Go to main text : Contact the Commission : Privacy

Working with stakeholders and moving to more inclusive government

examines the relationships we maintain within the government and the community. Includes the following chapters:

10: Working with government agencies and stakeholders

11: Inclusive and innovative government

12: Agency achievements and the way forward

Chapter 10: Working with government agencies and stakeholders

A key feature of the modern environment for public services across the world is collaboration—working well with other agencies and jurisdictions and engaging effectively with stakeholders to achieve government objectives. How well the APS can work with many stakeholders to deliver effective, timely, coordinated and seamless service will be a hallmark of future success.

Tackling complex policy issues typically requires more collaborative and innovative approaches, where other parties, collectively and/or individually, also take responsibility for shaping and delivering the responses required.¹ The Prime Minister has recently committed to ‘a new way of governing—particularly increased cooperation between federal, state and local governments, businesses and community organisations’.² Increased taxpayer expectations about the quality of government services have led the APS to consider with whom, and how best, to work on both the design and delivery of programmes and services.

The new Government’s approach has included some specific initiatives to enhance scope for collaboration between the APS and external stakeholders including, for example, an increased reliance on the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) to progress reforms. This chapter focuses on how the APS is working with state and local government, and other key stakeholders, such as industry and non-government organisations (NGOs) (e.g. environmental groups and charities). It also considers framework and employee capability issues for improving cooperation and collaboration with external stakeholders. The question of citizen engagement is dealt with in Chapter 11.

Key themes in 2007–08

Community expectations, increasing globalisation and technological innovation, as well as the complex nature of some of the long-term challenges facing governments today, have increased the need to consider adopting collaborative and whole of government approaches to address those challenges. The 2004 Management Advisory Committee (MAC) report, Connecting Government: Whole of Government Responses to Australia’s Priority Challenges, highlighted the need to connect with and invest in relations with external stakeholders:

... understanding the different perspectives of external groups is essential to the government’s desire to see policies and programs make a constructive contribution ‘on the ground’, as well as in managing the risks associated with new initiatives.

The Australian Public Service (APS) has a significant role in making these connections work. While there will always be strong external links at the political level—-ministers, members of parliament, ministerial staff—the APS also needs to foster and maintain close linkages to meet its responsibilities for comprehensive policy advising, and for effective implementation of government policies and programs.³

The concept of agile government is also founded on collaboration. A report by Victoria’s State Services Authority, Towards Agile Government, suggests that agility provides the prospect of ‘an open and imaginative system of government that is constantly scanning for new information, making sense of that information and using it to develop more effective responses to challenges and opportunities.’ To enhance agility in public service, the following six approaches are recommended:

• create accessible spaces for shared understanding
• innovate, learn and implement
• network and collaborate
• foster workforce flexibility and adaptability
• balance short- and long-term priorities
• engage citizens in decision-making.⁴

A continuum of relationships with external stakeholders is identified in Victorian Approaches to Joined Up Government: An Overview,⁵ extending from networking to collaboration (see Table 10.1).

Table 10.1: Continuum of relationships

Networking	Coordinating	Cooperating	Collaborating
Source: Adapted from A.T. Himmelman, ‘On Coalition and the Transformation of Power Relationships’, American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 29, No. 2, 2001, pp. 277–284. Cited in State Services Authority, Victorian Approaches to Joined Up Government: An Overview (2007), p. 5.
Exchange of information for mutual benefit	Exchanging information for mutual benefit	Exchanging information	Exchange information
Informal relationship	Alter activities	Alter activities	Share resources
Minimal time and trust	Formal relationship	Sharing resources to achieve a common purpose	Enhance capacity of another to achieve a common purpose
No sharing of resources	Requires moderate time and trust	Formal relationship	Formal relationship
	Minimal sharing of resources	Substantial time and trust required	Extensive time and trust required
		Share resources	Share risk, responsibilities, rewards
		Some sharing of risk and reward

Building and maintaining effective relationships across the full spectrum is required to ensure that government objectives can be achieved. Strategic decisions and flexible approaches will be necessary to enable agencies and employees to engage in external stakeholder relationships suited to the policy issue and implementation mode at hand. For some issues, a fully collaborative relationship will be required, for example, collaboration with a range of stakeholders to deliver measures to address Indigenous disadvantage, whereas for other issues, a networking approach will be adequate, for instance, in advising on changes to taxation or regulation arrangements. As relationships move progressively towards being fully collaborative, it is likely to require more time and investment, and greater dependence on stakeholders will emerge. As relationships also can involve a range of stakeholders (including at the government level), leadership and clarity about roles needs to be clearly established. It may be necessary to ensure that the Government has a single, rather than a multiplicity, of faces.

