The APS’s critical relationship with the executive and the Parliament has evolved, but without a corresponding evolution in some of the conventions and practices surrounding this relationship. There is untapped opportunity to strengthen the relationship, including through a commonly agreed understanding of respective roles, clarifying the important role of ministerial advisors, and making it easier for ministers to access APS expertise and insights.
What we think is needed
- Measures to provide greater access for ministers to subject matter and public administration expertise, and to deepen APS understanding of ministers’ needs and expectations. This could include new positions for senior public servants in ministerial offices and a higher proportion of ministerial policy staff with public sector experience.
- Deployment of technological platforms to enable ministers to access up-to-date advice from the APS at any time and from anywhere in the world.
- Practical induction, ongoing guidance and training in public administration and how to get the best out of the APS for ministers, other parliamentarian, and their staff.
- Formal recognition of the distinct and important role of ministerial advisors, including clarity of role (both in relation to ministers and public servants) and accountability.
What is shaping our thinking
- The analysis and findings of the ANZSOG paper ‘The APS’ relationship with Ministers and their offices’ by Anne Tiernan and Ian Holland.
- Consistent feedback both from ministers and APS leaders that the nature and quality of relationships between the government and the APS affects the quality of public administration and long-term public policy outcomes.
- The findings of reports (for example, ‘Learning from Failure’) highlighting the impact of APS-executive relationships on effective program delivery, risk identification and management.
- The current ‘Statement of Standards for Ministerial Staff’, which sets out performance expectations.
What we are still exploring
- Administrative options to support senior APS officers in serving meaningfully and apolitically in ministerial offices.
- Mechanisms to ensure accountability of ministerial staff, similar to that applied to public servants, and international approaches (for example, Canada and New Zealand).
Comments
Wed, 01 May 2019
At a planning day a few years ago at a large Commonwealth Government department, a Group Manager (also known as a Division Head or First Assistant Secretary) told the group that our role as public servants was to be a 'trophy wife' to the Minister. They explained that this meant our role was to make the Minister look good. This attitude needs to change as a 'trophy wife' public servant can't provide frank and fearless advice or have hard conversations with Ministers, their advisors or senior public servants.
The current role of Minister's Advisors is deeply problematic. Often they are far less experienced than senior public servants yet senior public servants have to do their bidding. It is also unclear whether advice provided verbally or by email to Minister's advisors is passed on to the relevant Minister. Minister's Advisors currently have a great deal of power over public servants and there is very little transparency about their role or recourse if a public servant disagrees with a request or decision made by a Minister's Advisor.
Tue, 30 Apr 2019
Ministerial advisors need to be made distinct from political advisors. Unfortunately this won’t deal with some of the issues - it is too easy to be a political advisor and work yourself up. Accreditation, including formal qualifications and/or experience, should be considered in the prerequisite mix. These people have too much influence with zero accountability for getting there beyond a political “low evidence” preference. This does not support good advice.
Mon, 29 Apr 2019
The commissioning and production of the ANZSOG paper, APS’ Relationship with Ministers and their Offices, has been impressive. The paper makes a compelling case for many changes that improve the usefulness, influence and apparent integrity of the APS, most of which are covered by the current proposal.
Maybe I have just missed it, but it appears to me that the ANZSOG reform option that I would have thought was most critical is missing from the Review’s recommendations. The option is for an explicit (possibly legislative) clarification of the APS’s role (see Section 5a). This seems a significant omission because this foundational work involving explicit agreement about what the APS does and is expected to do would support a constellation of outcomes being sought by the Review ie greater clarity of purpose, being a trusted partner and having integrity.
It’s good to see that one of the ANZSOG reform options, Training for Ministers and Advisers, is already being implemented as reported by Martin Parkinson in his 2018 Address to the APS.
Mon, 15 Apr 2019
Document statement: The APS will strengthen one of its most critical relationships - with Ministers and their offices - including by providing ministers with better access to APS expertise and insights
Response: The step change brought about by making project development core ongoing APS business will give the APS greater confidence in dealing with Ministers and vice versa.
Ministers with capital approval accountability need to be instructed in stage gated project development and expected to use the disciplined language of the stage gated project development process. Exert pressure on ministers to only use disciplined terms when discussing projects and costs etc
The cultural change in personnel terms will change the nature of people providing direct advice.
Thu, 04 Apr 2019
The APS must be encouraged and enabled to provide frank and fearless advice to Ministers, without fear of repercussion. APS advice to a Minister's office should not be dictated or heavily influenced by unelected and unaccountable advisers, particularly as many advisers are in fact inexperienced and don't have the relevant subject matter knowledge. The SES in particular should be able to use their experience and judgement to challenge the whims or preferences of advisers at critical moments or decision-points.
