network governance and public participation in policy-making: federal community cabinets in...

The Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 6–19 doi:10.1111/j.1467-8500.2012.00753.x

RESEARCH AND EVALUATION

Network Governance and Public Participation inPolicy-Making: Federal Community Cabinets inAustralia

Chris LewisAustralian Catholic University

David MarshAustralian National University

The Australian Labor Party’s (ALP) 2007 Policy Platform asserted ‘Labor will pursue newand innovative measures designed to foster greater participation and engagement of theAustralian population in the political process’ (Manwaring 2010). As such they seemedto have a clear commitment to a more participatory form of democracy. This commitmentappeared to be reflected in two initiatives they introduced in power: the 2020 Summit (on thissee Fawcett, Manwaring and Marsh 2011) and federal community cabinets. More broadlyit could be argued that Labor were following a trend identified internationally as a movefrom government to governance, more specifically to ‘network governance’ (Rhodes 1997)in which governments encouraged greater participation in policy-making, recognising thatgovernments could at best steer, not row. Indeed, as Marinetto contends (2003: 593), thisidea has taken on a ‘semblance of orthodoxy’ in discussions of public policy.

Key words: Community consultation, community cabinets, Rudd government

In this article we examine the operation of fed-eral community cabinets, one of the major ini-tiatives taken by the Rudd government designedto deliver on this platform promise. Our aim isto assess both the extent to which this initia-tive marked a genuine attempt to engage thecommunity in policy making and more broadlywhether it reflected a move towards networkgovernance and away from more traditional hi-erarchical forms of government.

Obviously this article cannot analyse all is-sues discussed at the 24 community cabinetmeetings under the Rudd government. Ratherwe focus on two important issues frequentlydiscussed at these meetings: housing; and dis-ability services. However we begin with a briefdiscussion of participatory and network gover-

nance which as we shall see are related, but toa significant extent different, ideas.

Participatory and Network Governance

Both participatory and network governanceideas focus on the relationship between govern-ment and broader civil society and both havenormative and empirical aspects. The litera-ture on participatory governance is stronglynormative with authors arguing for a thick,rather than thin, notion of citizenship1, but alsosuggesting that a more participatory form ofdemocracy leads to more effective and bet-ter policy-making (in relation to Australia seeCavaye 2004; Reddel and Woolcock 2004;

C© 2012 The AuthorsAustralian Journal of Public Administration C© 2012 National Council of the Institute of Public Administration Australia

Lewis and Marsh 7

Edwards 2002; in relation to the UK seeAtkinson 2000; Geddes 2000). However someauthors increasingly also argue that a move to-wards a more participatory form of decision-making is an empirical reality in Australia,as well as a normative preference (see Cavaye2004; Reddel and Woolcock 2004).

The literature on network governance is morevoluminous. Here Rhodes (1997), among manyothers, distinguishes between three modes ofgovernance: hierarchy; markets; and networks,arguing that networks have become the dom-inant mode. Newman succinctly outlines thisview (2005: 11):

It is argued that the capacity of governmentsto control events within the nation state hasbeen influenced by the flow of power away fromtraditional government institutions, upwards totransnational bodies and downwards to regionsand sub-regions. The old mechanisms of ‘controlthrough hierarchy’, it is suggested, have been su-perseded by the rise of markets during the 1980sand early 1990s, and by the increasing impor-tance of networks and partnerships from the mid-1990s onwards.

However here the emphasis is much less on theinvolvement of citizens; rather it is upon thebroadening of the policy process to incorporatemore experts, from various levels of govern-ment and from the private and voluntary sec-tors (Bang 2005 terms them ‘expert citizens’).As such the link between a putative move to-wards a more participatory form of democracyand network governance is problematic. Indeedeven within the literature on network gover-nance there is a tension between those who seeit as largely involving experts and those whosee it as more broadly participatory. We shallconsider both of these views in our reflectionon the operation of the community cabinets inthe conclusion.

We pose two empirical questions in this arti-cle: (i) who is involved in the federal commu-nity cabinets and how Do They operate? and (ii)what, if any, influence have they had on publicpolicy? However we begin with a brief consid-eration of the origins of community cabinets.

The Origin of Community Cabinets:Queensland and Beyond

Community Cabinets in the Australian States

Community cabinet meetings were first intro-duced by the Queensland Beattie Labor govern-ment in 1998 (see Reddel and Woolcock 2004)in the context of the rise of One Nation andits populist claim that politicians had stoppedlistening and were out of touch with citizens(Bishop 2005). They were held monthly andinvolved ministers visiting various locations toreceive delegations and meet with anyone whoattended to discuss local issues.

To date there have been over 130 meetingsin Queensland. One overview of their opera-tion (Reddel and Woolcock 2004: 79) claimsthat ‘the Community Cabinet process has ex-tended the reach of executive government toQueensland citizens.’ In addition there is someevidence (Barry 2010) that attendance hasgrown, rather than declined; so, the numberof deputations to ministers at the Roma meet-ing in July 2010 was 129, twice the numberat the previous meeting in Roma a decade be-fore (Barry 2010).2 However at the same timeBarry noted that the delegations are most usu-ally from commercial interests and participa-tion is very limited, despite the number of del-egations growing. As we will see these issuesrecur at the federal level.

It is also worth emphasising that some ofthe Queensland meetings have been fiery. Atthe first Roma meeting in March 2000 PremierBeattie was confronted by about 1500 angryfarmers (O’Malley 2000), while at Beenleigh inAugust 2000 he was given a petition signed byover 12,000 people protesting about a plannedcableway through the Springbrook NationalPark (Franklin 2000). Indeed at the end of2005 one journalist reporting on a Decem-ber meeting at Thursday Island remarked thatit provided some relief for the 16 attendingministers, unlike ‘some fiery exchanges seenacross Queensland in the past 12 months’(Chalmers 2005).

Community cabinets also became a regu-lar feature of government in South Australia


8 Network Governance and Public Participation March 2012

after 2001 (Wheatley 2001), Victoria from2003 and New South Wales after 2007; all,unsurprisingly, established by Labor govern-ments. All the governments claim that the com-munity cabinets extend consultation and par-ticipation. Typically the Annual Report of theNSW Department of Premier and Cabinet as-serts that ‘Community Cabinet visits give localcommunity groups and individuals an oppor-tunity to discuss local issues directly with thePremier, Ministers and senior leaders of thepublic service’ (NSW DPC: 22).

