[Linda] I'll start today's webinar by acknowledging and paying my respects to the traditional owners of the lands on which we're meeting.
[Linda] Welcome. I'm really glad you're here.
[Linda] For me, here, I'm in Naarm, or Melbourne, on the lands of the Wurundjeri, Woiwurrung, and Boonwurrung peoples, and I acknowledge their elders past, present, and emerging, which is always very important, but particularly so this week in what is National Reconciliation Week.
[Linda] Today's webinar is called From Review to Real-World Impact: How Independent Reviews Strengthen Public Policy.
[Linda] We're going to cover three themes: the decision to commission a review and why timing matters; the review experience and what makes one useful rather than just technically complete; and what actually happens after a review takes place.
[Linda] We've already received a range of questions in advance of today's webinar from our audience, and we'll respond to some of those towards the end, but please feel free to continue to send in your questions via the chat, and we'll be monitoring those and aim to respond to those at the end of today's webinar.
[Linda] I want to start with a small disclosure that I think is actually the whole point of today's session. I'm not just your host today, I'm also the reviewer.
[Linda] I led or played a key role on all three of the reviews we're going to discuss today. So the people who have joined me today and are sitting on this panel aren't just guests, they're clients.
[Linda] And I've worked closely and collaboratively with all three of them on significant projects. And what we're going to do is have an honest conversation about what that experience was actually like from both sides of the table. That means you're going to hear from the people who commissioned the work about what they were really trying to achieve, what the review process felt like from the inside, and what actually changed as a result.
[Linda] And I'll be able to offer the reviewer's perspective on those same moments. I hope that that makes for a rich and genuinely useful conversation. I think it does.
[Linda] Before we go further, I want to thank our panelists for being with us today. They've generously volunteered their time to share their views, and I'm deeply grateful to them for joining us. I'm going to introduce them now.
[Linda] First, we have Jo Foster. Jo's the Director of Tobacco Regulation, Compliance, and Illicit Trade Policy at the Australian Government Department of Health, Disability, and Aging.
[Linda] Jo was our client for the 2023 Impact Analysis of the Tobacco Control Legislative Framework, which was a major piece of regulatory analysis supporting Australia's National Tobacco Strategy, and a package of 12 measures to reduce prevalence of tobacco use and its associated costs. Welcome, Jo.
[Linda] Paul Jung is Assistant Director of the Water Efficiency Labeling and Standards, or WELS program, in the Water Infrastructure and Investment Division at the Australian Government Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment, and Water.
[Linda] And you can recognise the WELS scheme by the sticker that you can see on Paul's background in front of you.
[Linda] Paul was part of the team that commissioned Allen and Clarke to conduct the 2020 independent review of the WELS scheme, Australia's national mandatory water efficiency labeling program, covering common household water-using products from shower heads to washing machines. Welcome, Paul.
[Linda] And Aren Jacka is the director of the Family Violence Multi-Agency Risk Assessment and Management, or MARAM, Framework and Information Sharing Unit at Family Safety Victoria, within the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing here in Victoria.
[Linda] Aren was our client for the 2023 review of MARAM, which is a legislated framework that establishes a shared understanding of family violence and a coordinated approach to managing risk across multiple agencies. Welcome to all our panelists. Thank you for joining us today.
[Linda] Okay, so let's start at the beginning — the decision to commission a review and why the timing of that decision matters as much as the decision itself.
[Linda] From my side of the table, one of the things that I've learnt over many years of doing this work is that the quality of a review is shaped significantly before the reviewer arrives.
[Linda] The framing of the question, the readiness of the commissioning team, the clarity of the terms of reference — all of that is established by the client. So I'm always curious about what was happening inside the organisation before we were engaged.
[Linda] Paul, I'll come to you first. The WELS Review was a statutory requirement — the act requires an independent review every five years. So in one sense, the timing was set for you, but from my experience leading the review, it was clear that your team had given real thought to what you wanted from it.
[Linda] This wasn't just a box to tick. Can you talk us through the internal conversation and what you actually wanted to get out of it?
[Paul] Yeah. Thanks, Linda. For WELS, the core question was whether the scheme was still working — still achieving the objectives of the WELS Act after 15 years. Was it delivering what it was intended to deliver?
[Paul] It was also an opportunity to understand whether things could be done better — not just "is it working," but "how could it work more effectively." The scheme had already demonstrated real results, but the question was whether it was keeping pace with market innovation and with changing consumer behaviour.
