Search results

Debates on ministerial responsibility have too often gone around in circles. The application of the principle is related to the incidence of resignations; analysis considers the reasons given for resignation or, rather more often, the reasons given for not resigning. The usual conclusions are that ministers resign occasionally when their personal involvement is unquestioned and when the prime minister determines that the political costs are less to let the minister go. But the ideas remain at a broad level because they relate to all the ministerial activities. This article seeks to disentangle these concepts, developing the ideas in Thompson and Tillotsen's article in this symposium, to see if a different set of concepts can better define this old notion.

Queensland has two prisons run by private companies; the first contract was signed in 1989. In 1995 a competitive tender for a new prison was won by the QCSC against two private providers. Further, there is now a belief that prisons should be run on commercial grounds. The principal agency, the Queensland Corrective Services Commission (QCSC) has been divided into two bodies — a purchaser and a provider — to allow markets to prevail in Queensland corrective services. What can be learnt from these developments? This article will, first, provide a brief history of the changes; second, it will explore whether the initial objectives for the introduction of the private sector into the corrective system have been met; and third it will ask whether market forces can or should be a dominant feature and hence whether a corrective services system can or should be organised on a commercial basis.

Public servants should identify their clients. As a statement of modern practice it seems unobjectionable. The emphasis of modern management has shifted from die inputs and processes to the outputs and recipients of government services. The language of the public sector has been infused with the rhetoric of the private, with discussion of customers and clients, rather than, as previously, recipients and patients. In many places the benefits are apparent, with officials less concerned with ensuring that every minute process is satisfied and more directed to the needs of those whom they service. My concern here is not to challenge the notion that a concentration on clients and customers is desirable; in places it clearly is. Rather I want to suggest that while a client focus may be applicable in some facets of public policy it is not universally so. There are instances where the attempt to classify everyone as clients may be counterproductive and strip the concept of useful meaning.

This review, delivered in July 1995, was cornmissioned by the Department of the Prime Minister & Cabinet. It was designed to assess the procedures adopted in commonwealth—state reform processes and to draw front that analysis some basic lessons or insights that might assist future stages. The report is republished with only minor changes in style and text. The original report included an executive summary, descriptions of the reforms considered, and a list of those interviewed. The author would like to thank Alison Hemmings, of the Commonwealth‐State Relations Secretariat, for her assistance during the review.