Developments in 2004–05
Following the release of Connecting Government, there was a strong focus on promoting its findings and whole of government approaches more generally. In March 2005, the Secretary of PM&C wrote to Portfolio Secretaries outlining the importance of implementing the findings of Connecting Government. In April 2005, Working Together, a brief and practical guide for members of the APS on how they should work together, was released by Portfolio Secretaries and the Commissioner and provided to all agencies for posting on their Intranets.
During 2004–05, development work was also undertaken on a new Connected Government website to assist public service employees to work across multiple agencies and to provide users with links to guides, tools, directories and training information. The website—a key recommendation of Connecting Government— was launched in August 2005. It is intended that the facility will continue to expand in content and functions. The website is available at http://www.connected.gov.au.
A number of agencies have also been involved with the implementation of specific initiatives to support whole of government collaboration and capability development. These are addressed below.
Governance arrangements
APS-wide governance arrangements have been the subject of ongoing review processes during the year. These reviews are broadly aimed at rationalising the financial and accountability frameworks of statutory authorities and office holders, and mapping the formal arrangements governing organisational management within the APS more generally.
The Review of the Corporate Governance of Statutory Authorities and Office Holders (the Uhrig Review)
The Review of the Corporate Governance of Statutory Authorities and Office Holders (the Uhrig Review), presented in 2003, called for a more rational and consistent approach to determining the financial and accountability frameworks that should apply to Commonwealth Government entities, and where policy responsibilities should lie for the work done by these entities. The report recommended measures to reaffirm the role of portfolio departments as the principal source of advice to Ministers by requiring agencies to provide relevant information to their Portfolio Secretary in parallel to that information being provided to Ministers. It further distinguished between agencies that should be legally and financially part of the Commonwealth, and those that should, because of the nature of their business, be distinct from the Government and recommended that financial frameworks applying to agencies should be based on their governance characteristics.
In its August 2004 response, the Government accepted most of the key recommendations of the Uhrig Review and also endorsed the two templates identified in its report designed to ensure good governance exists. A two-stage review is currently underway involving assessments by responsible Ministers of relevant statutory authorities and office holders within their portfolios against these governance templates. Uhrig pilot agencies are involved in the first stage of the review, with other agencies to follow. All of the reviews are expected to be finished by 31 March 2006, with the implementation of any changes, including any legislative changes, expected to be completed by 31 March 2007. In practice this is a significant process of review of the governance arrangements of some 160 bodies.
In October 2004, the Prime Minister announced plans to create a new department— the DHS. The department, which was formally established in December 2004, has oversight of six agencies—Centrelink, the Health Insurance Commission (HIC) (known, from 1 October 2005, as Medicare Australia), CSA, CRS, Australian Hearing, and HSA. Consistent with the Uhrig recommendations, the governance boards of Centrelink and the HIC have been abolished and replaced by an executive management structure to establish a more direct Ministerial role in their operation. In establishing the DHS, the Government has said that agency boards interfere with the new department’s coordinating role, and its charter to deliver services effectively and efficiently.
Although the Uhrig Review itself made no specific reference to the issue of Act coverage, the Commissioner has encouraged portfolio departments and their Ministers to consider the appropriateness of employment under the Act in any review of bodies arising from it. Finance, in its publication, Governance Arrangements for Australian Government Bodies (August 2005), has reinforced the approach advocated by the Commissioner that there be a greater alignment of the employment and financial frameworks for statutory bodies which, as a general rule, would see the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and the Act applying to the majority of Commonwealth bodies performing core APS functions such as programme management, service delivery, policy advising or regulatory activities.
In relation to the issue of Statements of Expectation and Intent to be issued by Ministers and statutory authorities, respectively, the Commissioner has noted that it is important, from a whole of government perspective, that these statements are consistent with the common public service culture and accountability framework provided by the Values and the Code.
Foundations of Governance in the Australian Public Service
In 2004, Portfolio Secretaries sponsored a review of the formal arrangements governing organisational management within the APS, particularly under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997, the Act and the Workplace Relations Act 1996, as well as the formal reporting and accountability requirements.
Foundations of Governance in the Australian Public Service was launched in June 2005. Foundations consists of a publication and an interactive Internet resource drawing together key elements of that review and setting out agency head obligations spread through a range of legislation and policy documents across many portfolios. It is designed to assist agency heads to meet their obligations and responsibilities, particularly newly appointed agency heads. The resources include:
- accountability requirements
- the financial management framework
- the employment and workplace relations frameworks
- . the management of government information.5
Whole of government governance initiatives for Indigenous Affairs
In 2004–05, for the first time, consideration of Indigenous expenditure across government was conducted on a whole of government basis, guided by the Ministerial Taskforce on Indigenous Affairs. The Ministerial Taskforce provides high-level, whole of government leadership on directions and priorities for policy and expenditure related to Indigenous Australians. Its work is informed by the National Indigenous Council and the Secretaries’ Group on Indigenous Affairs, which comprises the heads of 11 departments administering the Government’s Indigenous programmes and the Commissioner.
