Evidence and policy judgement in public inquiries

Abstract

With public policy issues becoming more complex and cross-boundary, there is a growing need for policy institutions equipped to consider and reconcile diverse evidence. This thesis examines a prevalent, but often overlooked, mainstream policy arrangement - the public inquiry - to understand better the process of reconciling diverse forms of policy knowledge. Established by executive government, public inquiries typically involve a temporary advisory board of external experts who gather and synthesise evidence and provide policy advice. This thesis sheds light on these evidentiary practices by asking: how do actors involved in public inquiries understand, use, and navigate evidence? This question is explored empirically through a comparative study of two Australian social policy inquiries: the Ministerial Taskforce on Child Support (2004-05) and the Reference Group on Welfare Reform (1999-2000). Using an interpretive approach, the research examines the meanings that actors place on evidence and its use during public inquiries. This research draws on 39 semi-structured interviews and extensive inquiry documentation.

Overall, this thesis seeks to advance current understandings of public inquiries, particularly how they gather and use evidence, and how they develop policy advice. A nuanced and dynamic account of the evidentiary practices of public inquiries is revealed, and this challenges conventional characterisations of public inquiries as either 'political puppets' deploying evidence symbolically or 'impartial advisers' using evidence objectively and unsullied by politics. Most significantly, this thesis illuminates how diverse evidence is navigated and reconciled. Through exploring how inquiry actors produce policy advice, the practice of 'policy judgement' is revealed. This is an iterative and deliberative process which involves collectively weighing evidence in the light of normative, practical, and political concerns. The thesis argues that this policy judgement aspect of public inquiries makes them important sites of evidence reconciliation and of 'evidence-informed policy'. However, much depends on who gets to be involved and how. If public inquiries are to maintain relevance in an era of growing policy complexity and plurality, then greater attention needs to be paid to their recruitment practices and institutional design.