In this conversation thread we are looking at the formal structure of the Australian Public Service – that is, how departments, portfolios and agencies are established. This is done through the Administrative Arrangements Order. The Administrative Arrangements Order dates back to 1901.
We’ve heard changes to the structure of the public service happen too often, cost too much, and disrupt public servants and their organisations.
But we’ve also heard flexibility is a good thing, enabling the government to shape the Australian Public Service to deliver their agenda and priorities for the nation.
Could the structure of the service also pave the way for collaboration across issues and organisations?
Here are some of the ways people have thought about or structured their public service:
-
Canada is an international example where departments are established by dedicated legislation (example here).
-
One secretary has suggested grouping portfolios
-
NSW has moved to a cluster model for its portfolios.
When it comes to the Australian Public Service:
-
What approach do you think would be best to configure the Australian Public Service for 2030?
-
How could the impacts of structural changes to the Australian Public Service be minimised?
-
Should we group Australian Public Service organisations differently? For example, around a similar focus, issues that matter to the people, outcomes the country wishes to pursue, or functions such as services? Can you see how this might work in practice?
The permanent structures of APS departments and agencies will never reach a stable, final state. I therefore advocate two major changes to minimise the impact of structural changes.
Firstly, use role-based structures (temporary organisations, i.e. programme and projects) for implementation of new policies and reforms rather than modifying permanent structures for a temporary period. My ideas on this topic are summarised here:
Secondly, step away from the deep-seated cultural approach that means everything gets handled at each level of the APS hierarchy. The transformation capacity of the APS could be doubled overnight by "skipping" layers. My ideas on this topic are summarised here:
John Howarth Executive Chairman Tanner James Management Consultants Pty Ltd
I like Dr Smith's commentary that super-portfolios, with reduced numbers of Departments, could enable a more flexible, pragmatic and citizen-centric APS, better able to support governments with policy development and service design. In theory, this would reduce the excessive "hierarchy and layers" (@A.B.) at the EL/SES levels and promote mobility of APS staff between and within portfolios. It would be interesting to know whether this expected benefit, would actually result.
My personal bugbear as a long time APS employee is the onerous, time consuming and biased selection processes which inhibits movement between Departments and discourages staff from staying in the APS, although they may genuinely wish to do so. In my personal circumstances, after 14 years in one agency, I'm regularly undergoing rigorous selection processes for external agencies in an attempt to move to another agency and get exposed to new ideas. I'm making orders of merit, but never actually winning the role (which, lets be honest, has probably been filled by someone who was already acting in it for a long time prior to permanent filling).
Upon reflection, there is also questionable value to these processes, which are administratively time consuming and resource intensive. There has to be a better, more flexible way to manage HR in our APS to enable staff to move between Departments, or be externally seconded to consultancies or state government, and bring back learnings to their substantive position (and portfolio).
The APS could consider Canada's 'Free Agent' approach, where the APS has a shared, mobile workforce that can be deployed as needed in any portfolio as emerging issues/hot spots arise that need specific capabilities or extra resources.
https://www.oecd.org/gov/innovative-government/Canada-case-study-UAE-report-2018.pdf
The APS to be effective in delivery and being accountable to the people, has to:- -be admistratively downsized dramatically(some departments by 80%. There is a need for more resources to be at the coal face and not in the back -be staff by suitable qualified personnel with suitable experience -competency needs to be prevalent -staff need to be suitable motivated -the convoluted APS systems need to be drastically simplified, reduced of overlap and be able to be used for the benefit of the public it is supposed to serve
- Excess heirachy and layers of APS/EL/SES
- Over supervision and independence of public officials
There are issues with the regions that some towns have been connected with (DHHS boundaries). This causes significant disadvantage to various townships including Kyabram, Girgarre, Stanhope, Rushworth. This is due to our close proximity to Shepparton and lack of accessibility and connection with Bendigo.
When Families are referred to specialists, or services they are referred to Bendigo, which there isn't direct transport available to Bendigo. this makes it impossible for attendance at these appointments. Health concerns, mental and physical health, homelessness, school support, Child Protection visits, Youth Services, Multi cultural services, etc are not being supported due to our distance from Bendigo. Alliance wide services are not provided to Kyabram because agencies that are delivering the services are not travelling the 2.5 hours (one way) to Kyabram. When Kyabram Agencies have to attend meetings an entire day is used for a 2-3 hour meeting.
The public service needs to revisit the alignment of DHHS boundaries and enable towns like Kyabram to become a part of Hume (Shepparton; 20 minutes drive time and direct public transport system) rather than forcing connection with Loddon Mallee (Bendigo 2.5 hour drive time and not direct public transport system).
Help our towns help ourselves, stop the isolation of our town due to DHHS boundaries. Help us be able to help ourselves. Remove invisible barriers for our communities.
The APS shoud reconsider the use of agencies with boards, especially large boards. Some boards are appointed to provide specialist decision making functions. However, they also have PGPA functions and can be too large and unwieldy to perform those functions properly.
Agency CEOs should be the agency head for PGPA purposes and the distincion should be quite clear. If an expert, external group is required for decision making it should be subject to distinct governance arrangements and its remit quite clearly defined