NSW Workers’ Compensation Reform: A Parody of Evidence‐based Policy Making

Abstract

The characteristics and evolution of evidence-based policy making in Australia and other mature democracies have been mapped extensively in this journal. This article advances research on the use of evidence in policy making, examining changes in the New South Wales workers' compensation system from 2012 to 2014. This analysis of two phases of policy change, legislative implementation and statutory review, highlights the limitations of building integrated, coherent evidence-based policy in a contentious policy area. The article finds that the collection of wide and detailed evidence will not satisfy requirements of evidence-based policy without political will, transparency, and accountability.

Return to work after workplace injury: Injured workers, insurers and employers

“…In June 2012, the New South Wales (NSW) government substantially amended workers’ entitlements to financial, medical, lump sum and other benefits under the state's workers’ compensation system, in response to a projected $4.1 million liability (Holley et al. ). According to the government, the intentions of the Workers’ Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2012 (NSW) (Amendment Act) were to stimulate an employer focus on injury prevention, reduce insurance premiums, improve the scheme's financial viability and return employees to work more quickly (Pearce ).…”

Why was apparent evidence ignored? The delayed relaxation of China's birth control

“…Usually this exists in situations where different evidence conflicts in its policy implications, making it more important to handle divergent evidence than gathering more evidence (Tenbensel, ). Contentious policy areas often have dilemmas in building integrated and coherent evidence‐based policy (Holley et al., ). Although lack of methods and capacities to synthesize evidence makes systematic review difficult (Newman, Cherney, & Head, ; Pawson, ), political and environmental factors may fundamentally explain obviously slow policy response when internal conflict of evidence is not sizable.…”

“…Evidence may also be interpreted and used in an institutional context that seeks a balance between instrumental efficiency and political legitimacy (March & Olsen, ). Intense value conflicts can suffocate the EBPM approach at all stages of a policy process (Holley, Thornthwaite, Markey, & O'Neill, ; Maddison, ).…”

Policy‐Based Evidence Making in Local Government: The New South Wales’ Municipal Merger Program, 2011 to 2017

“…The concept of “policy advisory systems” as a method of understanding the spectrum of policy advice employed by public agencies in contemporary policymaking was proposed by Halligan (). In this context, Craft and Howlett (, p. 187) have argued that policy advisory systems can be observed “in almost every instance of decision‐making whereby governments receive advice not just from professional analysts in their employ or from outside groups, but also from a range of other actors, from think tanks and lobbyists, but also from partisan political advisors, scientific, technical and legal experts, and many others both inside and outside of government.” A substantial scholarly literature has evolved around policy advisory systems (Wu et al ., ), which incorporates Australian work (see, for instance, Head, , ; Holley et al ., ; Kay, ; Marston & Watts, ; Watts & Marston, ; Weller & Stevens, ).…”