We are witnessing a growing trust divide in Australia which has increased in scope and intensity since 2007. There is widespread concern among scholars and in popular commentary that citizens have grown more distrustful of politicians, sceptical about democratic institutions, and disillusioned with democratic processes or even principles. Indeed, David Thodey, the Chair of the current Review of the Australian Public Service (APS) has highlighted his concern with the trust divide between government and citizen and argued that “Trust is a foundation stone for good [APS] work”.[1]
The purpose of this rapid review is fourfold, to investigate: 1) why trust/distrust matters; 2) whether and how declining trust is impacting on public experience of services; 3) how trust influences public behaviour such as the uptake of services; and 4), how the Australian Public Service (APS) can enhance the quality of public service production and use the service experience as a space for trust building. The review evaluates academic and grey literature that addresses these four areas of inquiry and develops a framework for subsequent qualitative research on public service production in regional Australia.
Key findings
Defining trust
We understand trust as a relational concept about ‘keeping promises and agreements’ (Hetherington, 2005). This is in keeping with the OECD’s definition where trust is “holding a positive perception about the actions of an individual or an organization” (OECD 2017: 16). For the purposes of this study, this would mean that trust in Australian public services requires government to deliver services that citizens’ value to a satisfactory level of performance.
Why trust/distrust matters
We discover that there are two main literatures that seek to make sense of these issues – the interdisciplinary literature on political trust and the public management literature on the changing nature of public service production.
With reference to the former literature, we note that weakening political trust: erodes civic engagement and conventional forms of public participation; reduces support for progressive public policies and promotes risk aversion and short-termism in government; and, creates the space for the rise of authoritarian-populist forces.
There are also implications for long-term democratic stability as liberal democratic regimes are thought most durable when built upon popular legitimacy. We also observe that it is extremely difficult to divorce public attitudes to politicians from public attitudes towards the quality of public service production.
However, as it is beyond the decision-making authority of the APS to address the problem of declining public trust with politicians, it makes better sense to focus attention on how the APS can deliver the best service experience possible and contribute to bridging the trust divide. This draws us inexorably towards supply-side theories of trust which focus on enhancing the quality of public service production. Trust in public services matters because this is where citizens interact with government and an opportunity is provided for strengthening the quality of democratic governance. Public service design and delivery is a fertile space for trust building.
What do Australians think about the services they receive?
Findings from the Citizen Experience Survey undertaken by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet indicate that despite similar satisfaction rates with public services as urban citizens, and similar levels of effort to access and receive public services, only 27 percent of regional Australians trust Australian government public services, compared with 32 percent of urban citizens. These low levels of trust, despite high levels of satisfaction, highlight that government performance (where here trust in public services is a proxy) is only one factor driving citizen’s confidence in government. This observation is in keeping with the secondary literature which views trust as a multi-dimensional problem requiring a broad range of responses.
Barriers and enablers to effective public service delivery
Box i presents an overview of the key barriers and enablers to public service production identified in the review.
Box i. Barriers and enablers to quality public service production
| Delivery barriers | Enablers |
|---|---|
| Lack of proactive engagement from government with users | Personalisation of public services |
| Users experience difficulty finding the right information, at the right time, in the right context | Establish a single source of truth across government information |
| Access to services is hindered by the complexity of government structures | Join-up, collaborate simplify and ensure “line of sight” |
| Users are uncertain about government entitlements and obligations | Proactive engagement from government through strategic communication |
| Public services are not meeting user service delivery expectations | Create service charters and incentivise performance |
| Users are being required to provide information multiple times | “Tell us once” – integrated service systems |
| Inconsistent and inaccessible content | Adopt user-first design principles |
| Complexity of tools provided by government | Simplify around user needs |
The majority of informants we interviewed as a component of this project, argued that a culture shift was required in the way Commonwealth departments and agencies manage and deliver public services to meet the Thodey aspiration of “seamless services and local solutions designed and delivered with states, territories and partners”. Although many noted that the process of change was underway. Five specific reform themes loomed large in discussion:
- Problem seek – see user feedback as an opportunity for progress. Take all complaints seriously and use simulators to make progress (e.g. ATO simulation lab, co-lab). Consider complaints at executive board level with reporting requirements.
- Use the APS footprint to facilitate whole of APS collaboration in community engagement.
- Collaborate whole of government in policy design and delivery through shared accountability mechanisms and budgetary incentives.
- Practice co-(user) design by default and use behavioural insights to improve our understanding of the needs and aspirations of target groups and develop personalised service offerings.
- Develop opportunities for dynamic engagement with users through inclusive service design and strategic communication.
There is significant evidence to demonstrate that the application of user-first design principles and the personalisation of public services can improve take-up of services and trust in government more broadly.
Indices for the qualitative analysis of public service production in regional Australia
We have therefore designed a set of indices to help us measure the relationship between trust and the quality of public service production. These include:
Trust as Competence (responsiveness and reliability)– the capacity and good judgement to effectively deliver the agreed goods/mandate;
Trust as Values (integrity, transparency and fairness)– the underpinning intentions and principles that guide actions and behaviours;
Trust as Satisficing – the degree to which citizens’ expectations of a service have been satisfied.
The review concludes by acknowledging that trust is a complex and multi-dimensional concept with many of these dimensions overlapping in practice. It therefore synthesises and clarifies the various drivers and dimensions of trust into a single trust framework (see Figure 5). In this framework we recognise the importance of trust in government, providing a feedback loop between trust in public service production and trust in government. We describe a citizen’s expectations of a public service not as a block box, but as an array of micro-contracts, each with their own conditions of satisfaction and levels of importance.
[1] See S. Easton, “APS Review update: panel leaning towards a small list of big ideas”, The Mandarin, 7 November 2018. See: https://www.themandarin.com.au/101037-aps-review-panel-update-panel-leaning-towards-a-small-list-of-big-ideas/. Retrieved 21 February 2019.