The Rudd Government is off to a good start with its determination to right the wrongs of past decades and to confront a set of seemingly intractable indigenous issues; a determination to move quickly from symbolism to action. But what will determine success?

Indigenous disadvantage is one of several examples that the Australian Public Service Commission identifies as a highly complex policy problem; one that is "highly resistant to resolution" (see its recent publication Tackling Wicked Problems) Just when you think you may have the policy solution, more complexities are likely to appear. Complex issues, and particularly sensitive ones such as indigenous policy and delivery issues, will require moving beyond consultation to a more active engagement with those likely to be affected by decisions. This is sometimes called "participatory governance" or, in the OECD's words, "active participation".

Fundamental ingredients

The literature here and overseas suggests several necessary (though perhaps not sufficient) key ingredients for successful creation of participatory policy mechanisms.

Three such ingredients stand out: strong leadership, trusting relationships and the willingness of those with power to share it. In the context of indigenous issues, strong leadership can be ticked off at this stage, occurring from the top - from both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. However, this commitment will need to be maintained for a very long time and, importantly, be imbued with a determination to see desired changes achieved on the ground. Leaders of government teams on the ground will need the right cultural attitude and expertise if their endeavours are to succeed. For instance, there is much evidence from the recent government trials of whole of government approaches in indigenous communities that attitudes at the top have not always filtered down. Frequent turnovers of staff working with communities have not assisted.

The second fundamental ingredient is trusting relationships - without this, genuine collaboration of relevant parties is impossible. Trust has been described as both the lubricant and the glue: it facilitates the work of a collaboration as well as holding it together. The concept of trust has only recently found currency within the Australian Public Service - it essentially involves behaviours where the expectations of each party are clear and there is confidence that what is committed to will be delivered. In the context of indigenous communities, a "trust culture" will be difficult to build up and maintain unless these communities have a genuine opportunity to influence government decisions.

The third fundamental and related ingredient that the literature has been identified for participatory practices to work relates to the willingness of government to share their decision-making power. This is so much easier said than done, especially for those officials who have been so used to "managing" a consultation process and seeing it as a process essentially under their control.

The report of the 2005 Select Senate Committee on Indigenous Affairs expressed some concern about the extent of the power inequality between negotiating parties in the context of government-indigenous Shared Responsibility Agreements which dealt with respective responsibilities of aboriginal communities and governments; a concern particularly that the provision by government of basic infrastructure facilities, such as housing repairs or a health centre, could be traded away.

Some implementation challenges

Even with strong leadership from the top, with a building of trust and also effective power-sharing arrangements, other more practical challenges remain to be overcome if effective partnering arrangements between government and non-government players are to be realised. Implementation challenges explain why it is not at all surprising that there is so often a gap between the rhetoric government now uses on participatory governance and the reality witnessed on the ground.

There are at least five important implementation difficulties to overcome.

The first is reshaping respective accountabilities of the players. Important and increasingly complex accountability questions arise around who is accountable to whom and for what in the process of bringing more non-government players into the policy development and decision-making process. Can the principles of individual and collective responsibility as well as accountability to the taxpayer through Parliament hold when the boundaries between what governments and communities do are more blurred? Can there be multiple accountabilities? And how far can ambiguities in partnership arrangements be tolerated?

As the boundaries across sectors blur, there is an inescapable tension between vertical accountability mechanisms traditionally inherent in the Westminster system and horizontal accountability in terms of responsiveness to citizens. The challenge now is to reshape governance processes and practices so that this inevitable tension is minimised and managed; and to gain collaboration in clearly defining respective roles and responsibilities. Essential elements needed here include that: expectations of all parties are agreed and explicit; expectations balance respective capacities; reporting arrangements are credible; and there are carefully designed and appropriate monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.

Second, is the need to pay attention to an alignment of organisational structures. Too often when governments set out to put participatory governance mechanisms

in place, they are observed to be operating in the context of traditional structures and processes (for instance referral back by government officials on the ground to head office). Yet these practices may not align with the purpose of participatory governance (for instance, where more autonomy in decision-making is needed by officials working with communities on complex and/or sensitive issues). A key implementation issue, therefore, is to redesign public sector institutions and practices to align more with the new participatory and interactive framework.

When governments engage with indigenous communities, there is an additional issue: it can be anticipated that there will be a deep divide between the types of structures and processes governments use to obtain results and ensure accountability, on the one hand, and traditional indigenous governance arrangements on the other. If these are not understood by all parties, and addressed early on with some collaborative alignment attempted, then all the commitment that can be brought to bear on the task at hand will not be enough to ensure implementation success.

Again, it is not easy to turn this rhetoric into reality. There are many Australian examples of where there was good intent and there was genuine engagement at the initial stages of the project, only for there to be a switch back to old patterns and relationships in the later stages of implementation when government resumed the role of a more dominant player - a situation at odds with genuine participatory arrangements.

Third and related, there is the really difficult issue, in the shorter term at least, of gaining and maintaining the appropriate cultural environment. This was found to be particularly relevant in the case studies analysed in the Connecting Government report (MAC 2004) especially so in evaluations of the COAG Indigenous Trials. A growing academic literature on indigenous governance, in Australia and elsewhere points to the importance of gaining a ‘cultural match' in ensuring successful policy implementation.

