Suchergebnisse

In 1969, construction began on Conzinc Riotinto Australia's huge copper and gold mine at Panguna on the island of Bougainville in what was then the Australian-administered Territory of Papua New Guinea. The mining project was unlike any Australians had previously undertaken, and its construction created complexities which Australian managers and industrial relations systems had not previously encountered. The complexity of employment relations on this project was increased by the political environment of colonial rule and the responses of Australian workers and unions. This article looks at the development of the first industrial agreement during the mine's construction phase and places it in the context of the creation of a sustainable bargaining structure, which succeeded in mitigating industrial conflict for two decades before the outbreak of a wider armed conflict.

In 1969, construction began on Conzinc Riotinto Australia's huge copper and gold mine at Panguna on the island of Bougainville in what was then the Australian-administered Territory of Papua New Guinea. The mining project was unlike any Australians had previously undertaken, and its construction created complexities which Australian managers and industrial relations systems had not previously encountered. The complexity of employment relations on this project was increased by the political environment of colonial rule and the responses of Australian workers and unions. This article looks at the development of the first industrial agreement during the mine's construction phase and places it in the context of the creation of a sustainable bargaining structure, which succeeded in mitigating industrial conflict for two decades before the outbreak of a wider armed conflict.

Knowledge is the latest buzzword in public administration, yet contemporary debates demonstrate a poor understanding of how knowledge is constructed and valued and of how public administration knowledge frames are changing in response to major structural shifts in political imperatives. In particular the retreat from economic rationalism and the embracing of social and human capital ideas with the search for 'third ways' and 'triple bottom lines' are bringing more constructivist knowledge frames back into play. In this way centralised 'rational/expert' knowledge is being challenged by knowledge arising from cooperative, local inquiry and multiple knowledge frames are now being brought to bear in public administration. Yet public administration, as a profession, seems unsure of whether this is an elegant finesse implying little real change or an exposure of the naked pretension of previously dominant unitary frameworks. This article uses a historical comparison to show how changes in the ontology and epistemology of public administration are demanding new skills of contemporary public administrators.

Contemporary public sector reforms in Australia have been dominated by efficiency, productivity and contestability considerations captured in National Competition Policy (NCP). Both in the reform process in general and in the NCP processes in particular, the lack of priority attributed to non-economic concerns such as coordination, equity, representation, political accountability, consultation and distributive outcomes has been a serious omission. The idea of public interst, once central to democratic public administration, has re-emerged to challenge the perceived excesses of economic rationalism as the unifying idea of reform. Although public interest stands in a long tradition in public administration, it is a complex and contested idea which requires significiant development if it is to have policy utility in the reform process. Nonetheless public interest may be viewed as an analytical frame which enables a rebalancing of the ideas which influence policymaking. In this paper it is argued that substantive situational manifestations of public interest can be used to complement rather than undermine the efficiency, productivity and contestability objectives of public sector reform.

Contemporary public sector reforms in Australia have been dominated by efficiency, productivity and contestability considerations captured in National Competition Policy (NCP). Both in the reform process in general and in the NCP processes in particular, the lack of priority attributed to non-economic concerns such as coordination, equity, representation, political accountability, consultation and distributive outcomes has been a serious omission. The idea of public interst, once central to democratic public administration, has re-emerged to challenge the perceived excesses of economic rationalism as the unifying idea of reform. Although public interest stands in a long tradition in public administration, it is a complex and contested idea which requires significiant development if it is to have policy utility in the reform process. Nonetheless public interest may be viewed as an analytical frame which enables a rebalancing of the ideas which influence policymaking. In this paper it is argued that substantive situational manifestations of public interest can be used to complement rather than undermine the efficiency, productivity and contestability objectives of public sector reform.

Both internationally and within Australia public policy is experiencing a rush back to the idea of community. After 15 years of discourse about the new public management and economic rationalism a much older discourse is slipping back into public policy. It is a normative discourse about changing relations between state democracy, market capitalism and civil society in which the idea of community is a central 'new' relation used to manage both state and market failures. Already new policy tools emerging from this discourse can be seen with innovations based on concepts such as partnerships, place management, and a raft of community consultation mechanisms. Much of the rhetoric about community as a new foundation for public policy, however, remains confused. The result is a muddle of ideas in which this potentially useful concept is in danger of becoming just another public policy reform fad. This article looks at what policy makers are saying about community, identifies problems in this current usage and offers ways of thinking about community with a view to establishing its policy utility.

The international trend towards economic and financial management reforms is well documented with most governments now being involved in public sector restructuring programs, which have at their core the aim of improving the quality of administrative functions through a more responsive approach by state agencies (OECD 1996). In nations with administrative systems derived from British models these efforts may be generally referred to as 'the de‐Sir Humphreying of the Westminister model' (Hood 1990:105). In essence this approach has had three aims. First, it has attempted to diminish the role of thestate and make the bureaucracy more responsive to political leaders. Second, it has aimed for greater efficiency through the use of private sector management techniques. Third, it has focused on the citizen as a customer and service recipient (Aucoin 1990:16).