Key issues around Australian policy directions on climate change, water and government risk management were under discussion at The Australian National University today in a new forum.

The Crawford School of Economics and Government at ANU marked its move to a new facility on the University campus by holding the first Crawford Policy Forum, on the theme Public Policy Challenges 2010. The event brought together academics, policy makers, diplomats and other decision makers.

Sessions included:

- After Copenhagen - Copenhagen implications for Australia / Climate commitments of China and America Speakers: Dr Frank Jotzo and Professor Stephen Howes

- New directions for government - The Australian government as risk manager / What's next for the operation of Australian government? Speakers: Professor Bruce Chapman and Dr Janine O'Flynn

- Environment and public policy - The economics of water reform in the Murray-Darling Basin / Achieving public legitimacy for environmental reforms Speakers: Professor Quentin Grafton and Dr Carolyn Hendriks

See below for more details on these highlights.

Forum sessions included time for questions and open discussion.

WHAT: Crawford Policy Forum - Public Policy Challenges 2010

WHEN: 9am - 1.30pm, Tuesday 16 February 2010

WHERE: Molonglo Theatre, J G Crawford Building (#132), Lennox Crossing, ANU

Media assistance: Henry Keenan, Crawford School 0405 102 560 Simon Couper, ANU media office 02 6125 4171, 0416 249 241

Highlight details from Policy Forum on the theme Public Policy Challenges 2010 --------------------------

Session: After CopenhagenSpeakers: Dr Frank Jotzo and Professor Stephen HowesTime: 9.10-10am

The Copenhagen climate talks have been described variously as a fiasco and an important step forward. What are the implications of Copenhagen, and how should Australia respond?

The fact that countries representing 80 per cent of global emissions have now submitted emission reduction and containment targets is a big step forward, Professor Stephen Howes will argue. Unfortunately, he says, the global framework for mitigation is murkier than ever.

"The ambition embedded in the various targets submitted by countries up to and since Copenhagen, in particular that of China, is in general high", Professor Howes says. "However, a continuing impasse at the international level will act as a drag on domestic efforts to reduce emissions, and make it less likely that countries will meet their targets."

Dr Frank Jotzo argues that Australia needs to tailor its commitment to the ambition put forward by other countries, and also be smart about harnessing reductions from forests and agriculture which may not be recognised under UN rules.

"A 15 per cent reduction commitment below 2000 levels by 2020 rules is justified, given other countries' commitments and Australia's interests," says Dr Jotzo, Fellow at the Crawford School and Deputy Director of the ANU Climate Change Institute. "The best way to achieve that is through emissions trading, starting with a fixed price.

"In addition, Australia could make strong contributions through biosequestration at home, and by helping reign in deforestation and peat fires in Indonesia. Measurement is difficult, but it could amount to very large reductions. Australia could make this a voluntary pledge, accounted for under 'Australian rules' rather than Kyoto rules."

--------------------------

Session: New directions for governmentSpeakers: Professor Bruce Chapman and Dr Janine O'FlynnTime: 10.30-11.20am

Professor Bruce Chapman will examine different and emerging aspects of the role of the Australian government as a risk manager.

"A useful characterization of what our government can contribute involves the spreading and diminution of the costs of uncertainty, and this has been achieved with some important policy initiatives such as Medicare and the use of income contingent loans such as with the Higher Education Contribution Scheme," he says.

Professor Chapman argues that there is great potential for the government to use financial risk management instruments to achieve more efficient and equitable outcomes, and will offer some insights into how this can be achieved with respect to several current policy concerns.

"For example, the extension of paid parental leave; the reform of training markets to alleviate re-emerging skill shortages; the smoothing of farm incomes through periods of drought; and responses to global financial crises.

"There are critical policy challenges related to the design of such interventions which can be traced to the pervasive presence of moral hazard and adverse selection."

Professor Chapman will also consider the need for a different way of the organisation of the public sector to facilitate moves towards more integrated approaches to risk management.

Dr Janine O'Flynn will take up a theme of Professor Chapman's talk - the importance of collaboration across government agencies.

Dr O'Flynn will reflect on the current process driven by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to create the 'blueprint' for the Reform of Australian Government Administration, in order to build "the world's best" public service. The driving force for this is to create an Australian Public Service which can respond to complex public policy challenges in the 21st century. An ambitious agenda has been staked out - each component of which presents its own difficulties.

In this talk Dr O'Flynn will focus on the call for systemic reform centred on a strategic whole-of-government approach. In doing so, she will point to the opportunities and challenges presented by a more collaborative approach, and provide some evidence-based advice on how to crack some of the enduring tensions of collaborative governance. --------------------------

Session: Environment and public policySpeakers: Professor Quentin Grafton and Dr Carolyn HendriksTime: 11.20am-12.10pm

Professor Quentin Grafton argues that the goals set out by government in water reform for the Murray-Darling Basin can be achieved more cost-effectively and deliver better 'value for money' for tax payers. He proposes changes to the implementation of water reform but stresses that it is not more money that is required, but the reallocation of funds already committed by governments.

In particular, Professor Grafton argues that offering incentives for farmers and their communities (such as the provision of public and community services) now will help them adjust to the lower water diversions that will be implemented in 2011 under the Basin Plan. This is possible, he says, through combining the $3.1 billion allocated to buying water entitlements and the $5.8 billion targeted for water infrastructure subsidies under Water for the Future, previously earmarked to be spent over the next 10 years. This will "achieve a sustainable future for the environment and agriculture within the Basin, at no extra cost," he says. It will also help to secure the "long-term future" (of affected communities) and community support for reform.

Dr Carolyn Hendriks argues that the public will not give environmental policy decisions legitimacy if they are not included in the decision-making process. "Crisis issues such as water reform require engagement from the public, not just experts and stakeholders," Dr Hendriks says. She emphasises the importance of "public deliberation", arguing that government should provide more opportunities for informed public input such as citizens' forums.

Transparency and accountability in the creation of environmental policy are also critical to obtaining public legitimacy, she says. "Public inclusion is not only desirable for effective policy development, but essential for the democratic legitimacy of policy decisions."

Source: The Australian National University http://news.anu.edu.au?p=1959