The Introduction of Federal CommunityCabinet Meetings

Rudd’s experience with community cabinetsin Queensland was probably a factor in theirintroduction at Federal level shortly after La-bor came to power in 2007. However theidea had been raised earlier by Labor when,in 2004, the then Labor Opposition Leader,Mark Latham committed a Labor federal gov-ernment, if elected, to introducing commu-nity cabinet meetings. Latham argued that theAustralian people should ‘have face-to-facecontact with the people who make the deci-sions’ (Cole 2004).

When the first community cabinet meetingwas held in January 2008 the Rudd Laborgovernment claimed that ‘Community Cabi-net meetings are part of the Prime Minister’scommitment to ensure close consultation withthe Australian people on the things that con-cern them, whether they are national or localmatters’ (PMC 2010). Echoing this theme atthis first meeting in Perth, which was attendedby 600 people, Rudd asserted that ministershad come to listen, arguing that governmentsthat did not remain in touch were not worth‘a pinch of salt’ (The Age 22 January 2008).Along with the 2020 Summit held on 19–20 April 2008, which was deemed as an earlyexample of Rudd’s attempt to evaluate ‘variousways to gather voices outside the usual chan-nels’ (Davis 2008: 379), the community cabinetinitiative heralded new possibilities for a moreparticipatory form of democracy. Subsequentlya total of 24 federal community cabinets wereheld before the 2010 election.3

Who Is Involved in the Federal CommunityCabinet Meetings and How Do TheyOperate?

Federal community cabinet meetings closelyfollow the Queensland model. They are held,with few exceptions, every month. All avail-able cabinet ministers are expected to attendand there has to be a very good reason for non-attendance. Of the 24 meetings held before the2010 Election six were in New South Wales,four each in Western Australia and Queensland,three each in Victoria, South Australia andTasmania and one in the Northern Territory.

Anyone can attend the cabinet meeting butattendees have to register beforehand. There isan initial public forum, timetabled for an hour,where the Prime Minister fields questions fromthe audience, referring some to the relevantcabinet minister. Subsequently there are meet-ings between individual attendees or groups(limited to five individuals) and individual min-isters. Such meetings have to be requested andconfirmed in advance and last 10 minutes. Un-surprisingly quite often such meetings are re-quested by representatives of organised groups.

When they request a meeting attendees areasked to outline the topic they wish to discuss.This information is provided to federal min-isters’ offices, and departments provide briefsfor the minister on the topic for the meetings.The information in all individuals’ applicationforms is also provided to federal police and se-curity agencies and to relevant state or territorypolice in order to carry out security checks. It isalso important to note that while the media canattend the public forum, they have no access tothe one-on-one meetings.

It is interesting that the PM&C doesn’t un-dertake surveys of attendees to discover theirviews of the community cabinets. When askedabout this issue in a question in the Senatein February 2010 (Senate 2010 Questions onnotice 24–31) Miss Beauchamp, then DeputySecretary of the PM&C, stated ‘the depart-ment does not undertake any formal processto gauge attendees’ satisfaction with Commu-nity Cabinet’, although ‘members of the pub-lic continue to express their appreciation forthe opportunity to interact with the Australian


Lewis and Marsh 9

Government at first hand in their own com-munities’. Neither does the PM&C collect in-formation about the number of attendees andpeople who request one-on-one meetings withministers who represent organisations and busi-nesses. Beauchamp argues that to collect suchinformation would require both the consent ofthe individuals involved and ‘an unreasonablediversion of the department’s resources’, giventhere have been ‘over 1200 one-on-one meet-ings to date’.

When asked who decides who meets gov-ernment ministers at meetings Beauchamp re-sponded that the Community Cabinet secre-tariat ‘passes them to the relevant minister’soffice, and the ministers’ offices advise thesecretariat of which meeting requests will betaken up.’ However she acknowledged that thedetails of attendees are entered into a data basemaintained by the Community Cabinet Secre-tariat, with ‘access to the data base’ restrictedto seven members of staff in the secretariat.4

It has been argued (Saville 2010) ‘that mostof the venues for Community Cabinet meet-ings were in seats which had a majority of lessthan 5 per cent on a two-party preferred basisafter the 2007 election’. However analysis ofelectorate data does not support this contention.Table 1 indicates that only ten of the 24 commu-nity cabinet meetings were held in electorateswhere the sitting member had a margin of lessthan 5 per cent. Of these six were in majorcities, where the marginality of the particularconstituency in which the meeting is held isprobably less important, given the meeting willalso attract attendees from neighbouring con-stituencies. Only six meetings occurred in re-gional areas within electorates where the sittingmember had a majority of less than 5 per cent.

Peatling (2008) writes that impressions of thefirst community cabinet meeting are interestingand give a flavour of the process:

Part parent-teacher interview, part political rallyand part old-time revivalist meeting, the event

Table 1. Community Cabinet Meetings (in chronological order), Electorates and Marginality at 2007Federal Election.

Meeting Electorate Margin Meeting Electorate Margin

Canning Vale, Perth Tangney 8.7%Liberal

Beenleigh, QLD Forde 2.9% ALP

Narangba, QLD Longman 3.6% ALP Elizabeth,Adelaide & rural

Wakefield 6.6%Liberals

Penrith, Sydney Lindsay 6.8% ALP Port Macquarie,NSW

Lyne 8.6%Nationals

Mackay, QLD Dawson 3.2% ALP Geraldton, WA O’Connor(Durackafter2007)

16.6%Liberals

Yirrkala, NT Lingiari 11.2% ALP Hobart, Tasmania Denison 15.6% ALPHallett Cove, Adelaide Kingston 4.4% ALP Bathurst, NSW Calare 12.1%

NationalsNewcastle, NSW Newcastle 15.9% ALP Townsville, QLD Herbert 0.2%

LiberalsLaunceston, Tasmania Bass 1.0% ALP Adelaide, SA Adelaide 8.5% ALPCorio, Geelong Corio 8.9% ALP Ballarat, Victoria Ballarat 8.1% ALPCampbelltown, Sydney Macarthur 0.7%

LiberalsEpping, Sydney Bennelong 1.4% ALP

Ballajura, Perth Cowan 1.7% ALP Burnie, Tasmania Braddon 1.4% ALPEmerald, Melbourne Casey 5.9%

Liberals;Perth, WA Perth 8.9% ALP

La Trobe 0.5%Liberals

Source: Community Cabinet. 2010. ABC 2007.



boasted an hour-long general question-and-answer session where people selected to attendcould ask questions.

