- Policy and program design
Overview
2.1Policy and program design typically starts with a demonstrated need for a government intervention and a subsequent examination of different options to address the problem in question and/or deliver a benefit, for example, ‘turning an embryonic idea into something which can make a difference in the way people live’.
2.2The Australian Policy Handbook advises that ‘design is fundamental’ to successful policies. This guide describes three common approaches to designing policies: research, analysis, and evaluation. The policy issue in question is thus understood, and potential solutions developed, under these headings.
2.3Policy and program design also incorporates advice from various stakeholders (particularly those affected by the potential changes) and subject matter experts, including from government and industry, considers the available and required resources, and sets clear and measurable objectives. The outcomes of this should, in principle, be clear on intent, well informed, and practical to implement.
2.4A cornerstone principle of policy and program design is stakeholder consultation, as it can ‘enhance policy development and implementation’. The Australian Policy Handbook further states in this regard:
Good policy processes demand connections between decision makers and the views of those affected by policy… A consultative process offers policy makers a way to structure debate, and to develop a solution that is more likely to ‘stick’ because it reflects the realities of the problem and the competing interests of those involved.
2.5Consultation with stakeholders, particularly key stakeholders, is vital for the effective design, development and delivery of government policies and programs. It provides the connection between policy makers and those affected. Ultimately, a collaborative approach leads to successful outcomes.
2.6The advantages of effective stakeholder engagement in policy and program design include innovation, meeting program objectives and seamless implementation. Both the Australian Public Service Framework for engagement and participation and the Australian Public Service Commission describe the principles for stakeholder engagement and the requirements for successful consultation as:
- determine issues for feedback
- develop an engagement strategy and methods, including identifying relevant stakeholders, and a process for recording and incorporating feedback
- be inclusive of diverse voices and remove barriers to participation
- manage expectations by being clear, open and transparent
- continue to improve policy and program design based on feedback.
Findings
2.7The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) concluded in its reporting that, for the most part, design processes were appropriate across the Auditor-General reports. It listed key messages regarding policy and program design which were identified as important, including:
- People affected by policy and program proposals should have the opportunity to contribute to policy design, and decision-makers should be informed of the outcomes of this consultation.
- When co-designing policy, entities should assess whether the parties invited to co-design collectively represent all relevant interests, and, if they do not, consider whether additional targeted consultation is required to inform the co-design.
- The ANAO noted that several of the audited programs yielded largely effective policy and program design. This included the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry’s (DAFF) Implementation of the Export Control Legislative Framework, the Department of Education’s (Education) design and implementation of the participation programs for regional students, and the Department of Home Affairs’ (Home Affairs) design and delivery of its Family Migration Program. The Department of Health and Aged Care’s (Health) expansion of telehealth services was found by ANAO to be informed by largely robust policy advice and planning. The ANAO identified stakeholder consultation as an area for improvement in the design processes of both Health and Home Affairs.
- The ANAO concluded in Auditor-General Report’s No. 6 2022–23 and No. 17 2022–23 that stakeholder engagement in DAFF’s development and design processes ‘was transparent and consultative’ for the Revised Framework, and that the planning and development phases of the Blueprint for cultural reform were informed by internal and external consultations.
- It was noted by the ANAO in Auditor-General Report No. 42 2022–23 that consultation had taken place across the sector for Education’s RRR Education Strategy and was found to have informed policy and funding options. The ANAO also found that the design and planning of programs and initiatives had been developed on evidence drawn from the 2017Halsey Review, which incorporated submissions from a wide range of stakeholders, including peak bodies, education authorities, corporate and community organisations, and the public.
- In Auditor-General Report No. 10 2022–23, the ANAO found Health had consulted stakeholders, including peak bodies in allied health, general practice (GP), nursing, rural and Indigenous health, and state and territory governments. Consultation processes differed between the temporary and permanent expansion. Engagement for the temporary expansion of telehealth services occurred within a short timeframe and discussions were held at ad hoc and standing meetings regarding the broader COVID-19 response. Engagement on permanent telehealth services was undertaken by two departmental divisions—one for consultation on GP and allied health provider telehealth, and the other on specialist telehealth.
- Consultation with peak bodies for GP and allied health providers largely aligned with Health’s stakeholder engagement strategy. A steering group and roundtable discussions were held as part of this strategy, as well as public consultation between March 2020 and November 2021. Additionally, the department negotiated and sought policy setting suggestions from the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Australian Medical Association (AMA), Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine, Rural Doctors Association of Australia, and Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) from July2020.
- Health commenced drafting a stakeholder engagement strategy to inform policy options for the introduction of permanent specialist telehealth. Although the draft strategy was never finalised, consultations did occur with peak bodies, including the AMA and RACP, between October 2020 and September 2021, with policy advice reflecting their views. Three non-peak body agencies reported having difficulty contributing to the development of telehealth policy.
- The ANAO also reported that the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO) advised it ‘was not involved in stakeholder meetings where the specifics of telehealth policy settings were discussed’. NACCO further advised that the decision to remove telehealth items from the MBS on 1July2021 was made without consultation.
- Additionally, the ANAO reported that while state and territory governments participated in high level discussions, targeted consultation meetings with states and territories did not occur after June 2020, ‘and did not inform permanent telehealth policy’. According to the ANAO, Health advised that:
- consultation and coordination via the Australian Health Protections Principal Committee (AHPPC) and National Cabinet was substantial throughout the pandemic and involved senior decision-makers from each jurisdiction…
- Health would not normally consult with states and territories on the detail of MBS changes as the bulk of MBS funding is directed towards private providers…
- New South Wales and Tasmania, however, were represented on the Primary Health Reform Steering Group…
- the nature of consultation with state and territory health departments regarding changes to the MBS should be considered in the context of the consultation that is meant to occur under the National Health Reform Agreement 2020–2025.