[Paul] The terms of reference set clear parameters. They preserved the reviewer's independence to reach their own conclusions while giving us confidence the review would address the right questions. That upfront investment in the brief really mattered.
[Linda] Yeah, thanks, Paul. And look, from my perspective as the reviewer, one of the key features of the review was that alongside the review of the WELS scheme, you'd also commissioned the WELS Intergovernmental Agreement Review, and that was the precursor to the WELS scheme.
[Linda] And that was really the first review of the IGA, which gave us an opportunity to apply that deeper strategic and governance lens to the review as well.
[Linda] Jo, I'm going to come to you next. So the tobacco impact analysis that we did had a very specific trigger. There was a sunset provision in the existing tobacco control regulations, meaning that the legislative instruments would automatically lapse unless active decisions were made. And the government had signalled its intention to act. Can you take us back to that moment — what was driving the timing, and why was it so important that this work was done independently?
[Jo] Yes. Thank you, Linda. The sunsetting provision created the window. The existing instruments, in particular, the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Regulations, would lapse without action.
[Jo] But the timing wasn't just the sunsetting provision — that was our lever. The team had been working towards this moment for years. The National Tobacco Strategy 2023 to 2030 (NTS) and the National Preventative Health Strategy (NPHS) 2021 to 2030 included ambitious targets in relation to tobacco control. We knew that despite Australia's success in tobacco control, further regulatory measures and increased investments were required to achieve these targets. When the government announced its intention to strengthen the tobacco control framework, we had to be ready to move quickly.
[Jo] So understanding when a policy window will open and being prepared for when it does was something the team had thought very carefully about. The lesson for others is: if you can see a reform opportunity on the horizon, start your preparation well before it arrives.
[Jo] The department also invested deliberately in building internal capability ahead of this work, recruiting people with the right analytical and policy skills so that when the external work was complete, there was a team ready to receive it, use it, and drive the implementation.
[Jo] In this review, independence was also critical because of Australia's obligations as a party to the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control — the FCTC. Australia has committed under Article 5.3 of this treaty to protect its public health policies with respect to tobacco control from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry in accordance with national law.
[Jo] Article 5.3 requires public officials to protect public health policies in relation to tobacco control from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry. That doesn't mean the industry's voice is excluded — it's important to hear industry's views.
[Jo] But there needed to be a clear structural separation, and this meant that the consultation with the tobacco industry was managed entirely by Allen and Clarke.
[Linda] Thanks, Jo, and it was an incredibly interesting piece of work. Aren, I'm going to come to you now. So the MARAM review was also a statutory requirement. The Family Violence Protection Act in Victoria also requires that five-year review of the framework, and this was its inaugural review.
[Linda] But MARAM is a really different context. This is a legislated framework that sits across thousands of prescribed organisations in Victoria, spanning health, justice, education, housing, and many other sectors. What was on your mind going into this review, and what were the questions that mattered most to you?
[Aren] Thanks. So MARAM was established in 2018 following the Royal Commission into Family Violence, and by the time of the review, around 400,000 workers were prescribed and had undertaken training aligned to the framework.
[Aren] A little different to a legislative review on the operation of the Act itself, which was undertaken separately — this review was about the evidence base of the framework and the practice.
[Aren] The core question was: Is the framework still reflecting best practice of family violence risk assessment and management? The evidence base for family violence risk assessment evolves, and the review needed to ensure MARAM was keeping pace.
[Aren] The second question was practical: What changes were required to ensure that MARAM is consistent with those best practices? In order to answer this, the reviewer needed to understand the breadth of application for MARAM. A framework that works well in a specialist family violence service may land very differently in a health service, a school, or a court.
[Aren] The review needed to explore that variation honestly. And consulting with victim survivors was also both essential and ethically complex. Their experience of how the framework operates in practice is irreplaceable, but engagement had to be handled with real care and be trauma-informed. That shaped how the review was designed from the outset.
[Linda] Thanks, Aren. And can you tell us what you hoped the independent review of MARAM would reveal that internal monitoring and reporting couldn't?
[Aren] Yeah. So MARAM was the first of its kind in the world, with the breadth of workforces covered, and that all family violence experience across all communities is recognised.
[Aren] We know that the evidence base for family violence — how it is experienced across different communities and in different relationships, and what the effective responses are — is a continual learning process. We don't learn through the standard reporting and governance alone how evidence-based practice has evolved and how risk presents differently across those communities, or how those communities are best supported.
