The APS needs empowered and accountable leaders to set the tone and direction for the service. In particular, the Secretary of PM&C and the APS Commissioner have critical roles in, respectively, overall leadership of the service and responsibility for people and capability within the APS.
Survey now closed
What we think is needed
- Role and responsibilities of the Secretary of PM&C, as ‘head of service’, explicitly set out in legislation.
- Responsibilities of the APS Commissioner clarified in legislation, as ‘head of people’, including a reinforced role in appointment and performance management of Senior Executive Service (SES) officers, and responsibility for professions and for leading a strengthened pro-integrity regime.
- Measures to ensure confidence in the appointment process for the APS Commissioner, such as requiring parliamentary consultation.
- A revamped APSC, empowered to fully deliver on its responsibilities, including through sustainable resourcing and strengthened in-house capability.
What is shaping our thinking
- The analysis and findings of the ANZSOG paper ‘Being a trusted and respected partner: the APS integrity framework’ by Nikolas Kirby and Simone Webbe.
- The experience of other jurisdictions, domestic and international, in defining and enacting key leadership responsibilities (for example, Canada and New Zealand).
- Previous reviews that have envisaged a strengthened role for the APSC, but implementation has not enabled the necessary change.
- ‘Division 2 – Commissioner’s appointment, conditions etc.’ of the Public Service Act 1999.
What we are still exploring
- Mechanisms to underpin and reinforce the head of service role for the Secretary of PM&C – for example, directions powers.
- Governance options to support the APS Commissioner discharge their role, such as an advisory board.
Wed, 01 May 2019
It is important the APSC is resourced through appropriation and does not need to rely on funding from other government agencies (for services provided). This type of funding model leads to a master/servant relationship. If the APSC is to perform its role effectively, it needs direct funding. This would also make it clear the government recognises the APSC has an important role to play.
Wed, 01 May 2019
If there is a separate 'head of people' from 'head of service' it would be important to define the relationship between these two. For example, would they have the same level of authority - or would the 'head of people' be accountable to the 'head of service'. Also, how would these roles work together - to ensure consistent messaging and give APS staff confidence that APS leadership is unified.
Wed, 01 May 2019
I don't think that it is possible to have a defined head of people, that sits with the Heads of Services. Again I don't think there is one single chairman of the board, I think there needs to be multiple related entity boards with a group of companies structure. Each of the company boards, CEOs would be responsible for their people, with overriding principles decided by the Group of Companies board.
Wed, 01 May 2019
These leaders need to be effective, compassionate and people of the highest integrity. They need to be fearless when facing ministers and not kow tow to policy decsions if they think they are wrong
Thu, 11 Apr 2019
Poor ol APSC has been here before - promised tenable funding and existence and then had the rug pulled out from underneath them, forced to go cap in hand to agencies for budget to exist. The APSC should be a place to aspire to work in (shaping the APS for goodness sake), but it's tools are tired officers who won't rock the boat, stale ideas and little authority or respect. For example, in this new world order, will PM&C have to cede authority to APSC on relevant matters? Where will it sit in the pecking order of departments? I don't think we can swim upstream against human nature and think these status hierarchies will cease to exist.
Wed, 03 Apr 2019
The focus on the proposal has been on the head of the APS and 'training' - however the challenge is to ensure the APSC remains relevant, current and in touch with staff and departments (and agencies). This could and should be achieved on many levels:
- APS Commissioner role is elevated
- SES training is extended to long term acting EL2s (ie more than 9 months) - to harness talent
- SES capability needs to factor in leadership and engagement skills - no matter the role
- the APSC has an outposted officer in each department or 'account manager' to get to know and understand the organisation, learning and SES
- tracking staff turnover and helping HR/People Services in a dept to track staff turnover under different SES - to pick up on staff issues
- each dept/agency has a SES officer that is responsible for implementing changes that result from this reform and this is included in their job description and performance agreement - this should make them accountable to their management and the APSC on delivering. For larger depts this may need them to convene a working group of SES to make things happen.
Wed, 03 Apr 2019
The role of the APS Commissioner needs to be strengthened and seen as comparable to the Secretary of PM&C if you want to see this progress. The APS Commissoner can also be better supported in ensuring that the SES cohort are reflecting the APS required for today and tomorrow. We have seen over time an erosion of merit-based appointments, particularly evident at the SES level - I would go as far to say nepotism is rife. This could be addressed a number of ways:
- a requirement for an external to agency SES to be on every SES panel
- a requirement for the APS to have a representative on each SES panel, and/or
- APS run all SES recruitment. The use of executive recruitment agencies has blurred this and diluted accountability for decision making in relation to these appointments. Lasting change can only be maintained if the APSC keeps its fingers on the pulse and has greater visibility of these appointments - this may make those in these roles either really popular or unpopular so there would need to be some thought to how these roles are rotated.
