|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Australian Federal Police - Platypus Journal/Magazine |
Devolution and self-empowered work teams - a human approach
Command is not necessarily limited to leaders, says Director of the Management of Serious Crime course at the AFP's Training College, Barton, .
Team members, support teams and staff members are continually bending policies, interpreting guidelines and Standing Operating Procedures, being innovative when accomplishing tasks, and expediting the communication process. Therefore, all levels and areas of our organisations are making command decisions, he said.
Federal Agent Penrose completed an applied research project focusing on the human side of devolution during an Australian Institute of Police Management, Police Executive Leadership Program recently.
His paper provides a critical analysis, illustrates potential problems and considers the implications for command in this new operating environment.
Federal Agent Penrose presented an edited version of the paper at an invitation-only NATO Research and Technology Organisation multi-national workshop held at the Canadian Land Forces Command and Staff College in Kingston, Canada, earlier this year.
The workshop examined the human aspect of Command by bringing together people with extensive operational experience and researchers specialising in human sciences.
Federal Agent Penrose, who is Director of the Management Of Serious Crime course at the AFP's Training College at Barton, has also used key elements of his project to develop a training session titled Strategic Leadership and Command Management. The session is delivered to MOSC course participants and was also used at a New Zealand Police Critical Incident Training course for senior officers recently. The edited version of his paper is reprinted on the following pages.
About three years ago, the AFP moved from a rigid unresponsive quasi-military organisational structure to a self- empowered teams structure known as the National Teams Model. Even though the original structure was rigid, it had a singular advantage, as argued by Hirschorn and Gilmore (1995), in that the roles of managers and employees were simple, clear and relatively stable.
Commentators voiced opinions that the rigidity and clarity of the original structure came from a Command and Control (C2)culture and that this was the ‘glue' holding it together. Most law enforcement organisations have favoured these traditional bureaucratic para-military structures. Among obvious inefficiencies, there are too many ranks and a cumbersome decision-making process that remains isolated from the workplace.
Even today, law enforcement organisations use Command and Control terms to describe structure, systems, processes and leadership behavioural traits. Within 12 months of introducing the NTM, there was a drop in productivity as appropriate oversighting and quality control of work diminished. A significant cause of this problem was the inadequacy of initial explanations of the NTM, coupled with unavoidable delays in implementing the new roles of supervisors and conducting management training. One outcome was that the Commissioner had to dispel the myth that empowerment meant that one could do what one liked.
The AFP embarked on a corporate reform program about three years ago, so that it could position the organisation to deal flexibly and effectively with the emerging challenges of the criminal environment. A strategy of the reform program was to move away from a rigid paramilitary Command and Control organisational model to one that was operations focused and based on flexible, multi-skilled and empowered teams. During 1996, the AFP contracted KPMG Consulting to independently evaluate the progress of the reform program as it applied to the AFP's principal investigative program. KPMG (1997) identified that there was a lack of a clear understanding about the purpose and implications of empowerment, responsibility and accountability as it applies to the NTM. They found that this was adversely affecting the overall effectiveness of the organisation. Traditional Command and Control managers complicated the problem by not knowing how to coordinate teams due to a perceived loss of power, authority and purpose as empowered team members told them not to interfere.
KPMG believed that the AFP could not operate effectively while this dichotomy existed. The consultants recommended that appropriate training programs should be developed for all levels to explain and demonstrate the purpose and implications of empowerment and devolution. The training programs should clearly articulate the obligations of responsibility and accountability that go with empowerment, and how the extent of these would vary with the level of responsibility attached to a role. Some people working in this new environment expressed concern about the type of leadership style required to resolve complex or crisis situations if Command and Control is no longer relevant. The confusion arose from not understanding how to strike a balance in crisis situations between transformational or situational participative based leadership and a direct autocratic style.
The move from a rigid quasi-military organisational structure to the organic circles of the NTM resulted in confusion about how the NTM would function. The confusion arose when the simple lineal organisational chart was replaced with a number of circles. The original chart identified traditional divisions, branches and sub-units that appeared to hold the whole outfit together. Those who were most confused had worked in the traditional environment for some time and had practised the vagaries of Command and Control. People working in this original structure believed that they were efficient because of the rigid components and a culture driven by Command and Control.