[Aren] With the development and initial implementation of practice guidance with victim survivors, we learned so much about the lived experience and engagement needs across communities.
[Aren] The MARAM framework, whilst legislated, has a commitment to continuous improvement built into its design. Hence, a five-yearly evidence review ensures that we can continue to learn and strengthen system response over time.
[Linda] Thanks. And Aren, are there any particular tensions in scoping a review of a framework that sits across so many different organisations and sectors?
[Aren] Yeah. MARAM enables flexibility in implementation whilst maintaining a central repository of knowledge and resources.
[Aren] The tension is in how well it is implemented across services and systems to balance this flexibility with the overarching goal of a shared understanding and true commitment of all funded professionals to have a role to identify or assess family violence, and the level of their responsibility to respond.
[Aren] How truly well this is being done needs to be monitored over time, and this is why the five-yearly evidence review is required.
[Linda] Thanks, Aren. And look, one of the things I found striking about the MARAM review was that scale of what we were being asked to assess — not a single program or a scheme, but a system-wide framework, really, embedded across thousands of organisations.
[Linda] The literature review alone had to canvas the international evidence base on family violence risk assessment and risk management, and then we had to test that against what was actually happening in practice.
[Linda] What that breadth of consultation revealed — which I think would've been quite hard to see from inside — was a consistent pattern. MARAM was valued and trusted, but there were areas where further work and maturation was required.
[Linda] Drawing this together — what I'm hearing from across all three of you is that really the decision to commission a review is never purely administrative. There's always an underlying question that someone genuinely needs answered, and the timing is rarely accidental.
[Linda] The readiness of the commissioning team and the clarity of the brief that they bring to the reviewer shapes everything that follows.
[Linda] So if you're thinking about commissioning a review or if you've already started, here are three things worth doing before your reviewer even arrives.
[Linda] One: write down the question you actually need answered. Not just what might be a mandated question, but the internal one — the one you'd ask over coffee. Paul's team wanted to know whether the scheme was still fit for purpose after 15 years. Jo's team wanted to make sure that a policy window didn't close before the work was ready. Aren's team wanted to know whether a framework operating across thousands of organisations was still grounded in best practice. Being clear on that question shapes everything from scope to who you appoint.
[Linda] Second: audit your readiness, not just your timeline. The reviews that land are the ones where the commissioning team has thought in advance about what internal analysis can't tell them, about what independence needs to do for them, about what they will do with findings that challenge the current approach.
[Linda] And thirdly: be explicit about why independence matters for your specific context. For the tobacco control work, independence wasn't just good practice — it was an obligation under the World Health Organisation Framework Convention for Tobacco Control. For WELS, it was the credibility of findings that the scheme's own administrators couldn't self-certify. And for MARAM, it was the legitimacy that comes from a process that includes victim survivors, frontline practitioners, and peak bodies alongside government. Knowing your "why" for independence helps you write better terms of reference and brief your reviewer more effectively.
[Linda] I want to turn now to the review experience itself — what it actually takes to produce something that's useful rather than just technically complete.
[Linda] This is the part where I find it most interesting to hear from clients, because reviewers and clients often have quite different memories of the same moments. What felt like a productive challenge from my side might have felt quite different from yours.
[Linda] Paul, we consulted really widely for the WELS review — industry, environmental groups, consumer groups, government stakeholders. From your side, what did that consultation reveal that you weren't expecting? Was there anything in the findings that surprised you or that shifted your thinking?
[Paul] Yeah. One of the things the consultation surfaced was the extent to which different stakeholder groups — industry on one side, environment and consumer groups on the other — actually shared some of the same concerns about the scheme's coverage and future direction, even if they expressed them differently. That convergence across what might seem like opposing groups was notable.
[Paul] The review of the intergovernmental agreement revealed some areas where the governance arrangements between the Commonwealth and the states and territories could be strengthened — not broken, but with room for improvement that internal review might not have surfaced as clearly.
[Paul] The review confirmed the scheme was still achieving its objectives under the Act, and that it was reducing water consumption and contributing to water efficiency. But it also made recommendations for enhancement. These ranged from incremental improvements to genuine change, such as developing a framework for prioritising new products that are most likely to further the impact of the WELS scheme, achieving its objectives in reducing water consumption.
[Paul] One of the things we were deliberate about was maintaining the review's independence while working within clear parameters. The terms of reference set the scope, but within that, we had confidence that Allen and Clarke could go where the evidence led.