During 2007–08, the impetus for building sound relationships in the APS as the basis for cooperation and collaboration with external stakeholders intensified, particularly with the cross-government agreement to use COAG and its agenda to progress reforms in key policy areas. Additional opportunities for working with external stakeholders also emerged, through the Australia 2020 Summit process, the introduction of Community Cabinet meetings and the commencement of a large number of reviews, seeking public comments and input, in many policy areas.

In December 2007, COAG agreed to a new model of cooperation and new working arrangements to progress reforms in seven key areas: health and ageing; the productivity agenda, including education, skills, training and early childhood; climate change and water; infrastructure; business regulation and competition; housing; and Indigenous reform.⁶

Other areas for reform, including deregulation and a review of payments made to the states and territories, were also identified as priorities to be addressed through COAG. Seven working groups overseen by a Commonwealth Minister, with deputies nominated by the states and territories at a senior departmental level were established; these include senior officials from all jurisdictions. Implementation plans for each working group were agreed as the basis for further work. A nominee of the Australian Local Government Association is included in the working groups on climate change, infrastructure and housing. COAG also agreed to meet four times during 2008, and in 2009 a meeting dedicated to Indigenous issues has been scheduled.

Central agencies have continued to play a key role in coordinating major cross-government initiatives, including those being pursued through the COAG agenda.

The Australia 2020 Summit,⁷ held on 19 and 20 April 2008, was supported by the APS, with more than 200 volunteers drawn from across the public service assisting with administrative functions. Portfolio secretaries and other agency heads attended relevant stream discussions. Collaboration and the need for increased government interaction with stakeholders was identified as one of the big ideas to be taken forward from the Summit governance stream,⁸ along with specific proposals to underpin its achievement, including technology-based models to ensure improved citizen engagement, active citizenship as a curriculum topic for schools and strengthening of government relations with the third sector.

Community Cabinet meetings⁹ directly include Ministers and Departmental Secretaries or their representatives. Commitments made during the Community Cabinet meetings are recorded and monitored in quarterly reports to Cabinet.

The first meeting of the Australian Council of Local Government (ACLG) is scheduled for November 2008, where 565 heads of Australia’s local councils will meet with the Australian Government, State and Territory Governments and key groups to discuss issues around national and local infrastructure, including urban planning and design.

Many major policy reviews have commenced, with some already concluded (including the reviews of Innovation¹⁰ and the Australian Automotive Industry),¹¹ while others are ongoing (e.g. the Henry Tax Review, led by the Treasury Secretary, Dr Ken Henry) or have been a multi-stage process (the release of and further consultation with key stakeholders regarding the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Green Paper).¹² These reviews have invited submissions and input from all interested stakeholders.

Development of a National Compact, as part of the new Social Inclusion Agenda,¹³ is another initiative linking government more directly to external stakeholders. A first public consultation phase has been completed and it is expected that a compact will provide a platform for ongoing discussion and outline how the Government intends working with the not-for-profit sector to improve and strengthen ties.

In relation to APS interactions with external stakeholders, the Lobbying Code of Conduct¹⁴ was developed and has been operational since 1 July 2008. APS employees will need to take the lobbying code into account in future, to help clarify what particular interests are being represented when they deal with external stakeholders. Agencies will be required to make sure their employees are aware of, and comply with, the Code.

