Public Policy in Theory and Practice
The wide range of activities in every state creates complex relationships between the society and the government. The question of what is the best mode of analysing public administration is usually a matter that leads to disagreements among the interested groups. A problem, in theory, will automatically lead to conflicting views when explaining what happens in practice, since the greatest theoretical hurdles are created by the practice of politics. It is important to note that it is hard to leave out the issue of policy and politics when dealing with the managerial analysis of governmental activity. The best approach to use when dealing with managerial analysis, therefore, is to apply political analysis.
Protect Penalty Rate is one of the policies that define what is involved in the process of policymaking. Penalty rates are work rights that the Australian workers rely on. They are offered in case a worker goes to work on weekends and holidays (Action Centre, n.d). There has been debates however to eliminate these penalty rates. Government leaders are at the forefront of campaigning for their elimination, with the big businesses being the force behind them. There have been some recommendations made by the Productive Commission of Australia in response to the government’s request to conduct a public inquiry. This is a great move as Australia values participatory and network governance.
Network and participatory governance focus on the relationship between the government and the civil society. The relationship mainly focuses on the empirical and normative aspects of governance. A participatory form of governance is a sign of better governance and policy making. In the case of protecting policy rates, it would be important for the government to consider what the public has to say about the issue both from the employers and the employees before making any decision.
Network governance, on the other hand, is voluptuous as it involves incorporating more experts from various levels of the private sector and the government to deliberate on a certain issue. Protect Penalty Rates is a matter that requires active representation from various institutions from both the private and public sector.
Normally, the main actors when dealing with the policy process include the policy researchers, the policy promoters, the policy designers and the policy gatekeepers (Maddison and Denniss, 2009). In Australia, the idea of policy making is done publicly with the ministers and citizens coming together to discuss the way forward regarding certain issues (Lewis and Marsh, 2012).
Those attending are affected by the topic of discussion in one way or another. It is important for those purposing to attend to register beforehand. Questions are then formulated by the audience and forwarded to the Prime Minister, who then refers them to the relevant cabinet minister. The media’s presence is also of high importance as coverage is required although they are not allowed to have one on one interview with the attendees. All ministers are expected to attend unless the issue stopping them from attending is too urgent.
As for the Protect Penalty Rates, the key actors are the government (which is supposed to be the policy gate keeper), the unions, the employers who take the role of the researchers, designers, promoters and the employees. Most observers feel that doing away with the penalty rates would consequently reduce the salaries of the employees in terms of their weekday hourly earnings.
The whole idea was brought to light when the Prime Minister, a government representative, said that his government would consider reducing the Sunday penalties. However, there were different reactions as some ministers felt that the move would deter weekend work while others were of the opinion that reduction would mean more jobs hence the move would acts as an economy booster.
Those representing the employees feel that it is important to publish a notice one year before the actualization of the policy so that they get enough time to adjust - that is if there will be any changes to take place. Unions, as expected, objected the idea strongly. The unions are meant to campaign for wage increments and not the other way round. The employers’ organizations, as expected, welcomed the idea with both hands. Nothing would have brought more relief to the employers than reducing the wages of their employees, as most had been advocating.
The employees in the service industries would be the most affected. They are used to getting double salaries especially on Sundays, and this money is useful in making their lives affordable. The idea of reducing the minimum wages is a direct means of reducing the rate of employment. It is, however, important to note that there is a large group of unemployed people who would not mind working for less than the minimum wage.
Unfortunately, no one considers or represents them, and not even the Protect Penalty Rates Policy takes into consideration their interests. The unions do not represent the unemployed, and so, the government should take the responsibility by doing away with the thought of regulating the wages. In most of the discussions around the issue of wages and salaries, this group is usually left out because it is not in active employment.
If penalty rates were reduced or even abolished, this would mean that most employers would employ more people and make them work for longer hours. This for sure would increase the rate of employment, in particular among the young people. Penalty rates only benefit those who are working. Reduction of penalty rates or optimal removal would, therefore, have some impact on the level of unemployment as it would reduce. However, the wage minimum would reduce as the new employees would rather languish on that reduced salary than remain unemployed.
Protect penalty rates is a looser policy network. Policy networks have for long being a regular feature of all governments. These systems focus on both the cross-national variations and the cross-sectorial variations. When it comes to matters concerning the composition of network and the dynamics, policy networks point out on how different types of policy networks co-exist. Both the national and traditional policy areas are given focus (Blanco, Lowndes and Pratchett, 2011).
The analysis of policy network shows that networks limit the participation of various actors in the process of deciding what issues will be included or excluded when shaping the policy agenda. In this case, it is about the stability, continuity, and privilege with the rules of the games favouring certain interests. In the policy network analysis school, it is a matter of investigating the relationship between the outcomes of policy making, the inclusion or exclusion of groups within the network, or the structure of that network. Unlike in the policy community where there is a limited number of members with a narrow range of interests, the protect penalty rates has a large number of members who seek among other needs, to protect their policy rates (Fawcett and Daugbjerg, 2012).
There is also a conflict over the policy procedures and principles especially on how to approach the issue instead of a consensus as witnessed in the policy community. Both the employees and employers do not seem to agree on what is the best form of action to take. Although the unions already have a stand, and that is to protect the employees from experiencing wage reduction, the government seems to favour the side that will be of most importance during the elections.
