{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021557918942224776, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.578449905482041, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Debate: Focusing on programme implementation for improved accountability and results

Raising the bar Programme implementation has attracted academic and other attention periodically over many decades. Nevertheless, there would seem to be inadequate accountability for ensuring that implementation is economic, efficient and effective in order to provide confidence that the programme will achieve the results required. Although there have been initiatives taken over the years to address the problem, their effectiveness is questionable, at least in relation to major programmes having a significant impact on the community. My observations on this issue relate mainly to the Australian situation, but do raise questions about similar occurrences in other countries, such as Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the USA. The debating point is whether parliamentary examination during policy implementation would enhance accountability; facilitate early remedial action of a policy and/ or administrative nature; and result in better programme outcomes. Given the experiences in recent years in Australia, involving billions of dollars in major programmes, something significant and credible needs to be done to enhance public confidence in government and in the public sector generally. Most governments have adopted the requirement for the provision of programme performance information (measurement). Labels such as ‘results management’, ‘making the managers manage’, ‘performance management’ and ‘citizen involvement/ participation’ stressed the requirement for greater accountability for both programme processes and outcomes. Review processes, such as the UK government’s Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit (PMDU) and Office of Government Commerce (OGC) ‘Gateway’ product, emulated in various ways in some state and federal governments in Australia, have focused on programme delivery, or at least important aspects of it. The independent peer reviews conducted by the OGC show they provided significant performance improvement and savings. It has been claimed that the development of a Cabinet Implementation Unit in the Australian government was due, at least in part, to the disinterest of the finance department in programme management, implementation and programme evaluation at the time. There had undoubtedly been cessation of programme effectiveness and programme evaluation reviews and requirements for departmental/ agency evaluation plans. However, there was also a suggestion that the then prime minister (Mr Howard) was exasperated with the time being taken to implement programmes and the large amount of money being spent for little or no apparent results. Such units do not appear to have been as successful in Australia as they have been in the UK, where they were much better resourced. At best, the apparent results have been mixed in Australia. There is very little transparency of any results. Similar reservations have been expressed about performance information which tends to be high level and broadly based, and may simply provide a distorted picture of the reality of what is actually being achieved at various points in time. Only limited information is made available on ‘intermediate outcomes’, i.e. short-term performance measures, which would at least indicate what progress is being made on programme implementation. There is clearly some way to go before published performance information is generally considered useful for accountability purposes.