Government, citizenship and cultural policy : expertise and participation in Australian media policy

The study of institutions and policy processes in the formation of culture have been a major concern of the "cultural policy debate", which has been a major debate in Australian cultural studies in the 1990s (Bennett 1992a; Cunningham 1992; O'Regan 1993; cf. McGuigan 1996). Bennett (1992) argues that culture in modern societies is defined less by a distinct series of artistic and intellectual practices, the ways of life of distinctive communities or social groups, or as a system for the structuring of meaning in a society, but rather in terms of "the specificity of the governmental tasks and programmes in which those practices come to be inscribed." (Bennett 1992a: 397) Within such a framework, policy becomes "not... an optional add-on but... central to the definition and constitution of culture" (Bennett 1992a: 397). This understanding of culture as "intrinsically governmental" has in turn been linked to an increasingly strategic role for discourses of citizenship as a basis for the engagement of cultural studies intellectuals with the political sphere...

Sport development programmes for Indigenous Australians : innovation, inclusion and development, or a product of ‘white guilt’?

Under the legacy of neoliberalism, it is important to consider how the indigenous people, in this case of Australia, are to advance, develop and achieve some approximation of parity with broader societies in terms of health, educational outcomes and economic participation. In this paper, we explore the relationships between welfare dependency, individualism, responsibility, rights, liberty and the role of the state in the provision of Government-funded programmes of sport to Indigenous communities. We consider whether such programmes are a product of ‘white guilt’ and therefore encourage dependency and weaken the capacity for independence within communities and individuals, or whether programmes to increase rates of participation in sport are better viewed as good investments to bring about changes in physical activity as (albeit a small) part of a broader social policy aimed at reducing the gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in health, education and employment.

Submission to KPMG review of the Federal Government Initiative to “analyse dementia program and services funded by the Department of Social Services"

The comments I make are based on my nearly twenty years involvement in the dementia cause at both a national and international level. In preparation, I read two papers namely the Ministerial Dementia Forum – Option Paper produced by KPMG Management Consultants (2014) and Analysis of Dementia Programmes and Services Funded by the Department of Social Services: Conversation Starter prepared by KPMG as a preparation document for those attending a workshop in Brisbane on April 22nd 2015. Dementia is a complex “syndrome” and as is often said, “when you meet one person with dementia, you have met one” meaning that no two persons with dementia are the same. Even in dementia care, Australia is a “lucky country” and there is much to be said for the quality and diversity of dementia care available for people living with dementia. Despite this, I agree with the many views expressed in the material I read that there is scope for improvement, especially in the way that services are coordinated. In saying that, I do not purport to have all the solutions nor claim to have the knowledge required to comment on all the programs covered by this review. If I appear to be a “biased” advocate for Alzheimer’s Australia across the States and Territories, it is because I have seen constant evidence of ordinary people doing extraordinary things with inadequate resources. Dementia care is not cheap and if those funding dementia services are primarily only interested in economic outcomes and benefits, the real purpose of this consultation will be defeated. In addition, nowhere in the material I have read is there any recognition that in many instances program funding is a complex mix of government (at all levels) and private funding. This makes reviewing those programs more complex and less able to be coordinated at a Departmental level. It goes without saying therefore that the Federal Government is not” the only player in this game”. Of all those participating in this review, Alzheimer’s Australia is best placed to comment on programs as it is more connected to people living with dementia and has probably the best record of consulting with them. It would appear however that their role has been reduced to that of a “bit player”. Without wanting to be critical, the Forum Report which deals with the comments made at a gathering of 70 individuals and organisations, only three (3) or 4.28% were actual carers of people living with dementia. Even if it is argued that a number of organisations present represented consumers, the percentage goes up only marginally to 8.57% which is hardly an endorsement of the forum being “consumer driven”. The predominance of those present were service providers, each with their own agenda and each seeking advantage for their “business”. The final point I want to make before commenting on more specific, program related issues, is that many programs being reviewed have a much longer history than is reflected in the material I have read. Their growth and development was pioneered by Alzheimer’s Australia organisations across the country often with no government funding. Attempts to bring about better coordination of programs were often at the behest of Alzheimer’s Australia but in the main were ignored. The opportunity to now put this right is long overdue.

Using performance measurement models for benefit realization with enterprise systems: The Queensland Government approach (Case Study)

A range of influences, technical and organizational, has encouraged the wide spread adaption of Enterprise Systems (ES). Nevertheless, there is a growing consensus that Enterprise Systems have in the many cases failed to provide the expected benefits to organizations. This paper presents ongoing research, which analyzes the benefits realization approach of the Queensland Government. This approach applies a modified Balance Scorecard. First, history and background of Queensland Government’s Enterprise Systems initiative is introduced. Second, the most common reasons for ES under performance are related. Third, relevant performance measurement models and the Balanced Scorecard in particular are discussed. Finally, the Queensland Government initiative is evaluated in light of this overview of current work in the area. In the current and future work, the authors aim to use their active involvement in Queensland Government’s benefits realization initiative for an Action Research based project investigating the appropriateness of the Balanced Scorecard for the purposes of Enterprise Systems benefits realization.