Under the new arrangements all new policy proposals from Ministers for government investment in Indigenous-specific initiatives are now considered together in a single Indigenous Budget submission, and strategic decisions can be taken against government priorities for Indigenous-specific expenditure. This provides opportunities to maximise coordination and minimise duplication or overlap. Initiatives can cross portfolios, be agency-specific or be Indigenous-specific measures designed to support improved outcomes from mainstream programmes and services.
The Secretaries’ group issued two whole of government bulletins in 2004–05, on shared responsibility agreements between the Government and Indigenous communities or groups, and on the 2005–06 Indigenous budget initiatives.
The OIPC, within DIMIA has, since 1 July 2004, been responsible for ‘whole-ofgovernment’ coordination at the administrative level. At the regional level, ICCs have been established to bring under the one roof staff working in the main agencies administering Government programmes and services for Indigenous people.
Working Whole of Government: Indigenous Coordination Centres
The ICC model of programme implementation is still evolving, but indications are that Indigenous communities are engaging positively with the new system. There were 101 signed Shared Responsibility Agreements (SRAs) in 86 communities nationally as at September 2005—these agreements set out family and/or community as well as government responsibilities for achieving good outcomes in relation to community identified priorities.
Australian Government agencies have also demonstrated that they are committed to working together to maximise the potential of the ICC model. This was evident in the 2005–06 programme funding process managed by ICCs. Agencies adopted a collaborative ‘roundtable’ approach to the complex process of administering submissions for over $745 million in funding across all portfolios—including programme funding previously administered by ATSIS and ATSIC. This approach continues to be used to facilitate ongoing collaboration between agencies, especially where agency-specific issues need to be worked through.
Agency initiatives, which also demonstrate a commitment to productive whole of government working, include:
- In a South Australian ICC, FaCS and DCITA share an EL2 Senior Programme Manager.
- While DEST did not receive additional responsibilities as a result of the allocation of various Indigenous programmes to mainstream agencies, it has taken the opportunity to establish a presence in the ICCs—supporting the commitment to whole of government outcomes.
- A whole of government training package was developed in consultation with all programme agencies and delivered to each ICC and employees in agencies’ state offices. The training—a one and a half day program facilitated and delivered by People & Strategy Consultants—provides information and strategies to assist managers and employees to develop effective working relationships in a whole of government context. The training reflects the Values and the Code, provides practical working examples of team challenges in a whole of government environment and encourages group discussion and understanding on managing issues of change and performance.
- Agencies are making portfolio experts (sometimes called ‘solution brokers’) available to work with ICCs—either directly in the office or from a hub office that services a group of ICCs. These roles are essential to the new arrangements in assisting ICC managers to broker partnerships, involving people with a detailed understanding of the full range of programmes and services of their agency and whose task it is to generate innovative and flexible solutions to issues identified by communities under SRAs.
While the early signs are the ICC model is progressing well, there are still a number of challenges. As might be expected, agencies are looking to find ways to adapt their agency-specific practices and processes across a number of areas— including programme management, staffing, human resources management and ICT—to achieve shared outcomes and efficiencies across the network.
Agencies are grappling with the accountability implications of the shift to working in a whole of government context. Agencies need to achieve a balance between traditional (vertical) accountabilities through agencies to individual Ministers and whole of government (horizontal) accountability for the implementation of well- coordinated Indigenous policies and programmes.
A ‘one size fits all’ approach does not meet the needs of individuals, families and communities or the diverse circumstances that urban, rural and remote locations encompass. The challenge for ICCs is to develop and deliver arrangements that meet the needs and priorities as identified by the communities.
agency case study
The Cabinet Implementation Unit in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
The Cabinet Implementation Unit (CIU) was established in late 2003 to seek systematic reform to the way government policies are implemented and to assist in ensuring the committed and effective delivery of key government decisions, recognising the growing number of particular complex policy challenges that call for broad oversight.
The Cabinet Implementation Unit
An increasing number of policy decisions need to be informed by a whole of government perspective. Good governance requires collaboration at all levels to support and coordinate policy development and programme delivery across bureaucratic boundaries.
The making of policy and its delivery are generally discussed in Cabinet. Cabinet sets and monitors the direction of government, takes the most important decisions on policies and budgets, and resolves potential demarcation conflicts between Ministers and their agencies. Cabinet is the apex of collective decision- making in the Australian Government.