Some people read their questions to make surethey didn’t miss anything; others were clearabout what to ask. Health, home ownership,the environment and whether the Chinese gov-ernment was harvesting the organs of FalunGong supporters were all on people’s minds.The Ministers sat at individual desks and con-ducted six 10-minute interviews. If they or theirstaff or public servants could not answer theypromised to send the information to the personas quickly as possible.

What, if Any, Influence Have CommunityCabinets Had on Public Policy?

Peatling’s (2008) impressions of the first com-munity cabinet meeting were broadly positive.However the question of influence is crucial.How much influence have community cabinetmeetings had in terms of influencing the Ruddgovernment’s policies? Of course we recognisethat measuring influence is one of the mostdifficult problems in social science. Here wefocus upon two of the most discussed issues atcommunity cabinet meetings, home ownershipand disability services, examining the govern-ment’s policy commitments when they came topower – that is prior to the holding of any com-munity cabinets – and later in their first term toattempt to assess whether the discussions in thecommunity cabinets could have had any effecton policy change.

Table 2 identifies the main policy announce-ment made by Labor in relation to housing anddisability service in the run-up to the 2007 gen-eral election and during its first term. Bothissues are important for obvious reasons. Inrelation to housing there was significant pub-lic concern about home affordability for firsthome buyers, increasing rents and accommo-dation for the homeless. While the overallhome ownership rate has remained fairly sta-ble over recent decades (at about 70 per cent),between 1991 and 2008 the average loan forfirst home buyers increased from $96,100 to$215,1005 (ABS 2008). Further the Australian

Institute of Health and Welfare revealed thatmore than 176,000 households were waitingfor public housing (Curry 2008). At the sametime both the ABS and the Australian Insti-tute of Health and Welfare estimated that thenumber of homeless remained just over100,000 between 2001 and 2006 (Lunn 2009a).

The provision of disability services is an is-sue which, although it affects a minority ofAustralians, provides a test of a modern wel-fare state as an indicator of how committeda government and society is to all people inneed. An Australian Institute of Health andWelfare report indicated the number of peopleutilising disability support services increasedfrom 188,000 to 245,700 between 2003–04 and2007–08 (a 31 per cent increase) yet total gov-ernment spending on specialist disability ser-vices increased in real terms by just 22 per cent(AIHW 2009).

Home Ownership

Most of the government’s policies on this is-sue were announced early in its term althoughjust three community cabinets had been heldby June 2008. In February 2008 the govern-ment acted upon its pre-election commitmentby establishing a First Home Savings Accountsto assist first-home buyers to save a deposit. InMay 2008 it launched a $623 million fund toboost the supply of rental housing for poorerhouseholds to build an extra 50,000 homes. Toencourage cheaper private rentals large institu-tional property investors would be offered sig-nificant incentives (Barrymore 2008). At the2007 election Labor had promised: a dedicatedhousing minister; first home saver accounts;a $600 million National Rental AffordabilityScheme; and a $500 million Housing Afford-ability Fund (Irvine 2009b).

In fact, with the global financial crisis (GFC)leading to lower private sector activity bylate-2008, Rudd’s ministers utilised communitycabinet meetings in late 2008 and early 2009 topromote government policy. The $10.4 billionstimulus package (announced on 14 October2008) included help for housing constructionthrough the trebling of the first-home own-ers’ grant from $7,000 to $21,000 for newly


Lewis and Marsh 11

Table 2. The Rudd Labor Government’s Policy Announcements on Housing and Disability Services.

Date Housing Date Disability Services

Prior to 2007federal election

Labor promises: dedicatedhousing minister;first-home saveraccounts; $600 millionfor NationalRentalAffordabilityScheme; $500 millionfor HousingAffordability Fund; andto halve homelessnessby 2020.

April 2008 The Disability InvestmentGroup commissioned toinvestigate funding forthe sector

December 2007 Labor commits$150 million over fiveyears to build 600additional crisis homesfor homeless people

May 2008 Extra $1.9 billion for newCommonwealth/State/Territoryagreement;(bringing totalassistance fromAustralian Governmentfor period to$5.3 billion)

February 2008 First Home SavingsAccounts to assistfirst-home buyers tosave a deposit.

July 2008 Ratification of UNConvention on theRights of Persons withDisabilities

May 2008 $623 million fund toincrease rental housingsupply for poorhouseholds, to building50,000 extra homes

23 November 2009 The ProductivityCommission toinvestigate thefeasibility of newapproaches to fundingand deliveringlong-term disabilitycare and support

December 2008 Labor pledges $1.2 billionover four years toreduce homelessness,with the States agreeingto match Federalfunding

Sources: Various Australian newspapers (Factiva database).

constructed homes, while the level for estab-lished properties was doubled to $14,000. At aGeelong community cabinet meeting (7 De-cember 2008) Rudd noted that helping firsthome buyers supported the housing industry(and jobs). At the Ballajura meeting (22 April2009) he claimed that the government hadprovided $62.5 million for 4,200 first homeowners in Western Australia between Octo-ber 2008 and February 2009. Rudd also of-ten highlighted how the boom in Australia’shousing sector and housing construction con-

trasted with ‘the devastation in developingeconomies elsewhere in the world’ (at Ballajura22 April 2009 and Beenleigh, Queensland30 June 2009). Similarly at Elizabeth, SouthAustralia (28 July 2009) he argued that suchassistance to help first home buyers was essen-tial to prevent retail sales from collapsing andachieve positive economic growth.

Promotion of government policies was alsoevident after the announcement in February2009 that the government would provide$6.6 billion to build 20,000 new social housing



dwellings and 802 new defence homes (Hudson2009). Rudd noted at the Townsville, Queens-land meeting (8 December 2009) that the gov-ernment had provided $84.9 million to createmore affordable housing in North Queenslandand that such spending was helping small busi-nesses to survive and employ apprentices. Sim-ilarly at the Hobart meeting (13 October 2009),when asked about social housing in Tasmania,Jenny Macklin, Minister for Families, Housing,Community Services and Indigenous Affairsspoke of the $5 billion invested in additionalsocial housing and asserted that Tasmania ‘isgetting its fair share’.

