The creation of the SES—a quiet revolution

Despite little overt change, there were increasing concerns in government about the performance of the APS—in particular, that its highly centralised form of policy advising and administration was undermining the capacity of governments and the APS to respond to economic and social change.

From the 1970s international economic pressures had begun to impact on Australia’s national budgets and against restrictive government controls. A better educated constituency was also leading to increased expectations of government and the APS.

In response to these pressures and concerns a number of critical reviews were undertaken—the 1974 Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration, the 1982 Joint Committee on Public Accounts report on senior APS management, and the 1983 Reid Review of Commonwealth Administration—that significantly influenced the reform agendas of successive Australian governments.

The common finding of these early reviews was the need for a more open, efficient and responsive public service. In relation to APS senior staffing, the findings of these three reviews and the 1958 Boyer report were remarkably similar.

The four reports all agreed on six central features of desirable senior staffing arrangements. Each recommended a distinctive, senior executive group. Each proposed that the senior staffing group be open to entry at all levels from outside of the public service. Each argued for structured and planned mobility of senior staff. Each proposed a formal staff appraisal system. Each sought better training for senior staff… It is particularly significant that each of the reports identified the need for strong central co-ordination of senior staffing policy…⁹

Against this background the Hawke Government released a white paper, Reforming the Australian Public Service, in 1983.

Arrangements at the senior levels of the Public Service are critical to a productive and responsive relationship between Governments and the Service in the formulation, implementation and administration of policies and programs. …a key element in the Government’s plans for the reform of the Australian Public Service centres upon Department heads and their senior managers.¹⁰

The white paper introduced, for the first time in Australia, the concept of a ‘senior executive service’ which saw ‘the critical group of senior advisors and managers as a unified APS-wide group’.¹¹ This would be achieved by reshaping the second division into a:

…unified, cohesive senior staffing group with general leadership and management skills which could effectively be assessed and flexibly deployed in accordance with the requirements and priorities of the [APS].¹²

Through these reforms the Government sought to enhance Ministerial control over departments while revitalising the leadership cadre. The reforms took up most of the earlier reviews’ recommendations. The changes provided the new Senior Executive Service (SES) with more responsibility for day to day management; opened up the senior levels to outsiders; and made clear that SES could be deployed throughout the APS as required.

The second reading speech introducing the Public Service Reform Act 1984 to parliament described its aim as to create:

…new arrangements for senior management, with the dual purpose of ensuring a fully productive relationship with government and enabling senior managers to realise their full potential.¹³

The SES now had distinctive arrangements for selection, mobility, development, promotion and tenure articulated in legislation.

The opening up of the SES to outside appointments inevitably led to assertions that the new arrangements threatened the independence of SES employment decisions. The new provisions guaranteeing freedom from political interference in the selection, appointment and promotion to the SES responded to such perceptions and accusations of politicisation of the APS.

All appointment and promotion decisions in the Senior Executive Service will be taken by the Public Service Board through the exercise of statutory powers properly independent from any Ministerial directions. The only staffing decisions where Ministers have a role in the public service are those on secretaries of departments, which have always been ultimately and properly for the government of the day.¹⁴

The new arrangements also emphasised the nature of the SES as an APS-wide management resource with provision for its members to be deployed in and between agencies, making mobility a core element for developing a unified SES. As is the case today, the then Government wanted:

… to see greater mobility among its senior executives and the development of senior staff who increasingly can bring broader perspectives to the process of government, as a result of experience gained in policy advising, program management and in central co-ordinating agencies.¹⁵

However, mobility proved to be problematic. Some agencies implemented interchange programs (after responsibility for this was devolved to agencies in 1988) and/or organised placements as part of their own leadership development activities. But mobility between agencies was less successful:

Secretaries embraced the idea…but when put to the test, secretaries were prepared to give up less able people, not their better ones and receiving secretaries were not prepared to take less able ones but would take the good ones. It was very hard going.¹⁶

 

Next: The revolution continues unabated