Fri, 29 Mar 2019
Action for those people in the organisation who do not comply with organisation standards and values.
Thu, 28 Mar 2019
I would like to echo the sentiments of one of the other comments here. The recruitment of SES needs an overhaul - perhaps with some greater centralisation and an emphasis on leadership qualities and diversity. Currently, there seems to be a lot of cloning going on and then surprise that the APS is not more innovative...
Too much emphasis seems to be placed on conformance vs performance and different ideas are often suppressed.
In this regard, there are some interesting studies here about organisations that performed best during the GFC and diversity was found to be a key factor, and in particular cognitive/knowledge diversity (i.e not external diversity factors like gender or cultural and linguistic background). the APS has never been tested in the same way by the GFC due to its certainty of funding - so we need another way to learn this lesson.
Wed, 27 Mar 2019
Given that the roles of PM&C Secretary and the APS Commissioner are SES Band 3, 4 or higher roles, it might be worth including a draft of certain components of contracts/workplace agreements that cover these critical roles.
The said draft paragraph, I suggest, should supersede all other clauses and responsibilities in the work contract.
In future such a pre-approved draft may serve to be a part of SES work contracts across the APS except perhaps ASIO and certain agencies that may not come under the common umbrella - and even serve as a model for banking and other private sector lobbies.
Wed, 27 Mar 2019
Appointments for the APS commissioner must not reside with the government of the day. This can only politicise appointments. At the very least it should require a bi-partisan committee approach.
Wed, 27 Mar 2019
Looking up, real or perceived, there seems to be too many of the same type of leaders at SES, at least in my department. Anyone who has a different style or way of thinking is either not successful at merit processes or is outcast by fellow SES officers who are part of the "brotherhood". Given recruitment processes are run by the SES and they seem to keep picking the same, please give consideration to SES recruitment processes being run by external business leaders who have been identified as the type of leaders that will select candidates with the leadership qualities needed to take the APS to where it wants to head.
Fri, 29 Mar 2019
Checks on Board to ensure the community (ie total community and not just a part of community,) is being served well.
Thu, 28 Mar 2019
"Culture eats strategy for breakfast" (as attributed to Peter Drucker) - I wonder whether drawing also from the paper the Panel commissioned on "being a trusted and respected partner" - the Secretaries Board should also be responsible for a whole of APS culture. given culture is a huge predeterminant of the real on the ground behaviour of individuals. It certainly dominates written guidelines and rules which tend to be our "go to"s for behaviour change.
While it may sound lofty for culture to be lifted to an APS level, culture is driven by leadership and it would be worth culture and leadership discussions being held at Secretaries Board level.
The Johnson and Scholes cultural web is a good place to look for the elements that create and drive culture proactively.
From personal experience, I have seen the significant difference in productivity and engagement in an organisation which had a strong focus on culture and leadership vs other organisations, and I see no reason why this can't be lifted to an APS level - though it will involve new kinds of engagement from the leaders of the APS, in particular the Secretary of PM&C and the APS Commissioner.
Thu, 28 Mar 2019
This a great area of priority.
one thing to consider as well - the APS tends to have a very structural view of governance - i.e. what governance bodies do we have and how are they organised, rather than what are the things we need to govern, what information do I need to govern them well, where does it come from, how do I govern this issue well?
I wonder whether it would be good for the APS as a whole to have a more explicit and qualitative governance framework, both at whole of service level and within agencies and mechanisms for assess the maturity of governance.
The PGPA obviously covers some of this - but is still quite rudimentary when compared to other governance frameworks.
Maturity models like P3M3 might be a examples of this kind of framework.
I think we underplay the importance of good governance in the APS, often it is seen as an impediment to getting things done (and to be honest often it is because the wrong things are governed) - however if you get governance right and govern the right things - the reforms envisaged by this review should flow naturally.
Wed, 27 Mar 2019
The word secretariat is outdated. If you are serious about transformation towards stewardship function then this is a word which should be changed.
I’m not sure if this is the right place to mention it but maintaining the status quo where the pm chooses the ‘secretaries’ (regardless of merit process) is not right. The APS needs to be fully independent (frank and fearless) and having the pm give the final word on this limits this. Secretaries need good relationships with the government they serve but that should be independent of politics.
Further to this, the APS is not the exclusive advisor to government. Ministers are free to consult anyone they like (eg establishing independent panels). The APS is however the main advisor and generally is the administrator of legislation.