In light of these developments, concerns raised in previous State of the Service reports about the need to continue to promote a stronger culture and better arrangements in the public sector for improving collaboration with external stakeholders, and which enable more effective government policy approaches to be adopted, are even more relevant. Issues identified included: providing more clarity around the Budget and accountability framework, and the composition, role and leadership of joint working arrangements; improved governance arrangements; and consideration of the role of information and communications technology (ICT) in better supporting shared initiatives. The imperatives for ensuring these issues are addressed, and that appropriate models for engagement with all stakeholders are in place, have increased.

Other jurisdictions

The strong international focus on using collaboration and connected government to address complex policy issues is continuing. In the UK, the Social Exclusion Task Force expanded the cross-government measures available to support and mitigate issues of chronic social disadvantage. This included the launch of a further 10 collaborative pilot projects in 2007 to provide intensive intervention for young people at high risk of being taken into care and custody. In early 2008, the Families at Risk Review was completed and 15 pilot projects were launched in different locations to test innovative ways of supporting vulnerable families.

In NZ, Transforming the State Services: State of the Development Goals Report 2007,¹⁵ reported on progress being made across the State Services in relation to Networked State Services and

Coordinated State Agencies. The State Services Commission research suggested an all-of-government culture in coordination is developing. It noted the need, however, for more progress—particularly in relation to performance measurement, better alignment of ministerial priorities and agency shared interests, and a still stronger focus on building the public service capability needed to better support coordination. More recently, the 2007–08 annual report of the State Services Commission noted that Ministers and State sector leaders recognised there was still room for improvement in the areas of coordination and cooperation between agencies.¹⁶

Across the UK, NZ and Canada, there have been continuing efforts to improve joined up government, including new Budget arrangements in the UK,¹⁷ aimed at enhancing collaboration with stakeholders and citizens in the policy, programme and service delivery roles of government. These developments are reviewed in more detail in the discussion of citizen engagement in Chapter 11.

In April 2008, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) released Ireland: Towards an Integrated Public Service, a report which emphasised the importance of pursuing reform from a whole-of-public sector perspective in order to improve efficiency. OECD found that Ireland ‘needs to think increasingly about the Public Service as an integrated “system”’ and recommended adoption of a combined suite of actions, including better information sharing across agencies. To underpin these actions, OECD also included a recommendation for creation of a Senior Public Service to promote strong, central leadership across the public service.¹⁸

Finland’s Prime Minister released the Government Strategy Document 2007 in April 2008, outlining a Public Sector Reform Programme for the period 2008–2015. The programme is focused on reforms aimed at improving social outcomes in the areas of employment, health and the well-being of children, youth and families. One of the eight specific areas of reform is ‘revision of administration’, with restructuring of both central and regional administration foreshadowed. Citizen engagement has been promoted through the establishment of policy making networks of Ministers and civil servants who work across departmental boundaries to deliver outcome goals.¹⁹

Throughout the OECD, improving cross-government connections, as well as fostering effective collaboration with external stakeholders, is recognised as central to transforming the role of government—moving it from being a problem solver to that of being an enabler, assisting stakeholders to resolve problems and change circumstances.²⁰ Across jurisdictions, there is also a renewed emphasis on harnessing technology as a means of improving internal and external government coordination and enhancing engagement and collaboration with external stakeholders and the community. The UN E-Government Survey 2008 assesses the new role of government in enhancing public service delivery, while improving the efficiency and productivity of government processes and systems, through the use and better leverage of ICT infrastructure.²¹ The UN report, and Australia’s ranking in the survey, are considered in more detail in Chapter 11.

APS developments

There have been a number of developments across the APS in the last 12 months. The following sections examine framework initiatives, devolved government and cross-portfolio and collaboration initiatives.

Framework initiatives

During 2007–08, central agencies’ important role in coordinating whole of government initiatives was particularly apparent. Changes were announced in the May Budget to strengthen the role of PM&C through the formation of the Strategic Policy and Implementation Group. The Group includes the Cabinet Implementation Unit (CIU) which continues to work closely with departments and agencies on implementation planning, governance and reporting arrangements. Reports for the Government focusing specifically on activities against measures agreed through COAG were prepared by CIU. CIU was also initially responsible for the coordination of the whole of government response to the Prime Minister on the Australia 2020 Summit.