Wed, 03 Apr 2019
The quality of relationships is impacted by replacing APS with contractors. We are handing our skills and expertise to third patrties and paying for the pleasure. Tighter contracting will ensure tasks are completed within limitations and IP remains with Commonwealth. APS should be sitting in those meetings, not contractors.
Tue, 02 Apr 2019
It is clear from the comments that a 'code of conduct' unsupported by legislation has little effect. The nature of executive government is such that poor behaviours by ministerial staff generally go unchecked and Ministers are not held accountable for the actions of their offices.
Minister's need to appreciate that they are elected officials, distinguished from other public servants only by their method of selection.
Accordingly, ministers and their staff need to be held to the same standards as the rest of the APS, and their code of conduct needs to be embedded in legistation - perhaps under the Public Service Act. To do so would emphasise their status as elected officials.
Sun, 31 Mar 2019
Senior execs across the public sector should take relevant public servant experts (and externals if useful) into meetings with Minister's and their offices, so that discussions are better informed in the moment, and complexities can be talked through. Too often, expert advice is sought through laborious briefing processes that water down the expert advice through layers of non expert seniority adding their 2c.
Sat, 30 Mar 2019
Strengthening the relationship between ministers and APS is all well and good. However I think we should keep in mind HUGHES AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL V AIR SERVICES AUSTRALIA (1997) and how easy access and influence over the APS can have adverse affects. Potentially only advantaging the ministers personal interests and not the Australian people or the APS. Accountability of ministers is vital and has been lacking. As we have not had a stable government for the last decade. With constant leadership spills. Ministerial accountability could be greatly improve via the implementation of a code of conduct. Which has been recommended numerous times, by various committees, but never enacted. Something more than the standing orders it required. However, the APS is held to a strict code of conduct and the public servant act. There seems to be stricter rules on the APS than the ministers. Both however supposed to be serving the Australian people. I believe in order to improve the APS you have to also look at the ministers and parties as well. Because one part of this relationship can’t be deemed broken or ‘not fit for purpose’ with the other side also needing to be overhauled.
Fri, 29 Mar 2019
A fundamental issue that needs to be considered as part this review is the ability for public servants, particularly those in senior positions, to provide tough, independent and professional advice to Ministers without fear of consequence. There needs to be a reintroduction of protections for public servants so that full and frank advice can be provided that properly considers the public interest generally - not just the interests of the elected party or of influential stakeholder groups.
Thu, 28 Mar 2019
We need transparency and accountability for the role of ministerial advisers - often they make decisions with no repercussions.
Wed, 27 Mar 2019
Yes this is all good but key to this also is a more proactive APS that is able to influence across political cycles through authoritative proactive advice. This mitigates risks associated with political instability etc while still being mindful of the advisor/decision making distinctions.
Wed, 27 Mar 2019
We need to develop an understanding of Ministers as 'elected officials' who are bound by a code of conduct similar to that of other public officials. That code is partially covered by the current Statement of Ministerial Standards (August 2018), but the code needs to be enforceable and managed by an independent entity, perhaps within the relevant House department, PM&C or the APSC. There needs to be a mechanism for making a complaintagainst a minister, or minister's office that is acting inappropriately or ultra vires. There is a cultural aspect to this issue which needs to be expressly recognized. Ministers are rarely experts in their portfolios, and ministerial offices are rarely large enough to cover every aspect of the minister's departmental responsibilities. Few ministers have management experience, certainly not of large public sector organizations. It is unlikely that we can mandate an adequate proportion of subject matter experts on ministerial staff, as a large part of the advisors' role is to provide political advice. A modern public service requires a professional leadership - which includes elected officials - so Ministers and their offices should have their standards and code of conduct set in legislation, along the same lines as the Public Service Act. While establishing these standards might operate to discourage some candidates for public office, it will help to ensure that those who lead portfolios, and their own offices are aware of, and accountable for, their actions.
Fri, 22 Mar 2019
Having worked with Minister's offices over the years, the key element that made the difference between high quality and open advice was simple respect and courtesy.
While courtesy is indeed in the ‘Statement of Standards for Ministerial Staff' - it seems to be largely ignored and it's not uncommon for appalling behaviour by Ministerial staff, coupled with a sense of superiority.
This behaviour seems to be tolerated and regarded as "just the way it is" without recognising how much it impacts on good governance and trust in government.
It would be good to emphasise courtesy and respect as vital to solid relationships between APS and Ministerial Offices.
Thu, 21 Mar 2019
Providing greater access to ministers and ministerial advisers to a broad range of staff would be a welcome change. Many agencies prohibit contact with the minister's office without a Parliamentary/governance staffer being in the middle. This leads to a skewed view on both sides about what the advice being asked for even is as communication is paraphrased and slows down the response time.