# data[].attributes.body
Q1. The most compelling influencers on government policy are state government, industry bodies, other departments, government agencies, media, research agencies, universities. It depends on the policy that is attempting to be influenced. The importance of level of influence that the stakeholders will have can vary throughout the policy process.  Example of finance are biggest influencers in property and budget areas of the department.

Q2. Policy stakeholders can be invited to give feedback, Such as the radioactive taskforce has gone out to get feedback about proposed areas for the new site in Australia for radioactive waste. Unlikely to see this proactive level of stakeholder engagement with most policies. Policy stakeholders can exert influence by applying pressure through the media, through writing articles or organising conferences. Stakeholders can also send mail or call the ministers office. Stakeholders can use social media to exert influence on certain policy issues. For example stakeholders exerted pressures on government about the murry darling basing incident with all the dead fish and the disaster with water management.

Q3. Business grants hub - contact can be personalised. If your dealing with other departments can be very formal with letters. There is a spectrum of formality depending on who the stakeholders is. There is also other forms such as industry consultations, round table discussions, working groups etc. The minister is having a round table discussion about technology and start-ups to hear any concerns, issues etc. Government is trying to build rapport and make consultation  efficient. They are focused on improving service delivery.

# data[].attributes.body
The Diversity and inclusion policy was developed to create a more vibrant workforce.  It brings a wealth of ideas and a mixture of views which creates a workforce that is more reflective of the community.

The groups that have been affected by some of these decisions are: People with a mental and/or physical disability , people for whom English is a second language and LGBTIQ people.

There were consultation groups and these were conducted across Australia. These were formal and informal e.g. a chat over a cup of coffee.  The purpose of stakeholder consultations was to find out whether the department had a problem with diversity inclusion. The results were that the Department was good in terms of diversity inclusion but there were some things that the department could improve on.  This gave the DIIS executives information to create a framework / action plan to improve upon the highlighted aspects in the department. Improving diversity in the Department has the backing of the secretary and she has made it a priority.

A1. The affected stakeholder groups,  the prospective employees of the APS, the public, journalists. There is an overarching APS policy for the government to be diverse and inclusive.  The influences will be different in each department.  The stakeholders will be different depending on the policy but for internal policies they can be the government of the day, staff within the department , the APSC and other departments.

A2.  Bringing in subject matter experts ,  media influence  (  7:30 report, 4Corners, Q & A) , state and federal government elections , contemporary events ( e.g. Port Arthur massacre ,  the finding needles in strawberries situation , banning live cattle trade to Indonesia, criminalising wage theft due to George Calombaris' underpayment of wages to staff who currently work and used to work at the restaurants that he owns)

A3. This depends on the stakeholder and government department.  Some examples are face to face interviews, phone interviews, survey groups,  conferences , postal surveys, the census , town hall meetings and internal focus groups.