Organisational design guru Charles Mintzberg (1989) developed a theory on what he believed was the ‘glue' holding all organisational structures together. His theory is based on what he calls ‘deriving configurations'. He argues that previous organisational design research focused on the arrangement of individual variables along linear scales rather than concentrating on how sets of attributes configure into types. Mintzberg describes configuration as a system of networks or inter-relationships. There is a plethora of supporting literature (Cannon, 1996, Peters, 1992 and Shapiro, 1995) on building organisational structures based on networks or inter-relationships. According to Cannon (1996), these new structures base themselves on flexibility and decentralisation and move from a command economy to a democratic and federal economy.
Mintzberg argues that there are six basic parts to any organisation. A greater understanding of how the concentric circles of the NTM function can be achieved by overlaying them with Mintzberg's basic organisational design model. The six basic parts of the model can be used to describe the NTM in the following way:
• An operating core, where basic work is produced by self-empowered operational teams focused on core business.
• A strategic apex, or top management characterised in corporate governance arrangements and agreed infrastructure.
• A middle line, creating a hierarchy of authority between top management at the strategic apex and the operating core.
• A technostructure, to plan and formally control the work of others by policy and standards.
• Units called support staff which provide a multitude of internal services by traditional support roles.
• An ideology, frequently referred to as the culture found within the formal and informal organisation both internally and externally.
Mintzberg argues that organised human activity relies on two fundamental and opposing requirements, viz the division of labour into tasks and the coordination of those tasks. KPMG identified that poor coordination of work significantly attributed to the AFP's sub-optimal performance. KPMG found that this came from a lack of understanding of how devolution operated in the organisation.
Mintzberg also considered the forces that pull on each component of an organisation and listed the types of evolving configurations. It is contended that the NTM falls into the professional organisation configuration category where: the prime coordinating mechanism is the standardisation of skills; the key part of the organisation is the operating core; and it practises horizontal decentralisation.
Horizontal decentralisation is the extent to which the line hierarchy dispenses formal and informal power to teams, operational members, support staff and analysts. Shortly after the introduction of the NTM, middle managers claimed they were disempowered. Many believed their traditional authority to manage had been devolved to operating teams. As a consequence, a significant number of senior officers and traditional front line managers left the organisation.
Devolution was found by KPMG to be a very much misunderstood component of the new structure. Harman (1994) outlines that the introduction of new public sector management practices in the early 1990s encouraged the devolution of management responsibility down the line within the public service. Consequently, there was an increase in the obligations on managers, senior executives and politicians up the line to check on, and account for, the performance of subordinates. Recent revelations of police corruption, mismanagement, poor supervision and questionable work practices have caused adjustments to, and in some cases, the rewriting of law enforcement accountability frameworks. On the other hand, the Commonwealth and State Governments are implementing public sector reform programs with underpinning legislation to devolve greater authority to chief executive officers. The Commonwealth Government recognises the value of devolution and seeks to create performance based structures, systems and cultures that emphasise innovation (Reith, 1996).
There is a poor understanding of the tensions between parliamentary and managerial accountability reform when public servants take on risk management as a part of devolved management practice. This is an initial building block in the devolution dichotomy identified by KPMG. Higgs and Rowland (1992) claim that organisations need to become more flexible and responsive to the marketplace and reduce their management hierarchies. This means devolving decision making and accountability to the cross-functional teams working closest to the point of production and delivery to the customer. The new structure certainly reduces the management hierarchies but with the new levels of devolution and delegation comes the need to establish control systems (Byham and Cox, 1988). Lack of control and not maintaining a check on the devolution of responsibility is an abdication of management. Front line and middle managers continue to grapple with this dichotomy while adjusting their leadership style to manage self empowered teams.
A recommendation from KPMG was that empowerment followed devolution to the appropriate level as people need authority over resources to carry out their function effectively. The authority levels in these new structures operate on roles and allocated tasks with devolved responsibilities to complete those tasks. MAB/MIAC (1996) defined empowerment as the degree to which a group is able to make and influence decisions. Coleman (1996), citing Thomas and Venthouse, supports the argument that employees feel empowered when they have a sense of influence, competence, meaningfulness and choice. In organisations using models like the NTM, it is necessary to empower people at the operating core where direct contact occurs with customers and suppliers. The reasons for this is to provide satisfaction when it means the most.