It is interesting that, by increasing the firsthome buyers grant in response to the GFC, thegovernment went against its policy position inopposition. In opposition, Labor had hosted aHousing Affordability Summit with about 150housing experts. The unanimous opinion ofthe experts was that increasing the first-homeowners’ grant would simply result in higherhouse prices – Labor accepted that view (Irvine2009b). However by April 2009 signs of aworsening housing situation were clear, despitethe fact that Australia was one of only threeadvanced economies (the others were SouthKorea and Singapore) to record positive growthin the previous year. The September 2009quarter figures showed that construction sec-tor grew 2.2 per cent and residential invest-ment by 5.8 per cent (Saulwick 2009b). How-ever the housing crisis got worse for rentersand aspiring first home buyers. Indeed Home-Start, which had provided 56,000 loans to SouthAustralians since 1989, noted that while in the1990s 40 per cent of its borrowers were on Cen-trelink payments they had disappeared (Martin2009). At the same time while it was predictedthat 220,000 First Home Saver accounts wouldbe opened in its first year there were just 13,946by 30 June 2009 (Chancellor 21 Nov 2009).In addition work had started on only 2416 so-cial housing dwellings by February 2010, with19,300 remaining to be built (Saulwick 2010).

What is more, many corporations were tak-ing advantage of the government’s nationalrental affordability scheme which allowed in-vestors a tax break of $8000 per year perdwelling, for a decade, at a time when rental va-

cancy rates in Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide andDarwin were only two per cent (Franklin 2008).In this context the Managing Director of SQMResearch, Louis Christopher warned that thescheme was contributing to spiralling houseprices under $500,000, making home purchasemore expensive yet benefiting investors (Irvine2009a: 5). Craig James, Chief Economist atCommSec also noted that the housing mar-ket needed many more investors and develop-ers as a housing shortage and surge in buy-ing interest would only result in higher prices(Cummins 2009). Before the 2007 election La-bor had also promised to halve homelessnessby 2020. In December 2007 it committed $150million over five years to build up to 600 addi-tional crisis homes for homeless people (Curry2008) and in December 2008 pledged $1.2 bil-lion over four years to reduce homelessness,with the states agreeing to match Federal fund-ing (Lunn 2009a). However by 2010 the gov-ernment conceded that the homelessness hadincreased with Rhonda Gregory, a homelessconsultant for the Salvation Army emphasis-ing that homelessness had increased becauseof the housing shortage (Denholm 2010).

The struggle for greater resources to assisthousing was still evident during the 2010 fed-eral election campaign. With Julia Gillard re-placing Kevin Rudd as the Labor leader inJune 2010, Labor’s new $200 million Build-ing Better Regional Cities plan to deliver15,000 homes in regional cities over three yearswas attacked for taking resources from otherschemes. About $140 million came from thealready established National Rental Affordabil-ity Scheme, the scheme announced in 2007 todeliver 50,000 low-cost rental homes by 2012.With just 1700 homes built by May 2010, andalthough the scheme was on track to deliver8000 homes by mid-2011, Labor now put theNational Rental Affordability Scheme dead-line back from 2012 to 2014. The remaining$60 million came from the other establishedscheme, the Housing Affordability Fund, set upto deliver cheaper homes by funding infrastruc-ture for new housing developments for projectsanywhere in Australia (Berkovic 2010).

Overall we would argue that in this areathe community cabinets were less concerned


Lewis and Marsh 13

with listening to the concerns of people abouthousing than with promoting the government’spolicy positions, although its policy positiondid change in response to the GFC and a deep-ening housing crisis. There is little evidenceto suggest that the meetings made much dif-ference as the Rudd government most oftenused them to promote their existing housingpolicies.

Disability Services

Policies to assist Australians with disabilitieswere announced by the Rudd government earlyin its term although there was ongoing pressurefor further assistance. In July 2008 the govern-ment ratified the UN Convention on the Rightsof Persons with Disabilities. More specificallyin May 2008 the government announced anextra $1.9 billion for a new Commonwealth-State-Territory agreement to help fund 2,300additional supported-accommodation places, asimilar number of home-support packages and10,000 respite places (The Advertiser May 312008). The new National Disability Agreement(2009–2013) between the Commonwealth andthe states and territories meant that theAustralian government would contribute$5.3 billion to State and Territory-run disabil-ity services over the next five years. This in-cluded an extra $408 million to fund servicesand reforms to the disability services system.The Commonwealth’s contribution was to beindexed at more than six per cent over the life ofthe five-year agreement, compared with a pre-vious arrangement of 1.8 percent (Lunn 2008).

There was no doubt that the early Labor gov-ernment measures were appreciated and thiswas reflected in some comments at the commu-nity cabinets. A mother of an autistic daugh-ter at the Beenleigh, Queensland meeting ac-knowledged ‘the tremendous things that havehappened under this government in the disabil-ity employment sector and in disability advo-cacy. Bill Shorten is the breath of fresh air thathas been missing for a long time’. However notall shared this view on Shorten (see ABC 2008).

The government clearly promoted its poli-cies at many community cabinet meetings anda few examples will suffice to make this point.

At Launceston (5 November 2008) the govern-ment again promoted its stimulus package bynoting how 1700 married disability pensionerswould receive $2,100 per couple, with 2,800single disability pensioners receiving $1,400.At Geelong (7 Dec 2008) and Townsville(8 Dec 2009) Rudd again spoke of the assis-tance that one-off payments had given carersand people with disabilities.

Similarly at Ballajura, Western Australia theHealth Minister, Nicola Roxon emphasised La-bor’s efforts since the election to establish someearly childhood centres to ‘support childrenvery early in their life with autism’ and ar-gued that ‘it’s new for the federal government tohave taken any sort of steps’. At Elizabeth, BillShorten, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabil-ities and Children’s Services was asked whatthe Commonwealth was doing in regards to ac-cessibility for people with disabilities. He notedthat some of the social housing being built ‘willbe governed under the principals of universaldesign’, emphasised that the Howard govern-ment did nothing after 2004 and claimed ‘thatthere is a lot more to be done but I would saythat the Rudd government has put issues of ac-cess to the physical premises well and truly onthe map’.

