Back in my days as immigration minister, an Indonesian minister gave me valuable insight.
There was always a media and protester dog fight about how mean the Howard government was.
According to these people, we should have just accepted anyone who claimed to be a refugee. It was pure polemical rubbish.
Oh, for a list of people who got to stay here because they claimed they were apostates and would likely be beheaded if they were returned. With such a list, we could now see who goes to church on Sunday and who prays to Allah.
Don't expect a high number to have permanently turned to Christianity.
You might think me cynical and I might think you're Pollyanna. The Indonesian minister put it to me very clearly: "Put sugar on the table and the ants will come", or "taruh gula di meja makan semut akan datang".
Put the gold AMEX card of Australian residency or citizenship within reach, and of course, some people are going to do just about anything to get it. It doesn't make them refugees, nor should it put them ahead of those genuinely fleeing persecution.
The Indonesian minister's point was well made, and it applies way beyond immigration issues. It applies to life generally. It especially applies to government money being on the table.
Remember, during the financial crisis, the government came up with a plan to get some construction work done in schools?
How many covered playgrounds sprung up around the country?
Some of the prices paid for these fairly simple affairs were truly incredible.
It happened because word got out that there's money for projects in schools, but covered playground areas get an easy tick.
What would you do if you had some basic building skills?
Sure, the money got out the door, and plenty of playgrounds had covered areas. But did we get value for money? To me, as importantly, did the local builders and contractors get the work or did hastily expanded savvy contractors jump in and make a killing, somewhat ruining the idea to get money out to local communities?
I don't solely blame the, coincidentally, Labor government of the day. They were trying to do something good. It's just that contracting good ideas from Canberra isn't easy.
What would have happened if we just said send us a quote for the building work you want done (within limits, of course); you contract with a local, and when it's done, we'll send you, the school, the money.
If you're not convinced, do some memory jogging on pink batts. What a rip-off of the taxpayer that was. All well-intentioned. My mum always said to beware of people who mean well.
We might be much better off if we just trusted the end user to make decisions, rather than demanding that bureaucrats in Canberra try to guess what the end user really needs.
For a brief period, I had responsibility for disability, federally. It was then largely handled by the states. Having organised a meeting deliberately with carers, end users, rather than the middleman providers, I was truly taken aback.
There was a very strong view that if they were given the money, they would get much better value for it than being told they could have a Canberra-designed service through a government-funded provider. I'm sure they were right.
The NDIS has clearly become a honey pot for providers. Plenty of these people will be long-term service providers, genuinely committed to people with disabilities. Plenty will be johnny-come-latelies cashing in on the dollars available. They'll have freshly done up business premises, new cars with new logos, new staff and they will take the money as it rolls in the door.
Imagine the poor bureaucrats in Canberra charged with drawing up contracts to govern all this spending.
We have an excellent public service, but there is a limit to what you can ask people to produce out of thin air. Why on earth do we think bureaucrats in Canberra can design contracts that appropriately cater to the plethora of individual needs?
They must sometimes want to just chuck in the towel. Add to that the odd spot of incompetence and you have a contractor's dream.
Imagine you're charged with setting a rate for overnight care for an elderly disabled person. Is it a one-size-fits-all rate, or does one take into account the level of care to be provided? Who draws up the various care levels, and importantly, who checks they've been provided?
One answer might be to just fund the end user. Let them decide where to get the services they need.
Of course, there will still be some rules to be set about who can get what, and of course, some people will cheat to get more. But putting the cash in the hands of the person who needs the help is a sure-fire way to get better service delivery. After all, instead of ticking a box that says "Yes, Mrs Smith had her shower on Tuesday" and sending it off to get your money, let Mrs Smith pay you when she's had her shower.
This is not a new story. If you're vaguely interested, you might care to look up the Amann Aviation scandal under the Hawke government. If you understand how that company got a contract to perform Coastwatch services for the Australian government, you'll understand the inherent dangers involved in contracting out around Australia from an office in Canberra. And you'll understand that governments are expected to play by the rules.
If this sounds like a plea for letting the market and real competition deliver better services, you've understood my point.
In the aged care sector, there are people who specialise in putting you in touch with available places. A similar thing would happen if the NDIS were completely revamped. Just let the end user decide and maybe pay for some local advice on who might be good to use. (Clearly, the NDIS needs more help than this, but it would be a tiny start.)
In any field, just cut out as much government red tape and approvals as you possibly can.
READ MORE VANSTONE:
Intermittently, the idea for education vouchers resurfaces. I like it. Let the parents take their voucher to whatever school they want. As uncomfortable as it may be for governments to organise, and it wouldn't be easy, it would freshen up the school system dramatically. Give the power to the parents.
Childcare is another classic example. What overtook politicians to think that telling parents they could only really get help with childcare if they went to government-approved childcare centres? Let parents decide.
Shock horror, could we trust parents! Without a doubt, parents are best placed to decide what they want for their kids. They should be able to use the government-approved childcare centre if that gives them peace of mind. But they should also be able to privately contract childcare services that suit their needs and still get the government help. That would be a good thing. It should be happening now.
Recent events, however, highlight the inbuilt reluctance of bureaucracies, even in something as important as childcare, to respond quickly and effectively to bad news.
You don't have to be gifted to understand that if you're negotiating directly with a mum, you cross her at your own risk. Bureaucrats and politicians together do not know better than mums and dads what each family needs.
It's about time we stopped asking bureaucrats to do the impossible. It's time to start listening to the people. Put the money in their hands. They'll get the best value.
- Amanda Vanstone is a former senator for South Australia, a former Howard government minister, and a former ambassador to Italy. She writes fortnightly for ACM.
