Developing Government Policy Capability by Algeo Dr. Chivonne

Author:Algeo, Dr. Chivonne
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Project Management Institute

Remembering

The structure of policy processes naturally divides actions over the life span of the policy, from its inception as a political initiative to its operation as an item of legislation. The timeline of tobacco control in Australia (see Appendix 4) shows the TPP in its historic context of tobacco control processes. Given this long history of control measures, the drafting of the TPP bills had to take into account not only current imperatives, but also consistency with the evolving paradigm that underscores national and international tobacco control measures.

In our case study, the TPP policy process required stakeholders to interpret, argue, and respond to the proposed changes. A good example is the public consultation and submission process. The government's framing of the TPP as a public health initiative was not only a political expediency to garner support from opposition parties, but it was also a statement of the government's public anti-tobacco advocacy based on a harm minimization approach. It is this approach that provides continuity with past efforts at tobacco control measures. With the government framing the debates, within this historic context, it established the ground rules for the debates, and thus, stakeholders needed to consider and respond to the proposed changes on those terms. In many respects, this strengthened the government's position, as such framing was consistent with the approach of public health advocates and preventive health experts, both strong supporters of the TPP. It also undermined the tobacco industry's ability to dispute and dilute the scientific and medical evidence for the TPP.

Conversely, as has been discussed above, the government was also aware of the tobacco industry's long history of opposing tobacco control. In framing the TPP legislation, the government took into account the strategies and tactics deployed by the tobacco industry in its numerous attempts to frustrate legislative controls on its products. This understanding of the industry, combined with the public health framing, meant that the industry had to change tack in its legal challenge to the TPP legislation. In particular, the intellectual property grounds for the legal challenge (Lane, 2012; Schneider, 2012; Taylor, 2012) was new territory for the industry and was amply covered in the architecture of the legislation as the tobacco industry lost its High Court case.

The long and drawn-out process of the TPP policy, however, does raise issues around consistency, both through time and in the different venues of the policy process. The diverse activities that collectively constitute the formal and informal TPP policy process requires that actions and decisions are taken with full awareness of preceding actions, decisions, and available information. This means that the staff members responsible for the process must know what has been done previously and in what forum, and need to anticipate the implications of those actions. Any variance in the process and/or the content of the legislation needs to be justified and explained, and, most importantly, tested, so that it remains consistent with the broad approach and social objectives articulated by the government.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.