A Strategy and Delivery Division has also been formed to provide focus to strategic policy across government, and to ensure forward-looking policy is prioritised in the face of the day-to-day demands of government. The Division will work with the rest of PM&C on strategic policy projects. Along with other roles, the Division will lead APS implementation of the Government’s response to the Australia 2020 Summit recommendations.

Chapter 9 outlines details of other financial governance arrangements in place, including Gateway reviews, to assist agencies covered by the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 with project delivery. Through Operation Sunlight, changes have also been made to the Budget reporting framework to increase transparency and accountability.

In addition, the new framework for federal financial relations (also detailed in Chapter 9) will change the way that APS line agencies interact with State agencies in considering the development and implementation of programmes affecting service delivery. This may have implications for the roles of central agencies at both the federal and state levels; it is also likely to affect the measurement and reporting of performance against the new agreed outcomes.

Last year’s State of the Service report highlighted the findings of ANAO’s report, Whole of Government Indigenous Service Delivery Arrangements,²² released in October 2007. That report argued there were opportunities to streamline the administrative arrangements supporting the delivery of Indigenous services in the APS and pointed to the need to improve overall performance information (across agencies) in order to assess progress against shared priority areas for reform. The ANAO report was considered by the Secretaries’ Group on Indigenous Affairs (SGIA) in September last year, and the two recommendations made in ANAO’s report were accepted. The first recommendation related to the need for a protocol to monitor and where appropriate escalate and resolve administrative matters affecting the efficient and effective implementation of the Indigenous affairs arrangements. FaHCSIA has developed a protocol to this effect. The second recommendation advocated a stronger collective focus by departments on assessing performance against the Government’s Indigenous priorities.

To address this recommendation, a whole of government approach to funding Indigenous organisations is being developed, including multi-year, multi-agency funding agreements. SGIA has agreed to a set of generic performance indicators for all Indigenous funding arrangements and the application of the performance indicators to all Indigenous funding arrangements across government. Further work is also being undertaken to improve clarity and consistency of contracting arrangements, and to support better whole of government evaluation of Indigenous initiatives.

More broadly, the new COAG arrangements have also meant significant changes for governance and policy surrounding Indigenous disadvantage. Through COAG, the Closing the Gap of Indigenous Disadvantage strategy has been agreed, with a range of specific targets, covering health, education, employment and life-expectancy to close the gap in Indigenous disadvantage now agreed, and to be implemented within specific time frames. The Prime Minister has made a public commitment to report annually to Parliament on the progress the Government makes in closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians (this report will be presented on the first parliamentary sitting day of each year).

In December 2007, under COAG, the Working Group on Indigenous Reform (WGIR) was also formed. Within the Commonwealth, a number of the previous whole of government arrangements remained in place, including SGIA, which retains its role in leading whole of government work across the APS. However, as part of the reform of Commonwealth-State funding arrangements, WGIR is developing a national framework for reporting expenditure by all jurisdictions, which will include both Indigenous-specific and mainstream spending. There will be alignment between the performance and reporting framework developed by SGIA and the national framework now being developed through COAG.

ANAO’s report of October 2007 into whole of government Indigenous service delivery arrangements, is currently being reviewed by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA), as part of its normal review processes for ANAO reports. The report also recommended that Finance consider opportunities for improving guidance for all agencies on whole of government Budget and reporting arrangements. This would assist with addressing employee perceptions, identified in last year’s State of the Service report, that the Budget framework imposes constraints on whole of government approaches. Finance has provided some additional guidance to agencies on managing whole of government outlays, through the Explanatory Memorandum to the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill 2008,²³ which stated:

52. The reference in the note to a Chief Executive being able to enter contracts ‘in relation to the affairs of the Agency’ is to be read in broad terms. In particular, the Government will generally expect agencies to work cooperatively in a range of areas, including the implementation of whole-of-government policies.

In the Explanatory Memorandum to the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2008–2009,²⁴ it was also indicated that:

14 Departmental items involve costs over which an agency has control. Departmental appropriations can be used to make any payment related to the functions of the agency …

There can also be occasions when an agency, such as a portfolio department, needs to cover matters in relation to other areas of the Government. Examples can include whole of government activities or a portfolio department assisting with the formation and initial costs of a new portfolio body (for which the department might later be reimbursed).

