Administrative Chronicle Victoria*

Abstract

In its final months the outgoing Thompson Liberal Ministry was largely pre‐occupied with the implementation of its New Directions strategy. It introduced a public service bill in December to bring about greater effectiveness in the public service and ensure that its policy priorities were understood, thus complementing the Effectiveness Review Committee already set up, and it began a review of the three central coordinating agencies, the Public Service Board, the Treasury and the Department of the Premier, with an independent American consultant. The thrust of these three measures was to advise the government on proposals to set up new departments, relocate personnel and manpower resources, to set up programs for effectiveness reviews, and to bring forward amendments to the Public Service Act of 1974 which had followed Sir Henry Bland's inquiry in the early 1970s. These were intended to give the Public Service Board extended powers to allow it to conduct effectiveness reviews into statutory authorities, to extend Board employment powers to such authorities and to bring them into the public service framework, ensuring a more cohesive and less fragmented State public service. Senior staff could now be employed on term appointments, with performance‐oriented objectives, giving greater flexibility at the top. And finally, the Board was to have power to become involved in specific industrial issues at the departmental level, sharpening its current generalized industrial powers.

The Proliferation of Identity Politics in Australia: An Analysis of Ministerial Portfolios, 1970-2000

“…It may be that administrative reform is implemented when the government believes that problems are intractable (Wildavsky 1979, 79). Alternatively, it may be seen positively, as developing the capacity for change (Guerin 1985) as in Victoria where Cain, in his first term, concentrated on reforming administration as a prerequisite for implementing social policy goals (Holmes 1987). In addition, the leaders generally took pragmatic, moderate and cautious approaches to reform.…”