Jim Cavaye, an expert on community engagement mechanisms observed a few years ago approaches which amount to: "we are from the government and we are going to engage you" rather than there being an understanding of the value of investing in relationships from building up a partnering approach. (2004:94)

Fourth, the extent to which the public service has the relevant skills and capacity to engage with non-government players in the policy process is a real issue and was recently acknowledged by the Australian Public Service Commissioner in her 2005-06 State of the Service Report.

...the APS needs to build its capacity to effectively and successfully engage the Australian community. This will include recruiting for and developing strong relationship management skills, the willingness and ability to listen to the views of others, and conflict resolution and management skills

(2006:248).

In more specific terms, a government commissioned evaluation of the COAG Indigenous Trials raised a series of relationship issues in building partnerships, including indigenous partners identifying a basic set of required skills for government officers. These included: good listening; acting in good faith; high levels of good will; willingness to share power; recognising and acknowledging intra-community and familial relationships and how these impact on leaders; understanding the pressures on communities; being honest and open; and being human (Morgan et al 2006). These are the skills that can be expected to be ones all public servants involved in participatory activities will need to acquire.

Alongside the building of internal government capacity is the equally important task of ensuring that those whom governments engage, also have the necessary resources and capacity to participate fully. Non-government bodies also need to assure government that they have the capacity to be responsive to broad consumer and community needs.

An interesting, if radical, question arises here in terms of the boundaries around the participatory activities of public officials. For example, would there be occasions when officials could be expected to be supporters, if not actual initiators of citizen or community empowerment?

Finally, there is much scope to ensure appropriate evaluation of policy initiatives and their implementation. The OECD indicates that to date there has been little evidence of countries making progress in developing appropriate evaluation frameworks. There are many possible reasons for this, one being that active citizen participation is most required on complex and sensitive policy issues which, so far, have not been coped with by standard program evaluation methodologies. But it is likely also to be because of a lack of clarity with respect to the purpose of citizen participation.

Professor Brian Head, in the context of participatory initiatives, has recently asked some relevant questions: is the purpose to be about outcomes only or is it to also be about processes and how well relationships are developed? Is the purpose to learn and/or to generalise from a particular instance? Is it about auditing and compliance, or to provide some encouragement to participants? Or is it some combination of these? (2006). One could also ask: from whose perspective is the evaluation to occur? Only the government's or also that of non-government players? If also the latter, is the purpose of their participation and their respective roles, responsibilities and accountabilities understood and agreed? To what extent would non-government players have a say about the place, method and timing of the participatory processes?

Concluding Observations

It is important to note that an active participatory approach is not normally to be expected in most policy and delivery government processes. But it is now generally agreed that this approach becomes necessary for dealing with complex and sensitive issues, such as those surrounding indigenous matters. Hopefully this will be taken as a given when the newly established and bi-partisan Commission considers its next moves.

Whatever the actual level and mechanisms of involvement of non-government players in policy processes that governments decide upon, it is of paramount importance that expectations on both sides be well understood and aligned. If, for example, the government wishes to consult only now and then but not actively to engage throughout the whole policy process, that needs to be stated and understood at the outset. If the government has already made a decision which is irrevocable but then wants to engage the community within that context, that also needs to be clearly stated and understood before communities participate in discussions on any next steps.

Relatedly, clarity of language and intent and avoidance of rhetoric is essential. Incorrect and inappropriate use of terminology such as ‘collaboration', ‘partnership', ‘engagement', apart from causing inefficiencies in process, may result in negative outcomes, reduction of trust and/ or reduced community engagement potential.

At its heart, successful engagement requires the management a few basic tensions for governments: There is the tension of balancing the vertical accountabilities of the Westminster system with the horizontal responsibilities of government out toward communities. But there is also a tension between attempting to pursue the most immediately efficient practices on the one hand and, on the other, spending the required resources to gain trust and collaboration over what can be lengthy periods of time with the aim of achieving more effective and long-term outcomes.

Moving in the direction of a more participatory governance framework will require careful management - governments will have to build new structures and ways of working. They will need to develop new skills, new capacities with new and different types of relationships and interactions. Into the future, at least in the case of indigenous issues, we can expect participatory governance and partnering relationships to become mainstream activities for governments and their officials, no longer something to be dabbled in on the side.

* First published in the Public Sector Informant (Canberra Times), this article is an edited version of a forthcoming Issues Paper on Participatory Governance for the University of Canberra's ARC Project on Corporate Governance in the Public Sector: an Evaluation of its Tensions, Gaps and Potential. The author is alone responsible for any views or errors in this paper.

REFERENCES

Australian Public Service Commission (2007), Tackling Wicked Problems: a Public Policy Perspective, Commonwealth Government

Cavaye Jim (2004) "Governance and Community Engagement: The Australian Experience", in Lovan, RW, Murray, M and Shaffer, R (eds), Participatory Governance, Ashgate, England.

Head Brian (2006) "Network-Based Governance - How Effective?". Paper delivered at Governments and Communities Conference, Centre for Public Policy, University of Melbourne, September.

Management Advisory Committee (MAC) (2004) Connecting Government: Whole of Government Responses to Australian Priority Challenges, Commonwealth of Australia.

Morgan Disney Associates (2006) Synopsis Review of the COAG Trial Evaluations, Report to the Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination (OIPC), November.