[Paul] That meant at times there was some tension between parameters and the findings. For example, it is not uncommon for there to be some overlap between regulatory schemes and a recommendation to have greater alignment. For regulatory schemes that overlap, there are often significant limitations for achieving greater alignment or amalgamation.
[Linda] Yeah. Thanks, Paul. And Jo, one of the key features in the tobacco impact analysis that we did is a very simple number that came out of the analysis — which was that only 73 people would need to permanently quit smoking each year to cover the entire regulatory burden of the full package of 12 measures that were being proposed.
[Linda] Did that kind of framing actually make a difference in how decision-makers engaged with the analysis?
[Jo] Yeah. Thanks, Linda. A regulatory impact analysis has to satisfy multiple audiences simultaneously — the Office of Impact Analysis, ministers, legal advisors, industry, public health advocates, just to name a few.
[Jo] The OIA — the Office of Impact Analysis — rated the tobacco impact analysis as "exemplary," their highest rating, and the third such at the time, since 2020. That recognition matters because it signals to everyone who picks up the document that the process is rigorous and the analysis can be relied upon. This ensured that the reforms had a strong evidence base and were able to withstand the highest level of scrutiny.
[Jo] The department had built internal capability specifically to engage with the work of this complexity. This allowed the minister to be well-briefed and the ambitious time frames to be met, and to enable stakeholder relationships to be well managed.
[Jo] The "73 people" framing that the IA delivered came out of a very deliberate effort to make the cost-benefit analysis case legible to someone who wasn't an economist but had to make a real decision. The social costs of tobacco use in Australia are significant.
[Jo] The 73-person framing — what it does is reorientate the reader. It asks: "How much change does it take to justify this?" And the answer is: very little. In a contested policy space, having a frame like that, rigorously derived and independently validated, changes the terms of the conversation.
[Jo] On reflection, would I have done anything differently? There are always opportunities to improve and additional resources that may have reduced some of the long days for the team and me. However, in an environment where resources are limited, we made sure the team had the critical expertise needed, drawing on both internal and external support, to deliver successfully within the time frame. But in terms of timing, process, or how the IA was communicated, I don't think I would've completed those differently.
[Linda] Thanks, Jo. Aren, coming to you now. The MARAM review involved 225 stakeholders — that included, crucially, victim-survivors themselves. Engaging victim-survivors in a review of a system designed to keep them safe is both essential and genuinely complex. What difference did that direct engagement make to the findings and to the legitimacy of the review?
[Aren] Yeah. Victim-survivors' perspectives were irreplaceable. They told us how the framework operated in practice — or didn't — that no amount of practitioner consultation or data could have surfaced. Their experience is critical evidence.
[Aren] The review found that across all sectors, MARAM is a highly valued resource. That finding is meaningful precisely because it comes from the people the framework is designed to protect, and also from service providers, government stakeholders, and academics.
[Aren] At the same time, some of the most challenging findings also came from this consultation — around whether MARAM's description of family violence fully captured the experience of coercive control, whether the resources adequately supported victim survivor agency and choice, and whether diverse communities — including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, people with disability, and LGBTIQA+ communities — were adequately reflected in the framework's guidance.
[Aren] The rigour of the engagement — consulting in a way that was genuinely safe and respectful — was what made those findings usable. If the process had been less careful, the findings would've been less trustworthy and less likely to be accepted.
[Aren] One of the things I found most instructive about the MARAM review was the relationship between the literature review and the stakeholder consultation. Allen and Clarke went into consultation having done a comprehensive review of the international evidence on best practice in family violence risk assessment.
[Aren] And what they found was that in many ways, MARAM was already consistent with, or even ahead of, the international evidence base — and that's a real validation of the original framework design.
[Aren] But the consultation also revealed implementation gaps that the evidence base alone couldn't have identified — practitioners who understood the framework but were uncertain how to apply it in complex intersectional situations, and sectors where MARAM was embedded on paper but not yet embedded in practice. The 17 recommendations helped us understand the evidence gaps that were surfaced in the review and where to focus our attention next.
[Linda] Thanks, Aren. And look, now I want to ask something that I think is important to name. Looking across all three reviews, the findings were honest — validating in some ways, challenging in others. None of them simply said, "Everything's fine." From my side as a reviewer, I'm always aware that clients have a significant stake in the findings. So how do you create the conditions internally for genuinely receiving a challenging finding? Because in my experience, that internal readiness is not automatic, so you've invested in it. Can you talk us through that, Paul?