The Federal Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business Peter Reith (1996) said that responsibility must be devolved to public sector managers and employees to empower and require them to achieve results. However, in structures espousing empowerment, executives operating at the strategic apex will have quite different levels of authority and empowerment than teams working at the operating core. This means that there will be hierarchical components found in organisations structured like the NTM.
The paradox of empowerment is that one has to delegate authority and refrain from telling employees what to do, yet maintain pseudo-hierarchical relationships with them (Coleman, 1996). Mills (1992) develops this argument and concludes that people are continually told they are empowered when they are not. This can occur when people are not given a mission and they are not sufficiently empowered or measured on the results achieved. In these new organisations, it is the responsibility of managers to perform the balancing act between delegating authority and controlling autocratically. Kriegal and Brandt (1996) believe the best way to enhance this balancing act is to create ownership by giving employees as much control as possible over their destiny by empowering them. This means giving them information, responsibility and the authority to make decisions, then holding them accountable for the results.
The sharing of information is critical to empowerment. Blanchard, Carlos and Randloph (1996) published an excellent, yet simple, text on empowerment. They maintain that the three keys to empowerment are: sharing information with everyone; creating autonomy through setting boundaries; and replacing hierarchy with self directed teams.
Although the AFP has abandoned its former steep hierarchical structure, there is still confusion about sharing information and creating autonomy through setting boundaries. Blanchard, Carlos and Randolp (1996) argue that these new structures demand greater sharing of information throughout the organisation and a better understanding of boundary setting for autonomy. The development of the human side of empowerment is not an overnight transfer of information or an abdication of responsibility from a boss to a subordinate. According to Bartlett and Goshal (1995), it is a gradual delegation process that requires substantial top-management involvement. Consequently, the AFP has introduced information management practices and systems that will permit more effective sharing and use of corporate information.
Empowering employees means that they are accountable for their actions. Consequently, there are different levels of empowerment throughout the AFP (KPMG, 1997). Three levels of accountability in the NTM are broadly reflected in the strategic apex, middle line and operating core.
Harman (1994, p54) defines Australian public sector accountability as, ‘the obligation on public officials to report on, justify, and be judged for actions taken in an official capacity when called upon to do so by those with the necessary authority'. Executives working at the strategic apex often find that this is a complex activity. The complexity arises from a need for organisations to explain their actions to many different bodies, each with authority to call for an accounting. As a consequence, there are multiple reporting lines for the AFP as an organisation and for the people operating within the organisation. The result is a horizontal and vertical reporting matrix. Vertical accounting applies in relation to dealings with government ministers, auditors and the ombudsman. On the other hand horizontal accounting occurs in dealings with external bodies such as the judicial system and accreditation bodies for educational and technical purposes.
These new organisations need very clear rules for accountability as the hierarchy can become obliterated or blurred. Shapiro (1995) supports this by arguing that not paying careful attention to a system of accountability and authority in these structures can reach a point when accountability becomes unclear and ultimately dissipates. Eventually, no-one is accountable for anything. Katsenbatch, cited in Proehal (1996), argues that teams operating in these structures must have commitment to a common purpose, have performance goals, and an approach to their task for which they are mutually accountable. According to MAB/MIAC (1996), accountability in these new structures will vary for each individual or team who accounts to a person or a body for the performance of tasks or functions. The effectiveness of accountability will not be accomplished by simply providing information or answering questions. It will be achieved by goal setting, reporting on results and being visibly accountable for the consequences of getting things right or wrong. The human side of managing accountability in these organisations demands careful leadership and management as some employees will seek to avoid some decisions when they realise that they will be held accountable (Coleman, 1996).
According to Ostroff cited in Stoner, Yetton, Craig and Johnston (1994) managers working in these structures need to be able to say ‘empowerment' and ‘accountability' in the same sentence. A manager in these new structures must be defined as one who is responsible for performing a management, leadership or supervisory role. This applies to people working at the top of the organisation in the strategic apex and flows through to team leaders and members at the operating core. Employees will require a systematic program to develop their empowerment skills and to gain confidence to assume mutual accountability for allocated projects. In time, the boundaries that inhibit performance will disappear and people will see that their responsibilities extend beyond the literal interpretation of a job description. Katzenbach and Smith, cited in Coleman (1996), support this argument and conclude that a sense of mutual accountability follows from commitment and trust and by employees sharing in the rewards of mutual achievement. Coleman (1996) contends that the leaders or managers most likely to get good performance results will be those who balance empowerment, responsibility and accountability while treating people as partners and who share information, authority and resources. Accordingly, the AFP will need to integrate the concepts of empowerment into training programs as some team leaders believe they are not part of management.
