The Australian Public Service review's latest report provides an indication of where it is heading. The panel has clearly digested the submissions it received and the consultations with experts it undertook. But it's also clear that there is more to be reported, and much more work to be done.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The review largely omitted a diagnosis of the APS. The problem with that is that the review's observations are not readily relatable to any issues or emerging challenges. It added its recommendations without analysis or reflection.
It's fair enough to regurgitate some of Terry Moran's 2010 Ahead of the Game recommendations where they showed promise (capability reviews), but the review's report lacks information on other recommendations (on the secretaries board) or existing issues (why the previous APS 200 group was judged negatively).
Research reports
The review's four research reports offer a mix of relevance and expertise. Of the myriad questions confronting the review, do these reports address first-order issues? The advisory panels for the reports also seem to lack in-depth public service expertise, but two impress for their range of experts.
The report on relationships with ministers and advisers most effectively combines expertise and relevance. The integrity report is more of an outsiders' and offshore job, with no APS expert on its panel. It offers advice on strengthening the public service commissioner's position, but it envisages an integrity takeover of the role.
The commissioning and contracting report dismisses the capability deficit as unproven, while not providing systematic evidence that contracting must be improved. Was this a first-order matter for a review seeking to recondition the public service?
More work needed
The APS compared to ... what?
A better-informed estimate of the APS's position is essential for grounding the review's recommendations. If Australia has the world's third-best public service, why is it engaging in the biggest reform exercise in 40 years?
And how seriously should we take a British Cabinet Office-sponsored and self-serving exercise that results in four Anglophone countries topping the rankings? Is Australia's ranking matched by international attention to what the APS does (as in the heyday of reform)?
Australia seems to be lagging much more these days. Here, the review should focus on selected issues that warrant cross-service analysis and holistic thinking.
Centre of government
So far, the centre of government seems to be immune from systematic consideration. Has it been reviewed since the Coombs royal commission?
New Zealand and Britain regularly review the centre, and the latter is analysed by independent agencies: the National Audit Office, Institute for Government and parliamentary committees. Since Coombs, the Prime Minister's Office in Australia has become a key operator at the centre.
The roles of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and other central agencies, as a matter of good governance, warrant close consideration. The conventional wisdom in APS circles is that PM&C was judged softly by the capability review undertaken in 2012. While it is expected that a prime minister will lodge special-interest roles within his or her department, the inclusion of a delivery agency (Indigenous affairs) was anomalous.
This also relates to transparency. The review notes that public servants (and the public) have limited knowledge of the secretaries board, and says the board needs to communicate its role and activity. There is little information about the board online.
PM&C is geared to serve the government of the day and to coordinate other departments. How, then, should the "head of service" role be presented? This is difficult to establish from PM&C's website apart from an oblique objective about performance.
Of the Anglophone countries, the Canadian Privy Council Office is arguably the most similar to PM&C. It was recently involved in a timely lesson of how the centre of government can malfunction, during the Justin Trudeau fiasco.
The Prime Minister lost the chief political adviser in his office, two cabinet ministers and, significantly, Michael Wernick, who is clerk of the Privy Council and the head of the federal public service. Canada's overly centralised structure of government has been sparking public discussion for two decades.
Areas to develop
Collaboration is regularly rolled out as an imperative. Hopefully, the review looks closely at viable options locally and internationally. The Australian National Audit Office once surveyed cross-agency agreements; while they indicated extensive interaction, most were basic.
Capability reviews are also on the review panel's wish-list, after the experiment in the early 2010s was discontinued before it was consummated. Less clear is what the public service's main capability deficits are, and what form such reviews would take (independent panels, as in the past, or more strategic, as with New Zealand's performance improvement framework).
Much has been made of the APS's reduced policy capability, but more documentation of the deficiencies is needed. What is the demand from ministers for policy advice? Is the supply timely and of appropriate quality? What policy roles are public servants undertaking (advising, analysis, brokering advice from other sources, etcetera)? Do they share and collaborate with others?
Internationally, public servants are increasingly expected to focus externally – on citizens, and on community and interest groups. The review panel received reports on other relationships, but not holistic approaches to external engagement.
Two meta-governance issues will affect the fate of this Review. First, unless regulation/red tape and the risk-aversion syndrome is overcome, much innovation will stagnate.
Second is the question of improving system balance. The review raises major questions about the relationship between components of government: the significant imbalances between the public and private, and the political and public service spheres. Diverse recommendations may ultimately create new conflicts and imbalances.
John Halligan is an emeritus professor at the University of Canberra's institute for governance and policy analysis. john.halligan@canberra.edu.au