Wed, 27 Mar 2019
One way to strengthen this proposal is to include tangible instances of how agency Secretaries have used inputs/ideas from the Board to improve outcomes in their own departments - nothing like examples to make a point.
Mon, 25 Mar 2019
The proposal for the Secretaries Board looks like turning the existing HR-focussed body (established by the Public Service ACt 1999) into a bureaucratic doppelgänger of Cabinet.
There is an existing model of this, in the form of the Secretaries Committee on National Security (SCNS) which supports the National Security Committee of Cabinet (NSC). SCNS principally acts to review Cabinet Submissions before they get presented to NSC for consideration. It is not clear if this is the model the Review has in mind.
The SCNS model has some pros and cons, which cannot be fully articulated here . Broadly, my observation is that the additional opportunity to debate whole-of-government issues prior to the proposals being considered by ministers leads to more robust advice. However, the full benefit might not be realised if consideration time provided to agencies are limited.
Fri, 22 Mar 2019
I'm not sure where to put this comment - it falls under the "what is missing?" question.
There is nothing yet in here about the APS risk management capability. It is worth looking at Dr Shergold's Learnign From Failure report - which has a dedicated chapter on risk management.
Risk management done properly, has been evolving substantially in high maturity organisations, as a core part of organisational strategy. The definition of risk has evolved away from the old "hazards" definition to the "effect of uncertainty on objectives".
the APS still thinks in the old "hazard" way.
Uncertainty is a feature of any policy intervention, both at the strategic level "what is the uncertainty in society or the economy that we as government need to intervene to mitigate/correct?" and at the operational and tactical levels "what is the uncertainty to implementing or managing this policy intervention?".
Risk Management should therefore be embedded across the activities of the APS and should be a core and well developed capability of senior executives.
The APS capability needs to be substantially lifted in this space and it would be nice to see a chapter dedicated to the APS improving its approach to risk management, building capability in this space.
Wed, 20 Mar 2019
This is a top-down change model which will over-burden secretaries and achieve little. The real problems are at the middle level, mostly related to poor leadership, excessive risk aversion and not giving people ownership of tasks. The secretaries can help by giving a clear lead on this issue, by encouraging those frustrated and disillusioned by current practices to speak up about them in the knowledge that they will be heard and their concerns addressed.
Tue, 19 Mar 2019
Often smaller agencies are overlooked or not relevant or material in whole of government initiatives. How can these be included or could there be a secondary oversight body for smaller, more bespoke agencies? Additionally, depending on funding arrangements, eg special accounts, smaller agencies are not significant and often exempted. While a rational decision, cultural signaling encourages smaller entities to self determine their direction unchallenged. As an example, a capability review some years back was generally mandated for larger agencies that drove genuine change. Small agencies may have missed out on a cultural, modernizing opportunity.
Tue, 19 Mar 2019
In Vic's Dept of Justice one value is to "make it happen". The reality was making it happen was compromised every day by a swathe of red tape, bureaucracy, evaluation, consulting, duplication, commentary, misallocations of resources, meetings about meetings about meetings about and projects without proper leadership, management, or concept of allocative efficiency. Many projects were imposed on depts, units etc already strained for resources. Like much of govt, it's a massive machine which ebbs and flows at a snail's pace until there is an emergency to react to rather than opportunity to be proactive about. Very little in yet another "review" of the APS is about making it happen. Folks will pretend this is an objective but the reality is massive resources will continue to be consumed in the machinery of government, reviews, and all of the fluffy assurance, cultural and value based functions the review identifies = the resources will continue to only trickle down to those who need them most. So, what have you missed? The importance of well resourced and autonomous leadership, project management and collaborative decision making at a senior level. Not extra layers and units but people with real authority and clout to make it happen. Eg Vic corrections and Vic Magis Court need to work together. But both sides are way to busy to get done what needs doing done, REDACTED at mid management level thwarted common sense multi agency outcomes, and when escalation was needed there wasn't
sufficient capacity on either side to do so. And yes I know this review is Cth not Vic but the same crap applies even more so in Cth which has the worst agencies to try and deal with in the nation! So just make, make, make it actually happen and stop bloody talking about it already!
Fri, 22 Mar 2019
It has long been a discredited practice to place under-performing SES into Corporate Services, because we don't know what else to do with them. In worst case scenarios, under-performing SES, who show worst case behaviours, are placed into the Corporate Services People Management role. It has been a disaster. People Mgt is a specialised role, but it is under appreciated, until the ship hits the sand. Then, an inordinate number of resources needs to be brought to bear, when experienced HR/People Mgt staff would not have allowed the situation(s) to develop in the first place.
Thu, 21 Mar 2019
No more idealogues to be appointed to the position of APS Commissioner. This position should be non-partisan.