As was the case in relation to housing issues,and despite extra spending on disability ser-vices, community cabinet meetings did not ap-pear to make any substantive difference despiteconcern about disability services being raisedat a number of meetings from April to Novem-ber 2009 (Community Cabinet 2010). Here thefate of the proposal for a national disabilityinsurance scheme for Australia is particularlyrevealing.

The Disability Investment Group (DIG),established by the Rudd government inApril 2008, was not only intended to encouragethe private sector to play a greater role in thedisability sector (Shorten 2008) but also calledfor major structural reform ‘to move the careand support for people with disabilities out ofthe dark ages and into the 21st century’, withsupport for a no-fault, government-funded, na-tional disability insurance scheme funded bygeneral revenue or a Medicare-style levy (Lunn2009c).



However the government’s response was de-layed until November 2009 when it instructedthe Productivity Commission to:

undertake a feasibility study into long-termcare and support for people with disability inAustralia, including investigating the feasibilityfor a no-fault social insurance scheme to coverpeople’s disability and mental service needs (butonly) if it proves feasible (and) the economy givesus the means to afford them (Swan 2009).

The Commission was due to report in July 2011(PC 2010) and in effect the issue was ‘puton the backburner’6 despite the fact that thecost of just maintaining disability services hasbeen rising by five per cent more than inflation(Steketee 2009) and the Australian Institute ofHealth and Welfare biennial report predicts thatby 2030 almost 2.3 million Australians, com-pared with 1.5 million today, will be living witha severe disability (Lunn 2009b).

By May 2009 even the much more generous6 per cent indexation rate for the five-year na-tional disabilities agreement had been reducedto 5 per cent, meaning that $52 million wasremoved from the scheme (Ryan 2009).

Unsurprisingly it appears that election cam-paigns can be more effective than communitycabinets in encouraging greater government ac-tion on such key issues. This was clear duringthe 2010 election when targeted campaigningled to increasing publicity about mental healthand both major political parties committed toincreasing funding in this area. A crucial cata-lyst here was the resignation of John Mendoza,Chairman of the National Advisory Council onMental Health in June 2010 at a time when60 mental health experts and organisa-tions were pressuring the government formore action. In a letter to Health Minis-ter Nicola Roxon, Mendoza stated that itwas ‘clear . . . you have lost confidence inthe council’, appointed only two years pre-viously. Days earlier a report via a La-bor source suggested that Finance MinisterLindsay Tanner had revealed privately thatthere was ‘no money’ left for further spend-ing on mental, dental or aged-care services.A spokeswoman for Tanner denied this onJune 20, while a spokeswoman for Roxon

also rejected the criticism saying that ‘whenit comes to mental health, more will need to bedone in the second term of a Rudd government’(Creswell 2010).

The campaign for greater funding in thisarea emphasized that seven Australians com-mit suicide per day (from about 180 attempts),that mental health only receives 6 percent ofhealthcare funding despite representing at least13 percent of the healthcare burden and thata GetUp! poll had found that 83 percent ofAustralians were in favour of investing $500 min mental health immediately (Mendoza 2010).

Against this background the Coalition leaderTony Abbott announced on 30 June 2010 thatit would spend $1.5 billion on mental healthservices, funding 20 early psychosis interven-tion centres, 800 more mental health beds and60 additional ‘headspace’ centres as one-stopvenues for young people at risk of mental ill-ness (Metherell 2010a). The Coalition plannedto offset this spending by axing the govern-ment’s proposals to boost after-hours doctors’services, create 23 GP super-clinics and provide$466 million for the development of electronichealth services.

In response Labor decided to inject $277 mil-lion to boost suicide-prevention measures afterGillard cast a fresh eye over the government’shealth reforms (Metherell 2010b). Althoughnot matching the Coalition on mental health,Gillard announced the first-ever National Dis-ability Strategy (29 July 2009) including: up to$12,000 for early intervention services for eachchild prior to his/her seventh birthday (a max-imum of $6,000 to be spent in each financialyear); a Medicare rebate for the treatment andmanagement of each diagnosed child under theage of 13, to cover up to four allied health diag-nostic services; and up to 20 allied health treat-ment services. In addition extra funding wouldbe available to create more than 300 supportedaccommodation places for those being lookedafter by older carers (Gillard 2010).

Why Was the Influence of CommunityCabinet Meetings Limited?

In part the influence of federal community cab-inets may have been limited because of the


Lewis and Marsh 15

GFC. One might suggest that greater resourceswould have been directed to housing and dis-ability services during 2008 and 2009 if theglobal financial crisis had not occurred. WayneSwan certainly suggested that when he arguedin 2009 ‘as our economy recovers, and coopera-tion between the Commonwealth and the statesand territories delivers better services, we aregoing to see big improvements in the help wegive to people with disabilities and mental ill-nesses’ (Swan 2009). Of course it remains tobe seen just how extensive future spending onimportant social welfare issues will be, giventhe GFC and the Gillard government’s regu-lar commitment to return the Commonwealthbudget to surplus in 2013 (Dunlevy 2010).

In our view the reason for the limitedinfluence of the community cabinets lieselsewhere.7 The community cabinets wereused by the government in two ways. Firstly,as indicated, initiatives like this and the 2020Summit allowed the government to distanceitself from the Howard government by claimingit would pursue ‘new and innovative measuresdesigned to foster greater participation andengagement of the Australian population in thepolitical process’ (ALP 2007 Policy Platform).This was particularly important as Labor wasbroadly committed to continuing the Coali-tion’s economic policy. Secondly, in broadterms, the government used the communitycabinets as a PR exercise: ‘The government islistening and coming to a location near you’.Finally, and we would suggest importantly,while the community cabinets didn’t initiateany policy they provided a forum in which theRudd government could promote its policies –and it did so consistently.