[Paul] Yeah. For WELS, the terms of reference created a kind of contract. We had committed to an independent process, which meant committing in advance to taking the findings seriously.
[Linda] Thanks, Paul. Jo?
[Jo] When the stakes are as high as they are in tobacco policy and when the political environment is as contested as it is, a challenging finding is actually an asset because it demonstrates the robustness of the process.
[Linda] Yeah. Thanks, Jo. Absolutely. And Aren?
[Aren] Yeah. Similarly, when you're working in family violence, the cost of getting it wrong is people's safety — so that context makes it easier to receive challenging findings, as it's critical that we know.
[Linda] Yeah. Thank you, all. All right. So three things worth taking away from this segment.
[Linda] Firstly: get your brief right and then let the reviewer do their job. The terms of reference set the parameters, but within those, the value of independence is that it can go where internal analysis can't. If you're managing the reviewer too closely, you're paying for independence and then you're neutralising it.
[Linda] Secondly: think about how findings will need to be communicated before the review starts. Who are the audiences? What will make the analysis legible to a minister, key departmental stakeholders, a frontline worker, an industry group? That framing question is worth raising early, not left to the write-up.
[Linda] And finally: prepare your organisation to receive a challenging finding. This sounds obvious, but it isn't. It means having a senior sponsor who can hold space for a result that creates internal discomfort, and a plan for what happens if the findings push back on the current approach.
[Linda] The question I always want to know the answer to — and rarely get to ask publicly — is what actually happened after we handed over the report. Because from the reviewer's side, that can sometimes be invisible to us. We deliver findings, we make recommendations, and then we move on to the next project. What happens inside the organisation is something we don't always see.
[Linda] Paul, the WELS regulator accepted, or accepted in principle, all of the recommendations of the WELS review and the Intergovernmental Agreement review, and they then informed the WELS strategic plan for 2022 to 2025. I know one concrete outcome was the development of a product expansion program. Can you walk us through how that happened — from receiving the recommendations to actually doing something with them?
[Paul] Yeah. Look, the starting point was going through the recommendations carefully — understanding what each one was actually suggesting, what it would require, and who would need to be involved. That triage is important. Not all recommendations have the same implementation pathway or the same degree of urgency.
[Paul] The regulator responded to each recommendation by accepting them in full or accepting them in principle, where their implementation was dependent on the action or agreement of others, such as state and territory governments or industry and government committees.
[Paul] The Product Expansion Program is a concrete example of a recommendation translating to action. The review recommended development of a framework to prioritise new products that are most likely to impact on the WELS scheme, achieving its objectives in reducing water consumption. From this recommendation, the Product Expansion Program was developed and is now an active function within the WELS scheme.
[Paul] In summary, what it encompasses is that for the last three years, WELS has sought nominations for new products to be considered for inclusion in the scheme. Through that process, we have received over 10 product nominations. The next steps are to evaluate those products against criteria for meeting the WELS scheme's objectives, and subsequently to determine the pathway to regulatory inclusion if they meet those criteria.
[Paul] To date, through that process, we have progressed commercial ice makers to voluntarily declare their water use within the regulatory framework of the Equipment Energy Efficiency Program — a similar program to WELS that rates the energy efficiency of products, the energy star rating label. This option was chosen as a non-regulatory approach that will be monitored to assess the uptake and impact.
[Paul] In terms of the recommendations and what can be actioned, that does rely on resources and, where applicable, cross-agency coordination. Something we are able to achieve more readily are the enhancements to our database to achieve efficiencies for our stakeholders.
[Paul] Of course, there are more complex recommendations that take time to develop and require broader stakeholder engagement. An example of that is undertaking a revision of the WELS Australian Standard — this is a multi-year project that involves many industry stakeholders.
[Linda] Yeah. Thanks, Paul — a huge amount of work that happened following the review. Thanks. Jo, the impact analysis went on to support a substantial legislative package, and after we handed it over, I'm keen to hear from you about where things went. And looking back, what do you think that having that rigorous, independently assessed analysis actually enabled?
[Jo] Yeah, thanks, Linda. After the IA was completed, public consultation on the draft regulations and the proposed graphic health warnings and health promotion inserts took place. That was also led by Allen and Clarke to ensure compliance with the WHO FCTC obligations. And then seven months after the IA was finalised, changes to the tobacco legislation came into effect on 1 April 2024.