# data[].attributes.headline
Fayol 25/7/2019                            The Policy: Streamlining Government Grants AdministrationThe key policy actors: Department of Finance, Prime Minister & Cabinet, Digital Transformation Agency, Department of Social Services (DSS – Community Grants Hub), Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (Business Grants Hub BGH), consuming agencies1.	What was the oigin of the policy? The policy was developed in 2016 as the government aims for a smaller, smarter and more roductive and sustainable public service2.	Why was it developed? To provide simpler, more cost effective and efficient grants administration across the pulic service.3.	Who were the key players in its development? The Digital Transformation Agency lead the development with Department of Finance and Prime Minister and Cabinet4.	Who else contibuted to its development? The two Hubs contributed to the development in the intial operationalisation of the Hubs. Consuming agencies also contibuted to development by defining their requirements for program design.5.	How did they contribute? Department of Finance, Digital Transformation Agency and Prime Minister and Cabinet formed the Governance and the Hubs operationalised the policy and vision in the development of two separate Hubs. In fact the way the Hubs deals with consuming agency programs is entirely different. For example, BGH provides end-to-end program management and CGH will manage certain parts of the grant program.6.	What formal consultation strategies were used in its development? Announced in the 2016/17 Budget and commenced on 1 July 2016. Unsure of the consultation prior to launch.7.	What informal strategies were used? Not sure8.	What was its information/evidence base? Not sure but possibly grants expenditure, digital future focus and efficiency vision.9.	What key factors influenced its final or present shape? The BGH has been influenced by consuming agencies and direction from the governance group. There was also a mid-program review through a consultancy who provided recomendatios on maturity and further development.10.	What was it intended to achieve? Savings, streamlined experience for users, user centred design, efficiencies and staffing caps.11.	Who was intended to benefit from it? The public through savings and also through more streamlined and accessible guidelines and programs.12.	Who did benefit from it? The public through the savings and the BGH through the expertise and knowledge it has developmed over the years to become an exemplar in grant design, management and deivery.13.	What did it achieve? Consistent guidelines with a familiar templated format and improved readability level; competivie costings for program management and delivery.14.	How did it achieve this? Through standardised templated resources, competitive costings, two Hubs (now 4 Hubs) with consuming agencies comparing costs.15.	What status or authority did it have? This was an approved Budget measure.16.	What form did it take? Authority for consuming agencies to use the BGH came through the Budget Process and Operational Rules and Estimates Memorandum.17.	How effective would you judge it to have been and why? It is a very effective Policy but because of the lack of consultation and authority consuming agencies were unsure of the policy initatilly. It has taken many years for the Hubs to develop and mature and for consuming agencies to engage in a collaborative and collegiate way.18.	What was your own role, if any, in relation to the policy? I commenced in the BGH in February 2017 as part of the Engagement team as an Account Manager and Project Manager. I was responsible for managing and developing relationships with consuming agencies and project management of on-boarding programs into the BGH. Most recently I have re-writted the Service Offer including the service strategy, logic, defining roles and responsibilities and service level standards.19.	What lessons can be drawn from this experience for future policy development? Early Authority is vital and communications to all stakeholders involved is also critical for success. In addition dedicated change management was required because this Policy was a significant shift for all agencies involved in policy development, program design, management and delivery.20.	What would you do differently now? If I had authority I would have had a strategic project manager to manage the program from design to BAU, benefits measurement that was thought out earlier to enable collection of metrics and KPIs/targets; set up a tool for program management and reporting.Compelling Policy influencesMinisters and the Government at the time place heavily influence on policy regardless of what current policies are in place.Often Programs are announced by a Minister before any of the details have been examined.  An example of this was the “Women in Science Program - Superstars in Stem.  This was announced by a Minister before initial costings and policy had been developed.  As it was a 2 year program, it was necessary to find external budget savings, draft policy documents etc  after the program had been announced.  Lobby groups are very skilled at targeting Ministers and so the “flavour of the month” policy will often been seen as more favourable than policies that aren’t so “exciting and new”.Media also have a huge tole to play in determining policy.  An example is the National School Chaplaincy Program which was dogged by intense media scrutiny.  Lobby groups were very successful in getting the policy into most Primary and High Schools around the nation, but one parent took umbrage at the so called blurred lines of separation of Church and State.  This resulted in the famous Ron Williams Versus Commonwealth case, which didn’t win on the separation of church and state matters, but was found to be invalidly funding the program.  This has now resulted in a huge number of policy clearance steps such as obtaining AGS advice, Constitutional risk assessment etc….What ways do stakeholder groups exert influence?Lobby groups are very successful at getting strategic meetings with Ministers, inviting key people to events, media opportunities.  The Ministers and their staff are aware that they need to make a good impression on the public within a limited time and are usually very open to the influence from the media and lobby groups.Media does the same type of influence at a larger scale, almost goading them into doing things to get media coverage (ie. Tony Abbott eating the raw onion in order to show appreciation to a Tasmanian onion farmer!)How does the Department engage in stakeholders?In a lot of processes, particularly if there is a tight timeline, there will be no engagement with stakeholders.  This is generally because there is a tight timeframe to start delivering the policy and consultation is time consuming.  Where there is consultation in tends to be at “arm’s length” and tends to more strategic engagement.  Often we will ask for feedback from our clients and customers, this information, to our knowledge is not utilised at all to better deliver policy outcomes.

