The proposal by the Deputy Prime Minister, Brian Howe, for a social performance charter is well worth further consideration. Mr Howe put the idea forward this week that Australia have a charter of rights and responsibilities. It was not a Bill of Rights in the classic sense, nor even a set of enforceable legal rights. Those are separate issues. Rather Mr Howe was talking about all levels of government setting objectives endorsed by the people and measuring performance against them for things like the delivery of housing, health and education.
Mr Howe was putting his ideas quite tentatively. They deserve exploration and debate. He pointed out that there was strong public support for Medicare, public education and housing and social welfare benefits, but these values had never been formally articulated.
Perhaps more importantly the performance of the service providers has not been measured well.
In the private sector, competition and the profit motive have a strong self-regulatory influence to ensure organisations deliver efficiently or at least go some distance to satisfy public complains when that delivery breaks down.
In the public sector with welfare or with utilities that have been granted some monopoly rights, those influences are totally or partially absent. Moreover, the services being delivered are often being delivered free and are often delivered to people who are unfamiliar with ways of enforcing their entitlements because of economic, social or educational disadvantage. however, large sums of public money are spent on these services and some mechanism is needed to ensure they delivery efficiently and fairly. Mr Howe’s idea of a charter and performance measurements may go some way towards this.
It may well be that the idea is not developed legislatively, nor universally, but rather becomes a series of statements of principles and performance standards by public and semi-public bodies. These statements would give rise to expectations that they be met and become a foundation of legitimate complaint requiring action if they are not. Where there are monopoly rights or where services are being delivered free, the providers are more likely to get dismissive of their clients unlike in the competitive market. But the market is not an efficient or possible mechanism for the delivery of all services _ water, electricity and welfare, for example.
The charter or charters would have to avoid the trap of creating a nation of a nation of whingers expecting the government to do all, instead preventing the aloofness and arrogance that sometimes comes with monopoly or the provision of welfare.
Some urgency will be lent to Mr Howe’s idea if the Commonwealth goes ahead with untying grants to the states. The states care just as capable of centralism and red tape as the federal bureaucracy, perhaps more so.
In developing the charter, we would help make statements about important national values.