[Jo] The new legislation modernised and simplified tobacco laws and introduced a range of new measures. There was also a transition period for industry. The process had been designed to be robust and defensible.
[Jo] The department's investment in internal capability really paid off at this stage, too. Having people internally who understood the analysis deeply meant that the legislative process could move quickly and accurately. The team wasn't learning the detail of the work at the same time as they were trying to implement it.
[Jo] Having an "exemplary"-rated IA — where the industry consultation and economic analysis had been conducted at arm's length — provided independence in a contested policy space. When industry groups challenged elements of the package, the government could point to a process that was both rigorous and independent. This supported the government in progressing the reforms through parliamentary debate.
[Jo] For those working in contested policy spaces, key learnings are: to start policy development early and build a strong evidence base so you are as ready as possible for when the opportunity arises. And engage with the right expertise, both internally and externally, including policy officers, legal experts, and cost-benefit consultants who bring their relevant experience or can quickly acquire the knowledge needed to support delivery. Without the right team and the ability to be able to pivot and remain flexible, successful delivery of the review and associated reforms is unlikely.
[Linda] Thanks, Jo. And Aren, the Victorian Government accepted all 17 of the MARAM review's recommendations — which is a significant outcome. What actually happened after that acceptance, and what has that meant in practice for the framework and the people it serves?
[Aren] Yeah. So acceptance of all 17 recommendations was an important signal — it meant the government was willing to act on findings that included some genuine challenges to the current framework, not just the easier ones.
[Aren] The recommendations are now being worked through. Some are about updating and expanding the framework itself, and others are about implementation and capability — helping practitioners across all of the prescribed sectors to apply MARAM more consistently and confidently.
[Aren] Some of the findings aren't quick fixes. We are exploring new technologies to promote accessibility of resources without losing the value of their comprehensiveness. We're also undertaking a large conceptual project to define alignment and processes to achieve this.
[Linda] Thanks, Aren. So look, what I hear across all three of you is that the report is not the end of the review — it's really the beginning of a different kind of work. The findings land, and then someone has to decide what to do with them, in what order, with what resources, in an environment that may or may not be ready.
[Linda] So two things worth taking from this segment. The first is: treat implementation as a separate project, not a footnote. The WELS team went through each recommendation deliberately, understanding what it would actually require before committing to it. That triage is what separates organisations that act on reviews from those that file them.
[Linda] Independent scrutiny is an asset in contested environments, but only if you've built the foundations for it. The tobacco package withstood scrutiny because the process had been rigorous from the start. That credibility doesn't appear at the end — it was built in right at the beginning from the brief.
[Linda] So before we go to the audience, I'm going to invite each of you to provide a final reflection, and I'll ask you to be brief. Looking back at the whole arc of this — the decision, the process, the aftermath — what's the one thing you would most want someone who's about to commission an independent review to know? Paul, I'll start with you.
[Paul] Okay. For WELS, this is a regulatory scheme that has reached a level of maturity. One thing when considering an independent review is: never assume that there is nothing that could be improved. The review is a way of examining the functions of your scheme independently to help identify areas that could be improved and explore new opportunities that may not have been considered.
[Linda] Thanks, Paul. Jo?
[Jo] Yeah, thanks, Linda. If I had to highlight one thing, it would be the importance of building and maintaining strong stakeholder relationships. They are absolutely critical in sustaining momentum, particularly in complex or contested policy spaces. Things shift — timelines, priorities, expectations — and those relationships are what give you the flexibility to adapt and keep moving forward.
[Jo] They're also a really big help to navigate the system. Government processes can be really complex, and having trusted stakeholders who understand the landscape can make a significant difference. Ultimately, investing in those relationships early and maintaining them throughout isn't just good practice — it's what enables the work to advance and the reforms to be successfully delivered.
[Linda] Yeah. Thanks, Jo. Absolutely. Aren?
[Aren] Yeah. The review was both validating and challenging. It supported our stakeholders to have confidence in what we had achieved to date, but it also challenged us to improve how we can recognise all communities and reinforce the size of the task ahead of us.
[Aren] Not only for how we can improve the framework and practice resources we have developed, but also in how large that a task we have in implementation with the scale of workforces — to make a real difference in improving the victim survivor safety across the state.
[Linda] Thanks, Aren. And look, from my side of the table, the one thing I'd say is this — the reviews that I'm the proudest of are not the ones where we confirmed what the client already believed. They're the ones where we found something that the client didn't expect, and where the client had the courage and the systems to do something with it.
