The government's push for public service reform will be more difficult if it doesn't first attend to the administrative machinery it must rely on for the development and implementation of its program.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
A sound initial move would be to retire the Secretaries Board.
Let's take a little history to begin.
When the Public Service Board was abolished in the mid-1980s, a Management Advisory Board was established to advise government on the management of the public service.
It was chaired by the Prime Minister and Cabinet secretary and included the heads of other central agencies, two or three other department heads on rotation, a union representative and a chief executive of a major private firm.
It accounted for itself by publishing papers and it organised an evaluation of how management had been improved in the 10 years from 1983. The board was a modest success.
It eventually morphed into the current Secretaries Board. It is chaired by the PM&C secretary and contains all other secretaries, the public service commissioner and a few others.
Yet it doesn't properly represent the public service as it excludes the heads of major agencies like the Tax Office.
So what is really wrong with the Secretaries Board?
First, in being made legally responsible for "stewardship of the APS" it's been given an ambiguous job it can't do.
There's no clear notion of what stewardship is and even if the board thought it knew what it needed to do, it has no executive authority to do it.
The fact is that ministers are primarily responsible for stewardship of the public service in the sense of keeping the organisation in effective shape as they set its direction and functions and the resources it is to have, arrange the primary laws for its operation and determine its structures.
The Secretaries Board was not responsible for the unfortunate state of the public service at the end of the Morrison government from robodebt through to the debasement of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; that was the handiwork of ministers which the stewardship responsibilities of the board were powerless to prevent.
Second, the board is too large and cumbersome a beast; effectively a standing interdepartmental committee of some 20 people.
Its record, if that's not overstating it, is manifest in its built-in limitations. It doesn't seem to have done anything of notable consequence or value.
To check that PM&C was recently asked what the board's main achievements were in 2022.
It claimed that "the board continued to provide stewardship of the Australian Public Service" and said "a refresh of the ... board terms of reference in September 2022 highlighted First Nation priorities ... APS reform priorities, and budget and economic priorities as particular areas of focus. Secretaries Board provides leadership and an integrated approach across the APS on those and other national priorities."
That is to say, the board's main achievements in 2022 were procedural - refreshing, highlighting, providing.
READ MORE:
There's not a result in sight. That's also the dominant message from the board's "communiques" now available on the PM&C website.
Then in the Department's annual reports in recent years the board gets only a couple of glancing references with no indication of solid achievements.
Third, the board has been able to stop worthwhile things happening. For example, in 2019 it advised the then government to the reject several of the most sensible recommendations of the Thodey report on such things as staff ceilings, common pay scales and conditions and better procedures for appointing departmental secretaries.
For the present, the point is that the changes the government should now be making to the public service will involve losses and gains of power for heads of departments and the Secretaries Board will provide an arena in which gains can be taken and losses resisted.
It's a recipe for half-baked lowest common denominator results.
For example, when it comes to the evening up of remuneration across departments, will those now with higher rates be content to surrender that advantage in the interests of the public service as a whole?
In view of these and other shortcomings with the Secretaries Board and other gaps in central administration, the government might like to:
- Establish committees of heads of agencies to mirror all cabinet committees. It's likely such committees already exist in some form but there would be advantages in formalising and extending them.
- Establish a machinery of government committee of cabinet to provide ministerial focus on public service reform and the operation of the administration as a whole.
- Amend the Public Service Act to abolish the Secretaries Board and establish a Management Advisory Committee to be chaired by the public service commissioner and including the secretaries of PM&C, Finance, three or four other agencies on a rotation basis and a union/staff representative. The committee could promote good practice by publishing learned papers and holding seminars while reports on its activities being included in the public service commissioner's annual report.
- Also have the Public Service Act provide for a public service forum comprised of the heads of all departments and major public service agencies and chaired by the PM&C secretary. The forum could be used for the heads of central agencies to keep others informed of developments in public service wide issues and provide a venue for related discussion. While it should not have executive powers, the PM&C secretary should report on the activities of the Forum in the Department's annual report.
Such arrangements could help promote stronger ministerial leadership on public service "stewardship", foster better relations between ministers and officials, improve the coordination of activities on a functional basis and provide, in the age of inclusivity, for more inclusive consultation and communication with all major public service agencies.
Of course the Secretaries Board could be relied on stoutly to resist such moves whose benefits it would see as being outweighed by its retirement.
- Paddy Gourley is a former senior public servant. pdg@home.netspeed.com.au.