This is why, when it was decided to place greater emphasis on the delivery of government programmes and services, the CIU was placed alongside the Cabinet Secretariat in PM&C. Both are located in the Cabinet Division.
The CIU is intended to ensure that public servants will harness their collective technical and administrative capacity to solve problems which cross boundaries within and between Australia’s governments. It is a vehicle for ‘connecting’ government. Its goal is to ensure that major government projects are being planned, monitored and delivered effectively. That requires concerted effort by central, line and operational agencies.
The Australian Government has to make extraordinarily complex public policy decisions each week. It is essential that Cabinet be properly informed of the implementation challenges involved in new policy initiatives. Ministers need to be assured that these have been addressed at a whole of government level. Playing a gatekeeping role, both the Cabinet Secretariat and the CIU seek to ensure that all relevant agencies have been consulted in the development of a policy and in discussions on how its implementation is to be managed.
Those Cabinet proposals assessed as being of ‘moderate’ to ‘high’ risk are required to address the scope, milestones, risks, impacts and consultation arrangements for policy implementation. Submissions must answer important questions, such as:
What criteria will be used to assess whether the programme or project has fulfilled its objectives?
Which stakeholders will contribute to implementation and how and when will they be consulted?
What are the key decision points against which progress should be monitored?
What are the risks which might undermine delivery and how will they be managed?
The discipline imposed by this method improves communication between stakeholder organisations, policy advisers and those public servants who have responsibility for delivering government programmes. It actively encourages agencies to consult across government in the development of policy and to work together to ensure that the goals of government are implemented in an efficient, effective and timely manner. It encourages those who design policy to listen to the experience of those who deliver it.
The Cabinet is also the appropriate forum for assessing programme delivery and, as necessary, for refining government initiatives. To help the Prime Minister and his colleagues in this task the CIU now undertakes quarterly monitoring of a wide range of policies. Cabinet is provided with a ‘traffic light’ report on more than 150 measures. This allows Ministers to oversight the implementation of key government initiatives. If programmes are falling behind expectations, remedial action can be taken.
From its vantage point ‘at the centre of the centre’ of the APS, the Cabinet Division can compare and contrast different policy-making and implementation cultures across government. It can draw lessons learned both from the successes and failures of project management and ensure that they are shared across government.
The CIU is now working with the ANAO to develop a better practice guide to the implementation of government programme and policy initiatives. This will draw on experiences in both the public and private sectors. The guide will be an important and practical reference tool for all APS agencies and the ANAO will be using it as a benchmark for their future audits.
A professional public service should set high store on cooperation, coordination and collegiality. The role of the Cabinet Division, and in particular the CIU, is to help transform that rhetoric into reality.
agency case study
ICT infrastructure
Improving agencies’ capability to transfer and exchange information is critical to whole of government interaction and requires interoperability between agencies’ information systems. In the UK, for example, it has been recommended that the newly formed Office of Public Sector Information develop a set of practical guidelines aimed at helping public bodies to deal with all aspects of information management as a single, integrated activity. The APS already has a similar initiative in train. Here, the Information Management Strategy Committee, supported by the Chief Information Officers’ Committee (CIOC), is developing an Information Interoperability Framework which outlines the business drivers, principles, standards, legal (including privacy and security matters) and governance arrangements that enable the transfer and exchange of information between agencies.
The framework is intended to promote information management principles that strengthen agencies’ ability to share and reuse information sources, including:
- recognition of the rights and responsibilities for information management
- the need to standardise information collection practices
- the need to manage information as a strategic asset.
The CIOC is also finalising the Australian Government Access and Distribution Strategy. The Strategy includes a Capability Model that provides a common framework within which agencies can identify and describe their capability to work with other agencies to deliver better services.
Budget and Accountability Framework
Connecting Government found that Finance should encourage and facilitate the exchange of financial information between Australian Government agencies by developing and maintaining standard templates for financial management information systems and budgetary model specifications. Finance is implementing a new central financial management system later in 2005 that will include a large number of improvements in accessibility, flexibility, functionality, scope and detail of information compared with the current platform. In particular, there will be a single chart of accounts, more extensive and interconnected information on programmes and cash flows, standard reporting templates, expanded help facilities and wider agency access through FedLink.6
5 The Internet resource is available at http://www.apsc.gov.au/foundations. With the cooperation of contributing agencies, this resource will be updated on a regular basis.
6 FedLink is an encryption tool. It takes data transmissions between members, encrypts the data at the sender’s gateway and de-crypts it at the receiver’s gateway. This prevents the data being deciphered if it is intercepted while travelling over the Internet.
