An APS review by six eminent citizens is under way. The review was not established in response to a crisis. However, a somewhat independent look at performance and capacity to meet future challenges was considered advisable.

We now have an insight into the panel's thinking through an interim report that identifies 17 reform proposals.

The report, like most government reports, makes some proposals that are sound and others that would be detrimental. A worrying feature is the frequent lapses into impenetrable management-consultant jargon. As a result, it is difficult to understand the rationale for and the intended application of some initiatives.

A number of the proposals grabbed my attention. A move to common pay and conditions across the APS is one. Common pay and conditions would be a disaster. It would simply guarantee mediocre outcomes everywhere.

Pay rates and structures vary across agencies because of enterprise bargaining. The hindrance they pose to staff mobility is exaggerated and in fact negligible. The move to common standards would be challenging and a wasteful diversion. The unions, of course, would be happy if everyone moved to the highest salary and the most generous conditions. The task of moving to common conditions is almost unattainable given the existing divergence of entitlements.

Agencies taking responsibility for pay and conditions has worked well and aligns with the federal enterprise-bargaining system. Agencies have diverse roles and differentiated pay and conditions to achieve a cohesive and productive workplace. Lazy managers do not like the approach because they need to work assiduously at creating a modern culture. Unions object because it means they need to devote resources to multiple negotiations and their influence is diminished.

Other proposals were anticipated and are already being addressed. Improved learning and development, greater digital capacity, resource alignment with government priorities and more efficient procurement fit this category.

Some proposals are standard fare, such as better interchange with the private sector. Many past reviews have made this recommendation. Moves to establish swap arrangements between sectors have occurred regularly. All have worked for a while, and none have lasted.

The review sees merit in moves to enhance the APS's engagement with and knowledge of business and community groups. A regular and growing criticism of the APS is that key decision-makers and advisers have a poor understanding of the challenges facing business and the community. Worse, some are disinclined to engage with business and the community in a constructive way. Success in this area is a conduit to restoring trust in government and public administration.

Perhaps the most interesting proposals address the interaction between the APS and ministers and their staff. The system will work better if ministerial staffers have a good working knowledge of the APS and how it serves executive government. Staffers are often unsure of the boundaries that ensure a proper working relationship. Also, some senior public servants express frustration at the compromises politicians make to prevail electorally and to engender support within their political party.

Decision-making clearly rests with the executive. But proposals to help all parties interact more constructively are sound. Inductions for ministers, parliamentarians and staff is a good idea. However, the proposal to place more senior bureaucrats in ministerial officers is ill-advised. It involves a real risk of perpetuating the confusion about boundaries and proper separation of roles. It would be beneficial if ministers, as we move along the digital path in service delivery, showed more tolerance of setbacks.

Several proposals appear to reflect the contemporary hot issues of management consultancy. For example, let's have a common purpose and vision for the APS. The Public Service Act sets out APS values, employment principles and a code of conduct. They work well and can be fine-tuned.

The secretaries board is seen as a forum needing a boost to its role and activity. The creation of committees, transparency obligations and leadership mandates are contemplated. The changes would involve legislation and more layers of administration. The board has worked well and demonstrated a capacity to adapt to changes in the government and APS operating environment. A more elaborate, legislated role could do more harm than good.

It appears the review will not shake the earth. It will not deliver the fundamental reforms recommended by the Coombs royal commission of 1976. The times are different; the need for major structural change is not as strong. Also, the APS, since 1976, has been adept at changing as the political, economic and social settings evolved.

John Lloyd is the immediate past public service commissioner.