# data[].attributes.subject
Fayol 25/7/2019                            The Policy: Streamlining Government Grants AdministrationThe key policy actors: Department of Finance, Prime Minister & Cabinet, Digital Transformation Agency, Department of Social Services (DSS – Community Grants Hub), Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (Business Grants Hub BGH), consuming agencies1.	What was the oigin of the policy? The policy was developed in 2016 as the government aims for a smaller, smarter and more roductive and sustainable public service2.	Why was it developed? To provide simpler, more cost effective and efficient grants administration across the pulic service.3.	Who were the key players in its development? The Digital Transformation Agency lead the development with Department of Finance and Prime Minister and Cabinet4.	Who else contibuted to its development? The two Hubs contributed to the development in the intial operationalisation of the Hubs. Consuming agencies also contibuted to development by defining their requirements for program design.5.	How did they contribute? Department of Finance, Digital Transformation Agency and Prime Minister and Cabinet formed the Governance and the Hubs operationalised the policy and vision in the development of two separate Hubs. In fact the way the Hubs deals with consuming agency programs is entirely different. For example, BGH provides end-to-end program management and CGH will manage certain parts of the grant program.6.	What formal consultation strategies were used in its development? Announced in the 2016/17 Budget and commenced on 1 July 2016. Unsure of the consultation prior to launch.7.	What informal strategies were used? Not sure8.	What was its information/evidence base? Not sure but possibly grants expenditure, digital future focus and efficiency vision.9.	What key factors influenced its final or present shape? The BGH has been influenced by consuming agencies and direction from the governance group. There was also a mid-program review through a consultancy who provided recomendatios on maturity and further development.10.	What was it intended to achieve? Savings, streamlined experience for users, user centred design, efficiencies and staffing caps.11.	Who was intended to benefit from it? The public through savings and also through more streamlined and accessible guidelines and programs.12.	Who did benefit from it? The public through the savings and the BGH through the expertise and knowledge it has developmed over the years to become an exemplar in grant design, management and deivery.13.	What did it achieve? Consistent guidelines with a familiar templated format and improved readability level; competivie costings for program management and delivery.14.	How did it achieve this? Through standardised templated resources, competitive costings, two Hubs (now 4 Hubs) with consuming agencies comparing costs.15.	What status or authority did it have? This was an approved Budget measure.16.	What form did it take? Authority for consuming agencies to use the BGH came through the Budget Process and Operational Rules and Estimates Memorandum.17.	How effective would you judge it to have been and why? It is a very effective Policy but because of the lack of consultation and authority consuming agencies were unsure of the policy initatilly. It has taken many years for the Hubs to develop and mature and for consuming agencies to engage in a collaborative and collegiate way.18.	What was your own role, if any, in relation to the policy? I commenced in the BGH in February 2017 as part of the Engagement team as an Account Manager and Project Manager. I was responsible for managing and developing relationships with consuming agencies and project management of on-boarding programs into the BGH. Most recently I have re-writted the Service Offer including the service strategy, logic, defining roles and responsibilities and service level standards.19.	What lessons can be drawn from this experience for future policy development? Early Authority is vital and communications to all stakeholders involved is also critical for success. In addition dedicated change management was required because this Policy was a significant shift for all agencies involved in policy development, program design, management and delivery.20.	What would you do differently now? If I had authority I would have had a strategic project manager to manage the program from design to BAU, benefits measurement that was thought out earlier to enable collection of metrics and KPIs/targets; set up a tool for program management and reporting.Compelling Policy influencesMinisters and the Government at the time place heavily influence on policy regardless of what current policies are in place.Often Programs are announced by a Minister before any of the details have been examined.  An example of this was the “Women in Science Program - Superstars in Stem.  This was announced by a Minister before initial costings and policy had been developed.  As it was a 2 year program, it was necessary to find external budget savings, draft policy documents etc  after the program had been announced.  Lobby groups are very skilled at targeting Ministers and so the “flavour of the month” policy will often been seen as more favourable than policies that aren’t so “exciting and new”.Media also have a huge tole to play in determining policy.  An example is the National School Chaplaincy Program which was dogged by intense media scrutiny.  Lobby groups were very successful in getting the policy into most Primary and High Schools around the nation, but one parent took umbrage at the so called blurred lines of separation of Church and State.  This resulted in the famous Ron Williams Versus Commonwealth case, which didn’t win on the separation of church and state matters, but was found to be invalidly funding the program.  This has now resulted in a huge number of policy clearance steps such as obtaining AGS advice, Constitutional risk assessment etc….What ways do stakeholder groups exert influence?Lobby groups are very successful at getting strategic meetings with Ministers, inviting key people to events, media opportunities.  The Ministers and their staff are aware that they need to make a good impression on the public within a limited time and are usually very open to the influence from the media and lobby groups.Media does the same type of influence at a larger scale, almost goading them into doing things to get media coverage (ie. Tony Abbott eating the raw onion in order to show appreciation to a Tasmanian onion farmer!)How does the Department engage in stakeholders?In a lot of processes, particularly if there is a tight timeline, there will be no engagement with stakeholders.  This is generally because there is a tight timeframe to start delivering the policy and consultation is time consuming.  Where there is consultation in tends to be at “arm’s length” and tends to more strategic engagement.  Often we will ask for feedback from our clients and customers, this information, to our knowledge is not utilised at all to better deliver policy outcomes.