Conclusion

Here we return to the broader questions raisedin the introduction. It needs emphasising thatmany scholars do not accept the blanket claimabout the rise of network governance. In par-ticular it is argued that the distinction betweengovernment, based on hierarchy and markets,and governance, based on networks, creates adualism (an either/or), when it is better seenas a duality (involving an interactive and it-

erative relationship between the two). Fromthis perspective governments oversee the var-ious modes of governance through a processof meta-governance; they get involved in re-designing markets, in constitutional changeand the judical re-regulation of organisationalforms and objectives, in organising the condi-tions for self-organisation (Jessop 2004: 70–1).

Fawcett (2009: 24) contends that while hi-erarchies, markets and networks are distinctmodes of government, hierarchy and controlremain:

an important, if not the most important, form ofcoordination and governance, whether it is ac-tively imposed on others from above or used asa latent threat to ensure compliance. This is be-cause the state is typically understood to haveretained its capacity to intervene in the activitiesof self-regulating markets and networks.

As such, meta-governance involves attemptsby the state to coordinate modes of gover-nance. For Jessop (2004: 65) these ‘differentforms of coordination (markets, hierarchies,networks, and solidarities), and the differentforms of self-organisation characteristic of gov-ernance, take place in the shadow of hierarchy’.In our view, in Westminster systems particu-larly, one aspect of such meta-governance isthe use of the discourse of network governanceand increased participation in the policy mak-ing process in order to mask the continued roleof hierarchy and, indeed, help legitimise de-cisions that emanate from a political systemunderpinned by a hierarchical conception ofdemocracy.

The federal community cabinet initiativedoes not seem to mark a turn towards a moreparticipatory mode of governance, despite theRudd government’s rhetoric. We would arguethat community cabinets represent examplesof meta-governance in action. The Rudd gov-ernment used the discourse/narrative of net-work governance and increased participation.But this masked the continued role of hierar-chy and helped to legitimise decisions takenwithin what remains essentially a Westminstersystem underpinned by a top-down conceptionof democracy; which means that network gov-ernance occurs in the ‘shadow of hierarchy’.



Endnotes

1. Here the question is: how active a concep-tualisation of citizenship is possible in con-temporary advanced liberal democracies? Athick conception of citizenship sees an activeparticipatory citizenry as both desirable andpossible.

2. In 2010 Premier Anna Bligh asserted that‘far from the community tiring of those sort ofevents, their enthusiasm and appetite for themare increasing’ (Barry 2010).

3. For a list see: <http://www.dpmc.gov.au/community_cabinet/meetings/index.cfm>.

4. It is interesting that Beauchamp admittedthat the list of names is not passed on to any-body for security checks. As Senator Fergusonsuggested to her: ‘If you said to me you neededthis list of names because you wanted to doa security check I could understand it. But Icannot understand why you would want to takethe names of people attending if you were notgoing to do a security check.’

5. In 2005–06 dollars.

6. However at the time of writing (August2011) this may be about to change – seeHerald Sun August 10 2011: URL <http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/gillard-government-backs-creation-of-disability-insurance-scheme/story-fn7×8me2–1226112405055>.

7. It is also worth pointing out that the com-munity cabinets were expensive. Chalmers(2009) estimates the cost of community cab-inets has blown out to about $3.5 million/yearwhile the Finance Department acknowledgedthat the PM&C spent $713,000 (excludingsalaries) on just nine community cabinet meet-ings after May 2009 (Senate 2010 Question onnotice 68).

References

AAP [Australian Associated Press]. 2010. ‘KevinRudd Holds Community Cabinet In Epping

High School.’ URL: <http://www.news.com.au/tnational/kevin-rudd-holds-community-cabinet-in-epping-high-school/story-e6frfkvr-1225854306773>. Accessed 18 Oct. 2011.

ABC [Australian Broadcasting Commission]. 2007.‘Electorate Results by State’. ABC ElectionsURL: <http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/guide/ling.htm>. Accessed 18. July2010.

ABC [Australian Broadcasting Commission].2008. Q&A. http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2349569.htm

ABS [Australian Bureau of Statistics]. 2008. 4102.0Australian Social Trends 2008. URL: <http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/4102.0Chapter9102008>. Accessed 24 Sept.2010.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW].2009. ‘Almost One Quarter Of A Million PeopleUsed Disability Services In 2007–08’. Mediarelease. 3 December. URL: <http://www.aihw.gov.au/mediacentre/2009/mr20091203.cfm>.Accessed 15 Nov. 2010.

Atkinson, R. 2000. ‘Combating Social Exclusionin Europe: The New Urban Policy Challenge.’Urban Studies 37(5/6):1037–69.

Australian Government. 2010. Budget Overview2010–11. URL: <http://www.budget.gov.au/2010–11/content/overview/html/overview_39.htm> Accessed 19 Sept. 2010.

Bang, H. 2005. ‘Among Everyday Makers and Ex-pert Citizens.’ In Remaking Governance: Peoples,Politics and the Public Sphere. Ed. J. Newman.Bristol: The Policy Press.

Barry, D. 2010. ‘Should Community Cabinets bepart of the furniture?’ Woolly Days. 5 August.URL: <http://nebuchadnezzarwoollyd.blogspot.com.au/2010/08/should-community-cabinets-be-part-of.html>. Accessed 18 Jan. 2012.

Barrymore, K. 2008. ‘A Budget To Build On.’ Her-ald Sun 19 May:29.

Berkovic, N. 2010. ‘PM Dips Into Rent Money ForPlans.’ The Australian 20 July. URL: <http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/pm-dips-into-rent-money-for-plans/story-fn59niix-1225894272206>. Accessed 19 Aug. 2011.

Beveridge, J. 2009. ‘House Price Rises A ReserveNightmare.’ Herald-Sun 30 July:59.

Bishop, P. and Davis, G. 2002. ‘MappingPublic Participation in Policy Choices.’Australian Journal of Public Administration61(1):14–29.

Bishop, P. 2005. ‘Working the Electorate.’ GriffithReview. URL: <http://www.griffithreview.com/


Lewis and Marsh 17

edition-3/115-essay/486-bishop3.html>. Acces-sed 19 Feb. 2010.

Callaghan, G. and Warne-Smith, D. 2009. ‘Riseof Rudd’s Sentinels Of Spin.’ The Australian6 June: 21.

Carson, L. 2008. ‘2020 Summit: Meetings in theFoothills.’ Australian Review of Public Affairs.URL: <http://www.australianreview.net/digest/2008/04/carson.html>. Accesssed 1 June 2010.