[Linda] That combination — a client who is genuinely open to being challenged, and a reviewer who is genuinely committed to going where the evidence leads — is harder to achieve than it sounds, but it's what ultimately achieves real impact.
[Linda] All right. We're nearly out of time. So let me close with a few thoughts before we move to the Q&A.
[Linda] The reviews we've discussed today are genuinely different. One examined a national regulatory scheme for water-efficient products used in every Australian home. One developed the evidentiary foundation for a significant legislative package to reduce smoking rates. One assessed whether a complex legislative framework for assessing and managing family violence risk was still fit for purpose — but they share something.
[Linda] In every case, the commissioning team who joined us today came to the work with genuine curiosity. The timing was deliberate, the brief was carefully framed, and the findings were received honestly — not just filed.
[Linda] And something else connects them, which I think is the thing I most want to leave you with. Independence and strong working relationships are not opposites.
[Linda] The reviews I'm most proud of are the ones where the client trusted us enough to let us go where the evidence led, and where we trusted the client enough to have difficult conversations along the way. That combination is harder to achieve than it sounds. It requires an open, collaborative, and transparent approach to working together.
[Linda] So to Paul, Jo, and Aren — thank you for your deep generosity in having this conversation publicly, and for being such wonderful clients.
[Linda] And to our audience, I hope you found this genuinely useful and that you leave today with tools to support you into the future. If you'd like to know more about Allen and Clarke's work or to view other webinars, I'd encourage you to visit the resource hub on our website, or you're very welcome to get in touch with me directly or any of our consultants. Thank you for joining us.
[Linda] But before you go, we're now going to turn to some of the questions you sent in during registration.
[Linda] So the first question is that someone asked: "Who is best placed to own and deliver the recommendations, and how do you best translate the report to action?"
[Linda] This is a really important question because, as we touched on earlier, the report is really the beginning of the work, not the end. So I'm going to invite the panel to share their experience, and Jo, can I start with you?
[Jo] Yeah. Thanks, Linda. So for the tobacco IA, the answer was knowing well before the report landed who was going to receive it and run with it. The department had built internal capability specifically to engage with the complexity of this work. So when the IA was complete, there was a team ready to use it, and were already drawing on it during the drafting process. My advice is to think about implementation ownership at the briefing stage — not at the delivery stage.
[Linda] Thanks, Jo. Aren?
[Aren] Yeah. I would emphasise that ownership and delivery aren't always the same thing. With MARAM, government accepted all 17 recommendations, but delivering them requires action from many partners across sectors, workforces, alongside victim survivors, and with Aboriginal community-controlled organisations. So the owner has to be someone who can convene and coordinate, and continue to keep bringing stakeholders along.
[Aren] Some recommendations aren't quick fixes. We're working through large conceptual pieces and exploring new technologies to make resources more accessible. Those need patience and sustained ownership over years, and not just a project plan.
[Linda] Thanks, Aaron, and Paul, over to you.
[Paul] Well, right at the beginning, you need to ask yourself: when this report lands, who picks it up on Monday morning? And do they have the analytical depth to use it well? From the WELS experience, the owner needed to sit inside the organisation that had the authority to act on the recommendations.
[Paul] What made the difference for us was treating implementation as a structured piece of work in its own right. We went through each recommendation deliberately, understanding what each one would require, who would need to be involved, and which had dependencies on other parties — states and territories, industry committees, and standard processes.
[Paul] That triage is what allowed us to move quickly on the things we could action ourselves, like the database enhancements, while being realistic about the multi-year recommendations, like the Australian Standard Revision. The recommendations also fed directly into the WELS strategic plan for 2022 to 2025, which gave us a public commitment and a sequencing mechanism.
[Linda] Thanks, Paul, and thanks all. Another question that we received on registration is: whether there's any advice about how to avoid a situation where reviewers don't understand the context and constraints of the organisation, which might lead to impractical recommendations. So I might start by offering a reviewer's perspective, and then I'll hand to the panel.
[Linda] So from my side of the table, the biggest predictors of practical recommendations are, as I've said, the quality of the brief and clear and transparent communication with the client right from inception. Being clear on that end goal and transparent communication and building in those clear guardrails through a good terms of reference really does help the reviewer understand what's fixed, what's contested, and what those realistic levers are. And that should mitigate that issue of having someone who doesn't understand the context and constraints. But Aren, can I come to you on this? MARAM had such a complex implementation landscape. What are your reflections on this question?