This advice helps clarify when it is possible, within the current accountability framework, to cover costs that may arise in implementation of whole of government approaches.

As noted in last year’s State of the Service report, reporting of cross-agency initiatives also needs to be improved. Cross-agency outcomes are able to be used, but ANAO has suggested that the concept of cross-agency outcomes be reviewed in light of its lack of application by agencies. ANAO’s report also indicated the need to ensure clear leadership of cross-agency initiatives.

These same issues—the need to ensure clarity, leadership and effective performance reporting and monitoring—are also relevant to shaping and considering the types of financial relations with external stakeholders that need to be established for effective cooperation and collaboration.

The Commission is preparing a new publication in the ‘Contemporary Government Challenges’ series that focuses on how further flexibility can be incorporated into the performance and accountability framework, in order to support more innovative and collaborative responses to policy issues, including with external stakeholders. It highlights that there is already scope within current arrangements to support joined up and collaborative responses, but that further amplification of how these arrangements can work is required. It also suggests that adopting a fit-for-purpose approach to performance and accountability may assist, where the performance and accountability arrangements to be applied to new initiatives are considered as part of the policy design process and, where appropriate, they reflect stakeholder responsibilities in delivering outcomes.

Devolved government

For the first time, last year’s State of the Service report also provided data on devolved government expenditure. Reliance on third parties to deliver services and programmes is of course likely to increase, and puts an increased emphasis on ensuring an appropriate Budget and performance framework that takes account of the different sorts of external stakeholder relationships that may be required. The Prime Minister has made it clear that the Government has no ‘ideological preference for the public sector, nor for the private sector’.²⁵

Estimated devolved government expenditure for 2007–08 is set out below, along with actual data for 2006–07 (see Table 10.2). The data has been provided by Finance, and is broadly consistent with the information produced for the first time in the State of the Service Report 2006–07. It measures the dispersions that occur outside the Commonwealth for the purposes of funding third party providers. It shows that around 63% of non-Commonwealth expenditure is provided to State and Territory Governments, over 1% to local government, and approximately 36% to NGOs. The data shows an increase in the estimated expenditure being made available to those external providers of around $6 billion for 2007–08 compared with 2006–07.

Table 10.2: Estimated devolved government expenditure

	2006–07 actual $ billion	Percentage of total	2007–08 estimates $ billion	Percentage of total
Source: Department of Finance and Deregulation
State/Territory Government	28.17	64.0	31.60	62.9
Local Government	0.38	0.9	0.55	1.1
Non-government organisations	15.43	35.1	18.08	36.0
Total expenditure	43.98	100.0	50.23	100.0

This expenditure encapsulates the various grant payments for the categories listed above. Between 2006–07 and 2007–08 it is estimated there will be an increase in payments to the states and territories of $3.43 billion and to NGOs of $2.65 billion (which includes an increase in payments to universities of $1.68 billion). These payments are being made to support initiatives in a range of areas, including Indigenous affairs and health, the environment and local government ICT projects, as well as to provide assistance to farmers.

The Commission is preparing a more detailed research paper on devolved government and its implications for the APS.

Cross-portfolIo and collaboratIon inItIatIves

Reliance on collaboration and whole of government approaches to progress reforms in a number of key areas is continuing. Inter-departmental committees and task forces have played an effective role in developing joined up responses, and underpin the COAG reform agenda. Partnering approaches have also been used, to support projects undertaken with community and business stakeholders.

A number of environmental initiatives have been addressed using collaborative approaches. On 26 March 2008, a new, single body to manage the Murray and Darling Rivers—the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA)—was established with the support of all Basin States, to progress necessary water reforms and management arrangements within the Basin.²⁷ In the APS, this work was led by DEWHA. This initiative is one of a number being implemented under the National Water Initiative (NWI), and was progressed through the new COAG arrangements. It is founded on a cross-government approach, with the states advising the Commonwealth through a Ministerial Council and Officials Committee.