Cavaye, J.M. (2004) ‘Governance and CommunityEngagement – The Australian Experience.’ InParticipatory Governance: Planning, ConflictMediation and Public Decision-Making in CivilSociety. Eds. W.R. Lovan; M. Murray and R. Shaf-fer. Aldershot: Ashgate: 85–102. URL: <http://www.communitydevelopment.com.au/Documents/Goverance%20and%20Community%20Engagement%20-%20The%20Australian%20Experience.pdf>. Accessed 5 July 2010.

Chalmers, E. 2005. ‘Only heat On Cabinet MembersWas Weather.’ Courier-Mail 5 December:4.

Chalmers, E. 2009. ‘Cabinet proves a costly traveler.’The Courier Mail 20 May:10.

Chancellor, J. 2009. ‘First-time Buyers Take Ad-vantage Of Grants.’ Sydney Morning Herald,7 February:3.

Chancellor, J. 2009. ‘Public Shuns Government’sHome Saver Accounts.’ Sydney Morning Herald21 November:5.

Cogdon, K. 2009 ‘Gravy train starts to slow.’ Herald-Sun 23 May:6.

Cole, M. 2004. ‘Latham To Mark Public’s Words-MPs Will Have To Lift Game.’ Courier-Mail1 September:5.

Collett, J. 2009. ‘The Return Of Rental Property.’Sydney Morning Herald 8 July:4.

Community Cabinet. 2010. URL: <http://www.dpmc.gov.au/community_cabinet/meetings/index.cfm>. Accessed 6 Nov. 2010.

Craig, L. 2003. ‘Cabinet Cutting Services.’ AdelaideAdvertiser 16 April:8.

Cresswell. A. 2010. ‘Resignation Creates HealthCredibility Crisis For Labor.’ The Australian 21June:4.

Cummins, C. 2009. ‘First purchase grant gives mar-ket a fillip.’ Sydney Morning Herald 10 April:13.

Curry, D. 2008. ‘Tough Times For Those OnStreets.’ Canberra Times 29 January:5.

Daley, P.2009. ‘Little More Than One-Sided Chat.’Sun Herald 24 May:14.

Danny, J. and Saulwick, J. 2009. ‘Banks SqueezeHome Owners To Save Profits.’ Sydney MorningHerald 30 April:1.

Davis, G. 1999. ‘Engage The People, Or Beware.’ DrGlyn Davis’s Address to Brisbane Institute. Citedextract. Courier-Mail 17 June.

Davis, G. 2008. ‘One Big Conversation: TheAustralian 2020 Summit.’ Australian Journal ofPublic Administration 67(4): 379–89.

Davis, M. 2009. ‘Bigger Grants Extended In MoveTo Prop Up Housing.’ Sydney Morning Herald13 May:9.

Denholm, M. 2010. ‘Rudd Losing The Fight OnHomeless.’ The Australian 2 January:1.

Dent, R. 2008. ‘Disability Cover Next, But It Won’tCost Arm And A Leg.’ The Age 23 April:7.

Dunkerley, S. 2009. ‘Disability Insurance SchemeNeeded: AMA.’ The Age 7 October. URL:<http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/disability-insurance-scheme-needed-ama-20091007-gmzv.html>. Accessed 19 Jan.2010.

Dunlevy, S. 2010. ‘Gillard Says No IfsOr Buts: Budget Will Be Back In Sur-plus By 2013 If Labor Is Re-Elected.’The Courier-Mail August 17. URL:<http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/gillard-says-no-ifs-or-buts-budget-will-be-back-in-surplus-by-2013-if-labor-is-re-elected/story-fn5z3z83–1225906463644>. Accessed 18 Oct.2011.

DPMC [Department of the Prime Minister and Cab-inet]. ‘Community Cabinet’. URL: <http://www.dpmc.gov.au/community_cabinet/index.cfm>.Accessed 16 Oct. 2010.

Edwards, M. 2002. ‘Participatory Governance intothe Future: Roles of the Government and Com-munity Sectors.’ Australian Journal of Public Ad-ministration 60(3): 78–88.

Fawcett, P. 2009. Government, Governance andMetagovernance in the British Core Executive.Unpublished PhD Thesis, The University ofBirmingham.

Fawcett, P., Manwaring, R., and Marsh, D. 2011.‘Network Governance and the 2020 Sum-mit.’ Australian Journal of Political Science46(4):651–67.

Franklin, M. 2000. ‘Public Outraged By CablewayBid.’ Courier-Mail 7 August:4.

Franklin, M. 2008. ‘Tax Deal Rush For Low-RentHousing.’ The Australian 13 September:1.

Geddes, M. 2000. ‘Tackling Social Exclusion in theEuropean Union? The Limits To The New Ortho-doxy Of Local Partnership.’ International Jour-nal of Urban and Regional Research 24(4):782–800.



Gillard, J. 2010. ‘Moving Forward For AustraliansWith Disability And Their Carers.’ Federal Gov-ernment News. Speech to MS Australia. Black-burn, Victoria, 29 July 2010. URL: <http://www.alp.org.au/federal-government/news/speech—moving-forward-for-australians-with-disab/>.Accessed 16 Sept. 2010.

Grattan, M. 2008. ‘Have A Whack, PM Invites AsCurious Meet The Cabinet.’ The Age 21 January.URL: <http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/have-a-whack-pm-invites-as-curious-meet-the-cabinet/2008/01/20/1200764082354.html>.Accessed 18 June. 2010.

Guest, R. 2008. ‘The 2020 Summit: Population, Sus-tainability, Climate Change and Water.’ Agenda15(2):9–11.

Hudson, P. 2009. ‘New Stimulus Worth $42b.’Canberra Times 3 February. URL: <http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/new-stimulus-worth-42b/1423498.aspx>.Accessed 19 July 2010.

Irvine, J. 2009a. ‘Cheap Rent Tax Break Is PushingUp House Prices.’ Sydney Morning Herald 13April:5.

Irvine, J. 2009b. ‘It’s Bricks And Slaughter OutThere.’ Sydney Morning Herald 22 April:11.

Jessop, B. 2004. ‘Multi-level Governance and Multi-level Meta-Governance.’ In Multi-level Gover-nance. Eds I. Bache and M. Flinders. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Lunn, S. 2008. ‘New Deal At COAG For The Dis-abled.’ The Australian 29 November:6.