The whole policy formulation process of the penalty rates lacks consensus on matters to do with principles, and the actors are bound to disagree on the social, political and economic objectives. Although an agreement was to be reached on, it would not be rooted in the required policy principles and objectives. The good thing about the policy is that no group dominates over the other due to lack of an agreement. Therefore, the employers, the employees, the government officials and the unionists remain stranded without knowing which course to take.
Policy network has both theoretical and descriptive roles. It plays the role of interest intermediation. In the case of the protect penalty rates, this form enables the principal actors to describe the oligopoly in the market of politics and the institutions to negotiate with. Inter-organization analysis aids the actors - in this case, the employers and the employees - to understand how their interdependence on the skill of decision making will influence the political institutions and the organizational structures. Governance is a descriptive literature that influences the government’s decisions in describing the general patterns that bring about the process of policy-making. This literature is also used by independent state bodies, representatives of both the employees and the employers and the formal institutions that share power with the government.
As for the theoretical applications in public policy - in this matter the Protect Penalty Rates policy - there is the power dependence and rational choice. Power dependence involves the organizations in the networks exchanging resources depending on the comparative value of the resource. The value in question is how legal is it to abolish the penalty rate. The employees need to employ the law that protects them from being stripped that right to be in a better bargaining position than the rest of the actors.
In the case of rational choice, both the private and public players have a structural arrangement that aids in exchanging different goods such as resources, information, and knowledge. For the protect penalty rates, all the involved actors could use this literature to seek more knowledge and information concerning what direction to pertain this matter.
Regarding democracy, policy networks are considered as a source of policy stability and privilege. Policy networks are viewed as a way of bringing together many actors to solve a particular problem. Economically, however, the removal of penalty rates will have a lot of impacts on the income of the individual workers and the local economies in general. The actualization of this policy represents a particular transfer of money from the employees to their employers.
In case a business owner resides in the same location as his business, this will not have a negative impact on the economic activity since the levels of income are not expected to change significantly. However, for an employer who lives away, it means that the disposable income will be at lower levels at the location of the business. In large retail chains, the reduction or abolition of the penalty rates means that there will be less disposable income and, therefore, a significant decrease in the local expenditure (Robbins, 2015).
As stated earlier, there are various reactions towards whether to abolish or reduce penalty rates. There are those scholars that argue that reducing penalty rates would enable businesses to have an increased turnover hence they would manage the business in a more efficient manner. Although the wages would reduce for most workers, they would receive higher overall earnings since they would have an added advantage of working for more hours.
Additionally, there would be a greater choice of shifts available, and the level of employment would consequently increase hence catering for the unemployed (Berg, 2015). Also, the consumer would benefit from this policy as they would pay very low prices for goods and services which will better their lifestyles. When viewed from that angle, having the penalty rates would be beneficial to the consumers and the unemployed.
On the contrary, others believe that the penalty rates are capable of attracting hours that the society believes should be dedicated to the cultural and social arrangements. That argument considers the fact that most families have ended up compromising their leisure time to make ends meet. It is clear, therefore, that the penalty rates protect the standards of the low-paid workers. Wage cuts simply lead to reduced income and undermining spending and, therefore, proving that it is not guaranteed that employment level will increase if the penalty rates are reduced or completely abolished (Lewis and Mitchell, 2014).
In conclusion, protect penalty rates is a sensitive issue to the Australian people. The people working in the service industry are the most affected as the industry requires them to work seven days a week. Most of them depend on what they earn during the extra hours to make ends meet as their normal wage rate is very low. Abolishing or reducing the penalty rate will have an economic impact. Employment level will rise, but the majority of the people will only be earning very low wages. The standards of living for this specific group of people are consequently reduced. The most unfortunate thing is that the process will only affect particular job description while others are left free.
References
Action Centre, n.d. Protect Penalty Rates. [online] Available at: http://www.act.australianunions.org.au/penaltyrates [Accessed 15 Mar. 2016].
Berg, C., 2015. The tide is turning on penalty rates, but how far will Turnbull go?. [online] ABC News. Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-06/berg-the-tide-is-turning-on-penalty-rates/6829546 [Accessed 15 Mar. 2016].
Blanco, I., Lowndes, V., and Pratchett, L., 2011. Policy Networks and Governance Networks:Towards Greater Conceptual Clarity. Political Studies Review, 297–308: 9.
Fawcett, P., and Daugbjerg, C., 2012. Explaining Governance Outcomes: Epistemology, Network Governance and Policy Network. Political Studies Review, 195–207: 9.
Lewis, C., and Marsh, D., 2012. Network Governance and Public Participation in Policy-Making: Federal Community Cabinets in Australia. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 6-19: 71 (1).
Lewis, P. and Mitchell, W., 2014. Viewpoints: should penalty rates be abolished?. [online] The Conversation. Available at: http://theconversation.com/viewpoints-should-penalty-rates-be-abolished-22819 [Accessed 15 Mar. 2016]
Maddison, S., and Denniss, R., 2009. An Introduction to the Australian Public Policy:Theory and Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Robbins, A., 2015. Who loses when penalty rates are cut? Sydney: McKell Institute.
