It is pleasing that the APS Commission is not pursuing the classification changes recommended by the Hierarchy and Classification Review released on Friday but is focusing now on culture and capability, and that the commissioner recognises that any classification change should be considered as part of the government's broader public sector reforms. I hope this is code for recognising the serious weaknesses in the review's report.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The report starts from the wrong premise. It says the changes it proposes "are driven by an appetite to streamline decision-making, reduce unnecessary clearance layers, push risk down and empower staff". But that appetite (shared I am sure by most APS employees and justifiably so) requires changes in agency practices and cultures, not changes in classification.
Back in the 1970s when I was in my 20s and the equivalent of today's EL1, and when the classification structure had many times the levels there are now, I wrote reports which my agency published, and I appeared before a Senate committee; then as the equivalent of an EL2, I signed briefs to the prime minister with my branch head just adding his initials to indicate he endorsed my advice. Evidently, that is not the practice today. But there is nothing in the classification structure stopping agencies from pushing authority down nor for people at different levels from working together in teams.
The focus of a classification system should be on occupations and career paths, and the system should reflect the work that needs to be done. The radical restructuring in the 1980s reflected the impact of technology and the move to multiskilling, removing the previous multitude of technical positions such as typists and data entry officers, beginning the extraordinary reduction in the lowest layer of jobs from around 70 per cent to today's 5 per cent. A review today should examine what technology changes and new work practices might mean now and into the future for occupations, skills requirements and career paths.
In doing so, of course it should avoid unnecessary distinctions; but it may also require new ones, such as identifying high level digital or data analysis skills. The report recognises the need to support specialist skills but offers no advice as to what these might be today, the career paths involved or how they ought to be handled in the classification structure: that is left to agencies to manage with the assumption that they can do so adequately within the proposed eight-level structure.
The report is replete with clichés about agility, flexibility and empowerment but is short on serious analysis. Its recommendation to reduce SES levels from three to two ignores the failures of such changes experimented by at least two departments 20 years ago (Treasury and the predecessor of Social Services). The problems of a too-heavy SES would be more easily addressed simply by reducing their number as others have recommended in the past, stopping turning deputies into overpaid division heads and giving branch heads more responsibility.
Little advice is provided on how people should progress through the proposed combinations of current APS1-4 and APS 5-6, and how the merit principle would apply with proper competition. The danger of even more rapid progression to the EL1 level is not acknowledged, nor of costs which could be substantial.
Classification structures are critical to the process of determining remuneration but, while the report has a few cursory sentences repeating previous calls for more consistent pay across the APS, it offers no suggestions as to how the proposed structure might be used to support market comparisons.
The one positive suggestion in the report is to give more priority to the role of EL2s and their development. In my experience, this is the most critical level - the fulcrum - in most agencies. For top management, having the EL2s fully onside is critical whether in a crisis or through a major reform or just in ongoing program management; for most staff, their EL2 is their team manager, the person they most often look to for leadership. EL2s not only make things happen but also hold much of an agency's corporate knowledge; they frequently are the ones with the depth of knowledge and experience the organisation relies upon. Recognising this and investing in these middle managers is rightly a major priority.
A final comment. The Secretaries' Charter of Leadership Behaviours released with the Classification Review report seems to me to add nothing of substance to the existing Integrated Leadership System, only cliches. I know Glyn Davis has a lot on his plate right now, but perhaps he could suggest to his colleagues there are far more meaty issues to be addressed to improve the capability and performance of the APS.
Current classifications and how they operate
- APS1 and APS2, around 5 per cent of the total, mostly those without post-school qualifications who provide basic administrative support;
- APS3 and APS4 (and graduate trainees), around 29 per cent of employees, increasingly graduates these days, doing much of the service delivery and administration, and research assistance;
- APS5 and APS6, around 36 per cent of employees, also mostly graduates, mostly in service delivery and administration, or policy support, mostly having some years of experience;
- EL1 and EL2, around 28 per cent of employees, executive level or middle managers, though many EL1s in Canberra have little management responsibility;
- SES1, 2 and 3, around 2 per cent of employees, the senior executive service working under departmental secretaries and other agency heads.
- Andrew Podger is an honorary professor of public policy at the Australian National University.