Across the APS, DCC led the development of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Green Paper,²⁸ released in July 2008. The paper was the culmination of extensive government consultation with industry, community groups and other stakeholders. It drew on work undertaken by the former Government’s Task Group on Emissions Trading (TGET), the States and Territories’ National Emissions Trading Taskforce (NETT) and the Garnaut Climate Change Review.²⁹ A whole of government task force has also been established to work on ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, waste, energy, and water use in government operations, as well as the sustainable use of Commonwealth land. A report has been prepared and the task force will oversee the implementation of government action on sustainability.

DoHA has continued to lead coordination across the Commonwealth to ensure that Australia is well-prepared in case of a disease outbreak, including a possible pandemic, and played a key role in supporting this work at the cross-government level. DoHA also coordinated development of a national plan to boost the number of life saving organ transplants for Australians.

A whole of government approach, led by FaHCSIA and involving six Australian Government portfolios, underpinned the roll out of the Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER). The APS is working in conjunction with the NT Government to address issues of child abuse, safety and stability in Indigenous communities. The NTER Taskforce and Operations Centre played a key coordination role. A local Australian Government presence in communities has been created through 51 Government Business Managers servicing 72 remote NT communities, supported by the network of Indigenous Coordination Centres (ICCs) in the NT.

The NTER Taskforce provided a report to the Government on 30 June 2008, which indicated that the successful roll out of the NTER measures had been supported by effective whole of government measures. It also strongly supported the role of the Government Business Managers ‘as they have played a key role in coordinating in a whole-of-government, cross-portfolio, cross-jurisdictional manner within each community’.³⁰ Additional funding has been provided for the employment in 2008–09 of up to 20 Indigenous community members to act as community agents. These agents will be ‘a conduit between community and government representatives, engaging families and individuals in the NTER and working to bring about greater community input into government decision-making’.³¹

A separate review of the NTER was also undertaken by the NTER Review Board.³² The NTER Review Board’s report has been considered by the Government, with an interim response announced on 23 October, confirming the NTER will continue in its current form until the end of June 2009.³³ In addition, the national ‘Closing the Gap of Indigenous Disadvantage: A Generational Plan of Action’ was announced in February 2008 and, as discussed above, it now forms the basis of the Budget and national COAG reforms being progressed to address Indigenous disadvantage.

A number of other whole of government and coordinated activities undertaken by MAC agencies are detailed in Chapter 12.

The Sustainable Communities Initiative (SCI), led by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), is an example of coordination to develop place-based responses to sustainability issues for local communities, and draws on a variety of partners, including government (at all levels), local businesses, environmental and community groups. APS agencies that have been involved in SCI include DEWHA, RET, Infrastructure, DAFF and DIISR.

A key challenge highlighted by SCI is the need to provide ongoing support for collaborative approaches of this kind which cross a number of portfolio and government boundaries, but importantly encompass non-government partners and actively encourage community involvement and collaboration. SCI concludes formally at the end of 2009, and at present it is not clear how it will continue. It does provide a model, however, for successful cross-sector partnering and support for approaches of this kind, as well as promulgation of the lessons learned, and it will be critical to developing broader APS capability to build effective partnering relations with external stakeholders.

Agency experience: Interaction with external stakeholders

Specific data on whole of government arrangements was not collected as a separate item this year and, unless otherwise stated, the following data reported relates to 2007–08.

The agency survey showed continuing high levels of consultation across the APS with nine stakeholder groups in the areas of policy development, programme delivery and government regulation. Groups consulted included NGOs, industry stakeholders, tertiary education and research centres, other APS agencies, State and Territory Governments, local government, unions and members of the public.

It is clear from Figure 10.1 that consultation is well-entrenched in APS activities. Almost two-thirds of all agencies reported consultation with at least one of the nine groups of stakeholders in all three areas. Sixty-five per cent of agencies reported carrying out some consultation with at least one of the groups on policy, with around one-third consulting more than five groups of stakeholders. Eighty-six per cent of agencies consulted with at least one of these groups on programme delivery, while around half consulted with more than five groups. The level of consultation on government regulation was higher than in 2006–07, and was reported by 69% of agencies to have taken place with at least one of the external stakeholder groups, while around two-thirds of agencies indicated they consulted more than five groups on regulation.