People operating in the NTM need to have appropriate levels of authority and command over resources to carry out their functions effectively (KPMG). Proehl (1996) supports this finding by claiming that a team must have both the authority and the accountability to accomplish the task. Charles Handy (1996) develops this theme with an interesting interpretation of authority. He believes that in organisations dominated by the new professionals, you cannot tell people what to do unless they respect you, agree with you, or both. Authority must be earned from those over whom it is exercised. Professionals are best managed by consent. The hardest part of managing authority in these structures is knowing how to negotiate consent. Coleman (1996) explains that, in negotiating consent, it is necessary to obtain commitment from employees at the operating core. Obtaining commitment involves employees aligning themselves with the organisation's core ideology which then allows them to be granted significant authority to respond to the marketplace.
Stephens and Becker (1994) developed a useful definition that summarises three different types of authority found in these new organisations:
• Personal authority arises where one party obeys the other due to the existence of an interpersonal bond or the personal qualities of the latter.
• Competent authority involves deference to the judgement of the other party in recognition of his or her expertise in the matter in question.
• Institutional authority arises where the subservient party perceives his/her relationship with a putative authority holder to fall within a socially established, or institutionalised category with regard to which the command or obedience model of exchange is generally regarded as appropriate.
People operating in these new structures are constantly devolving responsibility and sharing authority. Halal (1996) argues that, on occasions, this may prove to be volatile because as authoritarian control yields to participation, the informal organisation rises to challenge the formal system. The new structures are not immune from this volatile idiosyncrasy as discussions about balancing authoritarian control are sometimes perceived as reverting to the nasty habits of Command and Control. Kriegal and Brandt (1996) argue that there is nothing more de-motivating than being told you have authority to make choices and decisions, and then having that power undermined by an anxious or distrusting boss. It is at this point that managers and leaders need to understand the human aspect of command or leadership. The art of leadership will be exhibited by situationally balancing the needs of the organisation with those of the individual.
Hirshhorn & Gilmore (1992) argue that issuing and following orders is no longer good enough in these new flexible organisations. In some situations, the individual with authority is not usually the one with the most up-to-date information to perform a given task. Savage (1995) builds on this aspect of authority by explaining that authority of position works well for organisations with routine tasks. Conversely, authority based on knowledge or information is fast becoming a more important aspect for success in the marketplace. In this environment, being an effective follower means that subordinates have to challenge their superiors (Hirshhorn & Gilmore, 1992) and the superior must listen and seriously consider the subordinates' alternative views. The AFP has introduced a program to reprofile its work force to ensure that employees have the skills to meet these emerging challenges.
A predictable trend in these new organic organisations is that they have emerged with flattened hierarchies where the lines of authority have become blurred (Wilson, 1996). They also display other characteristics such as people who often report to more than one person, have many job responsibilities, and work in several different areas.
Confusion abounds about hierarchy. On the one hand, some change process commentators (Peters, 1992) would have you believe that hierarchies are dead while others (Shapiro, 1995) argue they are alive and well. Hilmer and Donaldson (1996) believe the claim suggesting that organisations do not have a hierarchy is wrong. Mills (1992) supports this argument by agreeing that there is no such thing as a non-hierarchical organisation, except in a two-person partnership. The issue is how much hierarchy you need as you make the transition from control to participation.
The new structures provide a foundation for participative management where the self empowered work teams legitimately form part of an organisational hierarchy. Research undertaken by Himler and Donaldson (1996) reveals that many organisations which consider themselves to be leading examples of the teams approach still have plant managers and different grades of technicians. These people work together in hierarchical relationships where flexibility, empowerment and self-directed teams are not inconsistent with hierarchy. This is an excellent example of how hierarchies are evolving in these new structures.