Lunn, S. 2009a. ‘No Place To Call Home.’ TheAustralian 9 July:11.

Lunn, S. 2009b. ‘Disability to Hit 2.3m As NationGrows Grey.’ The Australian 18 November:5.

Lunn, S. 2009c. ‘Care of Disabled “National Dis-grace”.’ The Australian 3 December:7.

Manwaring, R. (2010). As Good As It Gets?: The2020 Summit And Labor’s Democratic RenewalAgenda. Paper delivered at the Australian Politi-cal Science Association Conference. Melbourne.September.

Marsh, D. 2011. ‘The New Orthodoxy: The Dif-ferentiated Polity Model.’ Public Administration89(1):32–48.

Martin, S. 2009. ‘Affordability Biggest Issue ForHomebuyers.’ The Advertiser 17 November:38.

Martinetto, M. 2003. ‘Governing beyond the Centre:A Critique of the Anglo-Governance School.’ Po-litical Studies 51(3):592–608.

Mendoza, J. 2010. ‘Mental Health Cab Still At RankFor Lack Of Cash.’ The Australian 22 June:12.

Metherell, M. 2010a. ‘Abbott to Spend $1.5b OnMental Health Plan.’ Sydney Morning Herald1 July:5.

Metherell, M. 2010b. ‘Gillard’s Mental-Health MovePatches On Broken System.’ Sydney MorningHerald July 27. URL: <http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/gillards-mentalhealth-move-patches-on-broken-system-20100727–10tjt.html>. Accessed 19 July 2010.

Moore, M. 2009. ‘Homelessness Rises In Re-gional Areas.’ Sydney Morning Herald 15 June:3.

Moran, T. 2009. ‘Address to the Institute of Pub-lic Administration Australia.’ Canberra. 15 July.URL: <(http://www.dpmc.gov.au/media/speech_2009_07_15.cfm>. Accessed 17 April 2010.

Murphy, M. and Moynihan, S. 2006. ‘Dandenong’s$200m Boost.’ The Age 27 April:2, 5.

National Disability Agreement, Fact Sheet (2008).Council of Australian Governments, 29 Nov.URL: <http://www.coag.gov.au/coag_meeting_outcomes/2008–11-29/docs/20081129_national_disability_agreement_factsheet.pdf. Accessed19 Jan. 2012>.

Newman, J. 2005. ‘Introduction.’ In RemakingGovernance: Peoples, Politics and the Pub-lic Sphere. Ed J. Newman. Bristol: The PolityPress.

NSW DPC [New South Wales Department of Pre-mier and Cabinet]. 2008. Annual Report. URL:<http://www.dpc.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/73637/Department_of_Premier_and_Cabinet_Annual_Report_2008–09_Web.pdf>.Accessed 19 June. 2010.

O’Flynn, J. 2009. ‘The Cult of Collaboration in Pub-lic Policy.’ Australian Journal of Public Adminis-tration 68(1):112–16.

O’Malley, B. 2000. ‘Beattie Faces Angry Farmers.’Courier Mail 6 March:8.

Peatling, S. 2008. ‘Rudd In Touch With Tea Talk.’The Sydney Morning Herald 21 January. URL:http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rudd-in-touch-with-tea-talk/2008/01/20/1200764081344.html. Accessed 19 October 2010.

PC [Productivity Commission]. 2010. Long-termDisability Care and Support Scheme Terms ofreference. 17 February. URL: <http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/disability-support/terms-of-reference>. Accessed 9 July 2010.

Reddel, T. and Woolcock, G. 2004. ‘From Con-sultation To Participatory Governance? A Criti-cal Review Of Citizen Engagement Strategies InQueensland.’ Australian Journal of Public Ad-ministration 63(3):76–87.


Lewis and Marsh 19

Rhodes, R. A. W. 1997. Understanding Governance:Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Ac-countability. London: Open University Press.

Rood, D. 2007. ‘Bracks in Peace Offering ToMildura.’ The Age 29 May:4.

Ryan, S. 2009. ‘Budget Cuts Mean Less For Dis-abled.’ The Australian 30 May: 10.

Saulwick, J. 2009a. ‘Frustration At Delays InRent Breaks Scheme.’ Sydney Morning Herald29 August: 5.

Saulwick, J. 2009b. ‘Stimulus Will Still BeNeeded Next Year.’ Sydney Morning Herald17 December:3.

Saville, M. 2010. ‘Kicked out of CommunityCabinet, Crikey style.’ Crikey. URL: <http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/04/16/kicked-out-of-community-cabinet-crikey-style/>. Accessed14 July 2010.

Saulwick, J. 2010. ‘Stimulus Spending ProgramRuns Behind Schedule.’ Sydney Morning Herald4 February:7.

Senate. (2010). ‘Matters Concerning CommunityCabinet Meetings, Prime Minister And CabinetPortfolio, Senate Finance And AdministrationCommittee.’ February 2010. URL: <http://www.

aph.gov.au/senate/committee/fapa_ctte/estimates/add_0910/pmc/index.htm>. Accessed 19 Sept.2010.

Shorten, B. 2008. Government Announces DisabilityInvestment Group. Media Release. URL: <http://www.formerministers.fahcsia.gov.au/shorten/mediareleases/2008/Pages/disab_invest_group_23apr08.aspx>. Accessed 19 July 2010.

Sommerfield, J. 1999. ‘Community Splintered ByCycle Of Distrust.’ Courier Mail 16 June(No page number. Source Factiva data base).

Steketee, M. 2009. ‘Disability Insurance A Real Re-form.’ The Australian 12 September:2.

Swan, W. 2009. Making Every Australian Count.Speech at the Launch of Endeavour FoundationEndowment Challenge Fund. Brisbane.

The Advertiser. 2008. ‘$2bn New Funding For TheDisabled.’ The Advertiser (Editorial) 31 May:17.

Tomazin, F. 2005. ‘Regional Cabinet Meetings ABig PR Exercise, says Opposition.’ The Age8 March:7.

Wheatley, K. 2001. ‘It’s The Premier Kero Road-show Starring Nancy, Betty, Marjorie, RhondaAnd A Big Support Cast.’ Adelaide Advertiser20 November:4.