[Aren] For MARAM, the practicality question was particularly acute because of the breadth of application of the MARAM framework across so many varying sectors. It included health, justice, education, housing, and specialist family violence services. A recommendation that makes sense for a specialist service might be unworkable in a school.
[Aren] What helped us was that the review combined a comprehensive literature review of the international evidence with deep stakeholder consultation. The literature review gave the review the conceptual grounding, and the consultation grounded the recommendations in the realities of implementation. So if you only do one, you risk recommendations that are either theoretically elegant but operationally naive, or operationally pragmatic but disconnected from the evidence.
[Linda] Thanks, Aren. Paul?
[Paul] Yeah, I agree. We worked closely with Allen and Clarke to make sure that the stakeholder engagement schedule would ensure that the recommendations were fit for purpose. That upfront investment in ensuring the right people provided input really mattered.
[Linda] And Jo?
[Jo] Yeah, thanks. I would also add that it's really important to engage the right expertise, both internally and externally. Be clear-eyed about constraints, timelines, and political realities to make sure that the recommendations are practical, and as much as you can, share those with the reviewer. And if a recommendation comes back that looks impractical, that's worth interrogating. Is there evidence to back it up? If there is, then what are those actual roadblocks that can be managed — and discuss those with the reviewer.
[Linda] Yeah, Jo. Look, I agree. From my side, I'd also add that that relationship really matters. A reviewer who feels that they can ask, "Is this actually feasible?" during the work — through either a formal sense-making session or just a quick phone call — rather than discovering it on delivery, is going to inevitably produce more usable findings. So that kind of working relationship is something that both parties really need, and that you need to invest in and build deliberately.
[Linda] The final question from the registration questions that we're going to go to today — and then if there's time, I'm going to come to some live questions — is: how do you make sure that you get an appropriate level of engagement from stakeholders? And how do you make sure that consultation is inclusive without being captured by the loudest voices? And that's a question that we often get.
[Linda] Engagement is one of the areas where the three reviews we've discussed today look very different on the surface, but really, they share some underlying principles. Aren, can I start with you, because MARAM really had the most complex stakeholder landscape of the three.
[Aren] As we outlined earlier, Allen and Clarke consulted with 225 stakeholders across the MARAM review. That included, crucially, victim survivors themselves.
[Aren] The first principle for us when we were scoping the review was that engagement had to be designed for the specific stakeholder group — not delivered to a single method applied to everyone. Engaging victim survivors required a trauma-informed approach that was genuinely safe and respectful, and that shaped the design of the review from the outset, not as an add-on.
[Aren] On the question of the loudest voices — this is something we thought about very deliberately. Inclusive consultation requires you to actively design for the voices that won't show up unless you make space for them. That requires resourcing and nurturing of sound relationships with key stakeholders who can help you to reach people. You can't do it well in a rushed timeline.
[Linda] Thanks, Aren. What about you, Jo?
[Jo] Yeah, thanks. For the Tobacco IA, engagement had to be a particular structural feature because of Australia's obligations under the WHO FCTC. However, my broader point on engagement emphasises what Aren has said. Stakeholder relationships are not something you start at the point of the review — they're built and maintained over years. When the review comes, those relationships are what allow you to ask hard questions and get honest answers.
[Linda] Thanks, Jo. What about you, Paul?
[Paul] As I mentioned earlier, one of the more striking things that came out of our consultation was the degree to which industry and environmental and consumer groups — who you might expect to be in opposition — actually shared some of the same concerns about the scheme's coverage.
[Paul] You only surface that kind of convergence if stakeholders trust that the process is genuinely open. So practical things matter — giving people enough notice, being flexible with engagement, being clear about what's in and out of scope, and respecting the time that stakeholders give to the process. That's all really important.
[Linda] Absolutely. And yeah, from my side, one observation is that stakeholder fatigue is real — particularly in some of these sectors and in the sectors that are heavily consulted. And the way you avoid superficial engagement is to be really clear with stakeholders about why this review is different, what decisions it will inform, and what you're asking of them specifically. People will engage seriously when they believe the process will be taken seriously.
[Linda] All right. That's probably a good place to wrap up. If there are any questions that we haven't got to today, I will reach out to you and respond to you directly. But otherwise, please don't hesitate to get in touch.
[Linda] Thank you so much again to our panel — Paul, Jo, and Aren — for your candid reflections today, and thank you everyone for joining us for today's webinar. We really appreciate it, and enjoy the rest of your day.