Ashkenas, Ulrich, Jick & Kerr (1995) conducted research into these new organic organisations and concluded that it is difficult to find any organisation without some form of up–down structure. It is a fact of life that some people will have more authority and responsibility than others to make decisions and set direction. Some people direct others in how to work, and rewards are granted not only on contribution but also on vertical position. They developed a wiring and tuning model for creating healthy hierarchies which illustrates how hierarchies operate in these new structures. Their model has four hierarchies based on information, competence, authority and reward.
Handy (1995) wrote about professional organisations having two hierarchies based on status and task. Status clearly defines that some people are paid more than others because of knowledge, experience and proven ability. It does not necessarily follow that this person, the one paid the most, should be the one to lead the group as that role would fall to the person with the most appropriate skills. In a task hierarchy it is the role that dictates ‘who is who'. Jacques, cited in Shapiro (1995), contends that an organisation manages the production of its products and services through the system of accountability and authority. The explanation is that the distribution of accountability and authority throughout the organisation is the first place to look to assess the health of a hierarchy.
Hilmer & Donaldson (1996) concluded that companies such as Nike and McDonalds manage the delivery of consistent services across huge networks through hierarchies. Within each hierarchy, their people add value in different ways, at different levels in areas such as sales, management and marketing. The idea of every person going his or her own way, all reporting to the CEO and guided by a vision is absurd. There can be no such thing as a non-hierarchical organisation in these new structures as the components of their hierarchies are inextricably linked to accountability, responsibility, authority and reward. Many AFP managers still struggle with the paradox of a flattened organisational structure and hierarchy. This uncertainty is being addressed through training, internal communication media and a process of consultation.
Trust is an AFP organisational value that is intimately linked to responsibility. Coleman (1996) supports this and argues that employees tend to take more responsibility when trusted, but the organisation's reward system must reinforce this concept. Handy (1996 argues that these new organisations rely on trust as the principle means of control. The acceptance, or use, of trust should make them more effective, more creative, more fun and cheaper to operate. Trusting and sharing responsibility with people does not mean abandoning responsibility. Management still has the responsibility to: know what is going on; set the direction for the organisation; make the decision that the team cannot; ensure that people are on course; offer a guiding hand; open doors to clear the way; assess performance; be a smart manager (Byham & Cox, 1988).
Handy (1996) recognised that self empowered teams live within two concentric circles of responsibility. The inner circle contains everything they have to do, which is their baseline. The larger circle marks the limit of their authority, where their writ ends. In between is their area of discretion. This is the space in which they have both the freedom and the responsibility to initiate action. In applying this to these new organisations, the space between the inner and outer circle can be called the ‘white space' where the hard work of leadership and management is practised.
Effective management of the responsibility ‘white space' means trusting people and allowing them the freedom to take risks, to make mistakes and not to be second guessed. Communication is critical and providing information helps to build trust by listening, letting employees know that something will affect them before taking action, and sharing items of interests (Coleman, 1996). The communication process must be a two-way process to ensure that employees advise the ‘middle line' or the ‘strategic apex' of potential problems and significant successes. Middle managers who believe they are disempowered will need to clarify their new roles. A long-term organisational commitment is critical to the continuing redevelopment and definition of the role and purpose of managers.
A challenge for the AFP is to coordinate effectively the activities of the organisation without losing control. Handy argues that coordinating work with devolved responsibility and accountability complicates matters as these new structures are not the visible, tangible obvious institutions that they used to be. He contends that these organisations will become increasingly ‘virtual'. You will be able to describe what they do but you will not actually see them. The AFP may become more difficult to manage as it becomes more fragmented, both nationally and globally. Coleman (1996) says the reason for this is that the world is moving too fast for the old, traditional means of control.
Handy further argues that these new organisations are always tending to be slightly out of control, their structures flexing, their people innovating. The AFP encourages flexibility as an organisational value so that it can effectively respond to its operating environment and be more innovative in undertaking work. Employees achieve this by having the latitude to operate within the ‘mainstream' guidelines set by the strategic apex and the technostructure. In this situation, some managers fear they will lose control or that people will bypass the chain of command. Some managers also believe that in maintaining a Command and Control approach, they will not be placed in a situation where empowered employees make them look bad (Coleman, 1996).
Mintzberg developed six ways to describe how organisations coordinate their work. The coordination mechanisms are the most basic elements of structure. They are the ‘glue' that holds an organisation together. He grouped them into a rough order, recognising that organisations will rely on more than one mechanism over another.
