spend it? At his age you can only handle
one young wife at a time :) The guy simply loves what he does.
He much prefers running newspapers to golf, gardening or anything
else.

*I don’t think that injecting stress into government departments is the answer to making them perform a whole lot better. The answer is resources and goals or outcomes.*

Yup but there is a limit to the resources that hard working taxpayers
are prepared to cough up. For as you know, no matter how much money
we give Govt Depts, they will spend it.

So the question arises, how do we achieve a desired outcome,
with a bit more efficiency then we see in so much of the public
service. If you did a time-motion study, about how much time,
ie wages and salaries, are simply wasted in Govt, it is enormous.
Few in Govt even think about these things, they just ask for
more resources. They lack flexibility. Why not bring in a contractor
to do some jobs?

*I take it that you feel that privatising the police force or the policing of fishing or building or land-clearing regulations or whatever would not be a good idea?*

Removing one monopoly and replacing it with another monopoly, is
not going to solve anything.