- Failure of adequate consultation for the planning of policy can lead to poorly implemented policy changes, as well as unintended impact to key stakeholders. To improve the co-design of policy settings, the ANAO advised Health to evaluate the parties invited to take part for their representation of relevant issues and consider whether ‘additional targeted consultation is required to complement the co-design process’.
- The ANAO’s findings in the Auditor-General Report No. 16 2022–23, Home Affairs’ implementation of the Family Program, lacked direct involvement from stakeholders affected by the policy proposal in the design consultation phase.
- Home Affairs’ consultative process involved seeking views from state and territory governments, holding roundtable meetings with industry representatives and academics, obtaining advice from commonwealth government agencies, and releasing discussion papers inviting submissions from public community networks.
- In its audit report, the ANAO acknowledge that Home Affairs had advised:
…it takes community feedback into account when it develops planning options for the [G]overnment.
However, the ANAO observed that Home Affairs did not report on the outcomes of these consultations. The ANAO suggested that ‘there is scope for the department to explicitly set out how its advice reflects consideration of community views’. To remediate these shortcomings, the ANAO recommended Home Affairs develop processes to meaningfully capture client feedback and improve its advice to the Government by reporting on the outcomes of community consultation.
2.20At the committee hearing in Canberra on 1 February 2024, the Auditor-General, reiterated this advice:
The ANAO suggested that Home Affairs more clearly explain how advice prepared for government takes account of community views on family migration.
2.21The Committee questioned Home Affairs as to what actions it had taken since the ANAO audit with regards to community consultation. Home Affairs responded by stating that:
[T]here has been a significant increase in the terms of consultation we do in respect of the program and also outreach to affected communities. That information is fed back into the wider process by which government determines what the Migration Program composition may be each year.
2.22Although the Committee acknowledges the positive changes Home Affairs has made in response to the ANAO audit findings, the committee is disturbed by the lack of genuine consultation by Home Affairs on the impact migration policies have on people—to properly provide advice to government on the human experience of these policies.
Agency responses
2.23In response to the ANAO’s audit findings, Health’s Acting Deputy Secretary, MrDaniel McCabe, assured the Committee at the public hearing on 2 February 2024, that as part of the department’s ongoing improvement to its governance arrangements, it continues to focus on and consider all stakeholder implications. MrMcCabe also advised that Health recognised the role state and territory governments play in the provision of healthcare services.
2.24In recognition of the ANAO’s feedback and Committee questions regarding adequate consultation concerning Indigenous community access to telehealth services, Health submitted that:
NACCHO attended regular GP Peak Body video conferences chaired by the Deputy Chief Medical Officer. More than 120 GP Peak Body meetings were held between March 2020 and August 2022, providing an opportunity for dialogue between the department and key stakeholders on matters relating to the COVID‑19 response including discussion of [MBS] telehealth policy.
…
[T]elehealth policies were and continue to be designed to minimise barriers to care by First Nations patients.
2.25In response to the audit’s findings, Home Affairs submitted to the committee that it is making improvements:
Through 2023–24 and beyond, the Department will be consulting Family Migration Program stakeholders through a variety of channels gathering their feedback and gauging sentiment on Family Migration Program settings. Feedback will be used to inform these settings over the coming program years coupled with feedback provided through the Migration Review.
2.26Home Affairs also advised the introduction of an annual community organisation roundtable to improve and supplement existing consultation initiatives. Those existing initiatives involve consultation through the departmental Community Liaison Officer network, as well as with academic, industry and government stakeholders.
2.27At the hearing in Canberra on 1 February 2024, the Acting Deputy Secretary, MrMichael Willard, also reiterated that since the release of the ANAO’s audit report, Home Affairs is strengthening its capabilities regarding stakeholder consultation and feedback.
Committee comment
2.28The Committee is pleased to see that, apart from Health and Home Affairs, the findings from the Audit reporting showed generally sound policy and program design. The Committee would encourage all agencies to effectively engage with key stakeholders to better shape policy and decision-making.
2.29The Committee acknowledges the positive changes Home Affairs has made in response to the ANAO audit findings. The Committee however remains perplexed and disturbed by the lack of genuine consultation for years by Home Affairs on the impact migration policies have on people—to properly provide advice to government on the human experience and impacts of these policies.
2.30Although Home Affairs’ evidence that it is strengthening its capabilities regarding stakeholder consultation and feedback is welcome, the Committee is concerned that there are no frameworks or performance criteria that reflect this in the current approach Home Affairs is taking in its improvement to the Family Migration Program.
2.31In the context of evidence received by the inquiry including through the public hearing, the Committee took a broader interest (than the initial remit of the ANAO’s performance audit) in the Family Migration Program given the significant impact of the design and delivery of this program on large swathes of the Australian community. The Committee examined associated policy and administrative issues in more detail, including highlighting the lack of humanity reflected in some of the actions of Home Affairs, as well as the lack of human impact reflected in the ANAO audit reporting. These issues are reflected later in this report.
2.32With regard to the temporary telehealth expansion, the Committee appreciates that Health’s stakeholder consultation was limited based on urgency. However, more robust stakeholder consultation should have been undertaken in the planning of the permanent telehealth expansion, with additional efforts made to ensure that all identified stakeholders had adequate engagement.
2.33The Committee requests that the Department of Home Affairs reports on its stakeholder engagement planning improvements within 12 months of the date of this report, including what performance indicators will be included in the policy design to reflect the collection of community sentiment.