Coordinating mechanisms for work include:
• Mutual adjustment — the process of informal communication between operating employees or teams at the operating core.
• Direct supervision — where one person or a body issues orders or instructions usually from the strategic apex, to others whose work interrelates such as team leader, coordinator, director, the Regional or the National Management Team.
• Standardisation of work processes — where the technostructure at a headquarters or regional level develops work processes, instructions, policies or guidelines to be carried out in the operating core.
• Standardisation of outputs — where the technostructure develops plans that specify sub-unit performance targets or outlines the dimensions of products to be produced.
• Standardisation of skills — where workers receive training established by standards, policy and planning initiatives in the technostructure.
• Standardisation of norms so that everyone functions to the same set of beliefs and values.
Mintzberg offers a solution for coordinating work in professional organisations like the NTM. The coordinating of work relies on the standardisation of skills through formal training and by giving professionals control over their work.
The technostructure must assume responsibility for generating the skill standards for the operating core while some standards will originate from external sources. There is considerable discretion given to the professional working in these structures when applying their skills. They may work independently or in teams but one requisite is to be close to the clients they serve.
Simons (1995) contends that the human aspect of control in these new structures rises to a higher level where managers must reconcile the difference between creativity and control. He argues that these new organisations need to establish diagnostic, belief, boundary and interactive control systems for effective and efficient coordination. As a result, the AFP is now rewriting its hierarchy of policy so that the new professionals have flexibility in applying their skills.
The term C is still very much part of the Australian policing community lexicon (Victoria Police, 1997). However, command has become quite unfashionable in flattened structures that promote participative and transformational leadership styles. This is unfortunate as we should be looking for a workforce that can exercise self control under the guidance of enlightened leaders. Stokes and James (1996) argue that even in an age of learning organisations and self-directed teams, some form of control is necessary. Papers published by Pigeau and McCann (1995 & 96) argue that in recent years C has suffered from schizophrenia because the military did not focus on the human activity involved in C. The split personality of C comes from attempts being made to solve its ills by the progressive application of technology. Technology will not successfully resolve all the problems associated with devolution and the coordination of work. Future solutions must concentrate on the critical role humans play in command.
Pigeau and McCann's recent research sheds some light on the dilemmas we face with devolution and concentrates on the often misunderstood human component of the coordination of work. Handy argues that teams have autonomy to release energy to do things in their own way as long as it is in the common interest of the organisation and is well intentioned.
An unresolved component of Control in these new flattened organisational structures is the ability to construct hierarchically based, highly accountable teams for critical or crisis situations. Research shows that law enforcement and military teams spend very little of their operational time working in crisis situations. Sherriton and Stern (1997) argue that we do not realise there is the capacity in these new structures to construct a collateral or temporary organisational structure within the existing structure. This flexibility permits the construction of a collateral structure to resolve a complex or crisis situations. Mink (1992) supports this argument and says that successful organisations will be those which present few constraints from structure, processes, policy and technology. The strategic apex must assume responsibility for the decision to establish a collateral structure. It is also their responsibility to articulate the teams' accountability framework and for setting the boundaries. Introducing a human component to Command and recognising the complexities of building collateral structures are fundamental to the progress of corporate reform.
Conquering the problems associated with devolution in these new structures means changing the entrenched culture of independence and separateness to one of corporate unity, consultation and cohesion (KPMG, 1997).
Overcoming an entrenched culture of independence and separateness initially requires recognition that this culture currently exists within an organisation. It also requires corporate agreement on the methodologies that will help resolve the problems associated with not having a clear understanding of devolution.
Harper (1992) argues that there must be a concerted effort to change the culture to ensure the human side of the organisation works well at all levels.
Consequently, recommendations are that the research community should:
• note the problems experienced by the Australian Federal Police from not having a clear understanding of the purpose and implications of empowerment, responsibility and accountability;
• adopt an integrated approach to changing the culture and the key components that will incrementally develop our organisations; and
• understand that this requires a long-term commitment to redevelop structures, systems and processes that underpin every day organisational life and develop the human side of our organisations so that they are equipped to cope with these emerging trends.
It may mean taking a step back and reconsidering discarded concepts like C, particularly the human component of Command.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUFPPlatypus/1998/27.html