One Stop to Efficiency?

I was struck yesterday by this announcement on the SMH website:

Full story here

At first blush, this is a great idea. I know I've spent more time than I care to count in the past running around to various departments and offices trying to get things sorted. out. It would be great if all those services were gathered in one place.

This announcement is an expanded version of what was announced at the CeBit conference last year:

Full story here

An integrated web portal is a great idea, and a pretty practical one. Why should every government website be separately designed and maintained? There is no obvious reason why the different departments should not enjoy an economy of scale and share the same website design and general functionality.

The idea of all of the departments sharing one "service counter', however, is an entirely different prospect.

Consider for a moment the practical implications. The most obvious departments that people have interactions with are :

• Roads and Maritime Services
• Police
• The Courts (a least 10, in total)
• Land Titles
• Office of State Revenue
• Planning
• Health
• Education
• And countless others

The article promises that some 210 departments will share the same service desk.

Each of these departments has different functions, different forms, different information, and different equipment. I've not been able to locate any further information about the centres other than this SMH article, so I'm not aware of precisely which departments will be included in the list.

We have probably all experienced the problem of approaching a customer service counter and finding someone who wasn't able to answer their question or assist in one transactions or other.

Are we really expected to believe that the information about the varying functions of 210 government departments will miraculously be available to the staff at these centres?

Is every single one of these one-stop-shops going to be able to print me a new drivers licence, stamp my land-documents, accept an application for enrolment in a public school and provide advice about a public hospital?

That is without even considering the number of forms and documents that these centres would have to be able to provide, assist with and then process.

I cannot possible imagine that could be the case.  And, if I am right, and that is not going to be accomplished, what exactly are these one-stop shops meant to do?

To me, it seems like Mr O'Farrell may have either announced something he has no intention of delivering, or otherwise allowed a journalist to grossly misunderstand what the true purpose of these centres is to be. Because surely it cannot be what this article promises.

Not that I wouldn't love to be wrong. 

A Promise from the Heart II

Sometimes election campaigns can become frustratingly predictable.

Candidate crops up at a location that is either relevant or (if you're lucky) metaphorical.  The announce X millions for this or that, take a few questions that usually have nothing to do with the announcement, and the media toddle off the write about the announcement or whatever minutia is distracting them at that time.

It's rare to see a politician jump up and say "This is how we will do it BETTER" - it's all about spreading about the pork, thus perpetuating the idea that all the public care about is cash, and damn the implementation.

It often reaches the point where papers publish a "gauge" of the amount of spending promised, as if it is the sheer size of the promise rather than its brilliance (or lack thereof) that should define its value.

Moving on.

The next category of O'Farrell promises I wanted to look at was what he, into the "Contract with NSW", called "Return to Quality Services".

It continues the focus on "frontline services" which seems to me to be one of the sillier media/politician creations. I don't doubt the importance of police who are actually "on the street" - but what use are they without the people that train/equip/support administratively?  Is it reasonable to say that a "frontline officer" is ALWAYS better than a backroom employee?

Of course not. I'm sure the same goes for nurses - if they can't do their job because the guy who orders the drugs got sacked, what bloody use are they?

I'll have a look at them all individually:

Impossible to assess. Which was no doubt the intention.

This is covered in the budget speech, where the promise is in fact exceeded by some margin

Next?

This is met in part.  In fairness, one can't just summon teachers out of fresh air - they need to be trained, attrition needs to be reduced and a place to put them needs to be found.  But no complaints as yet.

The integrated Transport was, as I indicated previously, has been created.  As for the extra express services, I've looked and have found no evidence at all that this has been done, nor have I found evidence that things are happening.

That said, the plan may be to introduce them when the long-overdue Waratah's hit the tracks - it would make sense that the extra capacity makes the promise feasible.

Impossible to assess

Also impossible to assess - although I suppose if their had been falls in the raw numbers there would be a case for some criticism.

The problem, really, is that promises like this are easy to keep.  They are not expensive promises (comparatively) - it's fairly easy to just throw millions are the key issues (health, education, law and order) - but it's not good governance.

The steps O'Farrell has taken to limit/cut public sector conditions since the election are a case in point - a promise like the above would be easy to keep if harsh cuts are made in other areas.  Would we be better off as a result?

We need to expect more from our politicians - not to just sign a cheque, but rather to be constantly searching for better ways to do things.

That doesn't just mean more efficient (thereby pissing off the unions) - it also means searching for "Best Practice" to make sure our limited resources achieve the best outcomes available.

I'm by no means on top of the Gonski reccommendations, but I understand they go a whole lot deeper than needing $5 billion more per year (although you'd be forgiven for thinking that, given the media coverage).

How wonderful if, next election, rather than just making promises that offer to throw money at this problem or that, a government or an opposition offered to do something differently, or take the challenging job of restructuring something to make it better.

It can be a tough sell, because of vested interests - but if NSW is going to be the best it can be then it needs to be done.