Introduction

This chapter gives an overview of the evolution of government-established and -supported expert policy advisory bodies (EPABs) at the federal level in Australia from the 1970s to 2010. In reviewing these bodies, we seek to answer the following questions about advisory bodies in general and the role of expertise in policy development in particular. First, why were these specialised bodies established outside the formal permanent bureaucracy? Second, what has given these bodies their ‘expertness’? Third, what processes have they employed and how have these processes contributed both to perceptions of their expertness and to their value in policy development? Fourth, what has been their impact on policy; has it gone beyond the specific issues on which they have provided advice and affected the wider debate and agenda? Lastly, what do the operations and perceived success or failure of these bodies tell us about the nature of policy development in Australia and the role of expertise?

To focus our investigation, we have analysed the evolution of three of these bodies in detail: one from the field of economics (the Productivity Commission [PC]); one from law (the Australian Law Reform Commission [ALRC]); and one from science (the Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council [ASTEC]).

Defining expert policy advisory bodies

Before proceeding, it is important that we define and clarify what we mean by EPABs. They have the following features:

• • they are established and funded by government;

• • they are ongoing bodies;

• • they have a clear organisational form, usually, but not always, backed by legislation;

• • they fulfil an advisory function based on research or expertise as distinct from a programme delivery role;

• • their members are drawn from outside the normal departmental/public service structure, and are appointed because of their specific knowledge and/ or experience;

• • they respond to specific ministerial requests for advice (references), but possess freedom to craft their own investigatory methods (some may also investigate areas of their own choosing);

• • they have some public processes of investigation with requirements for consultation; and

• • they generally release their findings to the general public through reports and discussion papers.

These expert advisory bodies are not ad hoc public inquiries that report on a specific policy issue or problem or seek to investigate an area of maladministration, corruption or the causes of some major natural catastrophe (Prasser, 2006).