print this page
© Copyright Commonwealth of Australia - Australian Public Service Commission
Home page
> State of the Service reports
> State of the Service Report 2005-06 > Whole of government > Next: Whole of government systems
‹ Previous page
Last updated: 30 November 2006
Chapter 10: Whole of government
Abbreviations
A list of the abbreviations used in this report is available in the Glossary
There has been an increasing focus on whole of government in the APS context in recent years. This reflects the fact that APS agencies and their employees are required to focus beyond agency-specific outcomes and priorities in contributing to the Government’s overall policy agenda and priorities.
The need for effective whole of government approaches continues to grow. A wide range of whole of government activities is underway across the APS, including in the areas of security, natural resource management and the environment, health, biosecurity, service delivery and social policy. Implementation of initiatives related to Indigenous service delivery and the significant Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agenda reinforce the need for the APS to operate effectively at both a cross-agency and a cross-jurisdictional level.
MAC defined ‘whole of government’ in its 2004 report, Connecting Government, as:
. . . denot[ing] public service agencies working across portfolio boundaries to achieve a shared goal and an integrated government response to particular issues. Approaches can be formal and informal. They can focus on policy development, program management and service delivery.1
Promoting and supporting a whole of government approach has been a priority of public administration in a range of countries, as well as international bodies such as the UN.
Some common themes emerge when reviewing recent international developments in this area. Many countries have approached increasing government coordination and improving information management through e-government. According to the UN, approaches to e-government vary from country to country, but governments in developed countries are advanced in the provision of services to citizens, and developing countries are also making an effort to engage citizens through the use of innovative initiatives aimed at greater access and inclusion.2
A number of countries have also looked at how they report on and assess whole of government outcomes. Different countries have taken different approaches. For example, in the UK, until late 2005 the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit coordinated cross-cutting public service reform initiatives between departments. Since then, the focus on national targets has moved to an emphasis on whole of government collaboration between central and local government and community organisations (the ‘Third Sector’).
In Canada, there has been a focus on improving reporting to Parliament on the implementation of programmes on a government-wide basis. Canada’s Performance 2005 provides a whole of government perspective on the performance of individual federal departments.3
In NZ, the State Services Commission has developed an initial set of indicators for measuring progress towards its development goals. Two relate specifically to whole of government issues, namely ‘Networked State Services’ and ‘Co-ordinated State Agencies.’
A number of national governments have addressed whole of government issues in the context of emergencies and national crises. In the USA, inquiries into the Federal Government’s response to Hurricane Katrina have been a catalyst for greater attention to inter-agency cooperation and communication. In NZ, the State Services Commission has been involved in all-of-government planning for a possible Avian influenza pandemic.
Some countries have recognised the need to address issues of public service culture to promote more collaborative approaches to addressing problems. For example, NZ organised a Public Service Senior Management conference to reinforce the common values and collective identity of the public service, and to unify and challenge senior managers.
In Australia, there has been significant progress in implementing whole of government across the APS, although there remain some key risks and pressure points that require continued attention and action.
At the broadest level, progress is reflected in a number of important whole of government governance structures which have continued to be progressed. These include:
- the continued work of the Cabinet Implementation Unit in PM&C in ensuring that major government projects are being planned, monitored and delivered effectively
- continuing whole of government governance arrangements for Indigenous affairs guided by the Ministerial Taskforce on Indigenous Affairs and supported by the National Indigenous Council and the Secretaries’ Group on Indigenous Aff airs.
During 2005–06, the work of the Cabinet Implementation Unit has been supplemented by the development by Finance of the Gateway Review process, a project assurance methodology that will involve short, intensive reviews at critical stages of a project, to improve the delivery of major projects on time and on budget.
MAC has also continued to support whole of government work this year, through the release of its Managing and Sustaining the APS Workforce report, a statement about expectations for the SES titled One APS—One SES, and through continuing review of progress in implementing the findings of Connecting Government. These developments are discussed further below.
This chapter looks at some of the key structures that support the operation of whole of government, namely ICT infrastructure and Budget and accountability frameworks. It then looks at how well whole of government culture and capability is being promoted, both through agency and cross-agency initiatives.
The introduction of ICCs as part of the Government’s new arrangements for administering Government programmes and services for Indigenous people has been a major whole of government initiative for the APS. ICCs bring under the one roof staff working in the main agencies administering Government programmes and services for Indigenous people. They also work closely with other agencies delivering programmes to Indigenous communities, most notably Centrelink.
Under the new arrangements, the Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination (OIPC) coordinates and supports whole of government approaches to programmes and service delivery for Indigenous Australians. In January 2006, OIPC was transferred to the new FaCSIA.
The ICC model is a major endeavour involving a comprehensive whole of government-based approach to service delivery. The model is being progressively enhanced. To help support and strengthen the ICC model, the Secretaries’ Group on Indigenous Affairs issued a further two whole of government bulletins in 2005–06 which:
- set out the next steps at the local level, including progressing more comprehensive shared responsibility agreement work in a range of locations and ensuring support to both ICCs and Indigenous communities for this work
- clarified the ICC model, focusing on expectations that ICCs will operate as whole of government offices focused on improving service delivery to Indigenous Australians.
OIPC state and territory offices coordinate the development of whole of government regional action plans. The plans set out the priorities for each region within a state or territory as agreed by state managers from Australian Government agencies and ICC managers. The plans are a frame of reference for whole of government work carried out in each state and territory and act as an accountability mechanism.
Agencies have worked collaboratively to build the capacity and skills of staff in the ICC network. In particular:
- the appointment of solution brokers by agencies and round table discussions between agencies at ICC level to discuss joint approaches to funding applications have enhanced the capacity of ICCs to improve service delivery
- training and other support has been provided to address the leadership development needs of ICC managers and deputy ICC managers, and to enhance the skills of ICC staff in engaging with Indigenous communities, facilitating capacity development and working in a whole of government environment.
To help support and strengthen the ICC model, agency heads and SES Band 3s have become mentors to some ICC managers to support their new role. This mentoring programme is being expanded to other ICC managers.
Supporting whole of government work on Indigenous policies and programmes is one of the five key elements of the APS Employment and Capability Strategy for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Employees.
Working outside the agency silos is challenging for staff in all agencies. Significant effort has been invested at all levels across agencies to ensure that agency-specific practices and processes are flexible so that they can respond to location-specific challenges and achieve shared outcomes across the ICC network.
The operation of the ICCs illustrates well the systemic, cultural and capability issues to be managed in such endeavours. It highlights the significant challenges in marrying vertical and horizontal responsibilities and accountabilities on the ground and the need for supportive capability building, flexible funding arrangements and business process reengineering that successful whole of government arrangements can entail.
Agencies whose employees had been involved with ICCs either directly or indirectly have put a range of measures in place to support whole of government work. The most common measure has been encouraging participation in inter-agency meetings or forums. Providing regular information and advice to ICC staff and organising joint workshops with ICCs to promote whole of government processes are also common. Almost all the agencies directly involved in ICCs have circulated information on ICCs to all other staff in the agency to engender broad support and have used Commission or OIPC training on working collaboratively. Training audits have also been used.
In this chapter
- Management Advisory Committee 2004, Connecting Government: Whole of Government Responses to Australia’s Priority Challenges, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p. 1.
- United Nations, Global e-Government Readiness Report 2005: From e-Government to e-Inclusion, November 2005, p. xii, <http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan021888.pdf>
- Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2005, Canada’s Performance 2005: The Government of Canada’s Contribution, <http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/report/govrev/05/cp-rc_e.asp>