Consistent with the employee survey results, the most frequently consulted group in all areas were other APS agencies. Industry stakeholders were the second highest group in terms of consultation around regulation, and the third group most frequently consulted on policy and programme issues. For policy and programme issues, State and Territory Governments were the second most frequently consulted group. Excluding government, industry stakeholders and NGOs were the groups most frequently consulted by agencies. Levels of consultation with NGOs were highest in the areas of programme (72%) and regulation (52%) activities while consultation with the public was highest in relation to programme issues (66%).

Consultations with unions increased slightly in 2007–08, with 26% of agencies indicating consultations with unions in relation to policy (27% last year), 43% in relation to programme issues (39% last year) and 27% in relation to regulation issues (22% last year).

New methods of consultation

A majority of agencies introduced new methods of consultation during the year (60% or 54 agencies of the 90 agencies surveyed). While the new methods were quite broad-ranging, in many instances they seemed to reflect an expansion of the widely-accepted practices of forming stakeholder groups and adopting direct marketing approaches to encourage participation at meetings and in stakeholder surveys.

Use of ICT to enable enhanced consultation appeared to provide the most scope for adopting innovative ways to increase consultation. Examples provided by agencies included using blogs to support interaction with specific stakeholder groups and establishing a technology user group to enable stakeholders to share experience of developing and operating new technologies (DEWHA). The internet was identified as a way of enabling people in remote areas to access consultation processes. The Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner undertook a listening tour across Australia to gather community views, and her tour was supported by a blog.

It is likely that reliance on technology to support engagement with stakeholders will continue to grow. In June 2008, the Australian Government Information Management Office, (AGIMO) published the outcomes of its consultation on the proposed development and functionality of an Australian Government Consultation Blog. In all three phases of the consultation there was overwhelming support for the concept of a Government consultation blog and discussion forum.³⁶ The recently released report on Innovation recommended action to assist with government consideration of Web 2.0 applications for future engagement with stakeholders and delivery of services.³⁷

Agencies were also asked about how effective the new approaches were, with responses largely positive, and a smaller number indicating that it was still too early to fully gauge the effectiveness of the new approaches. Even though the majority of agencies indicated new methods of consultation, and were generally positive about the results, the new approaches outlined seem still to be focused around the exchange of information. As indicated earlier, it is important for agencies to consider what form of engagement with external stakeholders is required and whether it is suited to the issues at hand. Although exchange of information is a useful first step, there will often be increasing pressure to resolve some issues by building more interdependent relationships and moving further towards collaboration, particularly as governments assume a greater enabling role in society.

What type of interaction?

The agency survey also asked agencies about the nature of their employees’ involvement with external stakeholders. Figure 10.2 shows overall levels of involvement were high, and attending meetings to hear stakeholder views clearly remained the most common form of interaction, with almost all agencies indicating that their employees either often or sometimes had such meetings. Employee responses were consistent with agency responses on the forms of interaction with external stakeholders.

Other common forms of involvement were negotiations with stakeholders to develop mutually agreed policy positions or negotiation with stakeholders over implementation processes—the latter still being more commonly acknowledged.

Agency support for working with external stakeholders

Within agencies, support for staff dealing with external stakeholders continued to be through provision of policies and protocols on dealing with external stakeholders. As shown in Table 10.3, the vast majority of agencies indicated that they had such protocols in place, with the proportions for 2007–08 being slightly higher across all categories compared with those in 2006–07.

Table 10.3: agency and employee survey results for agency protocols/policies dealing with external stakeholders, 2007–08

Agency policy/protocol	Agencies			Relevant employees
	Yes %	Being developed %	No %	Agree %	Neither agree nor disagree %	Disagree %
Source: Agency and employee surveys
Promote consistent and accurate contract management decisions by staff	89	5	5	48	19	6
Safeguard access to ICT systems and protect private and commercially sensitive information	93	3	2	73	11	2
Measure and evaluate overall performance (e.g. outcomes, value for money)	83	5	10	49	21	9
Protect citizens’ interests in projects managed jointly with stakeholders	55	3	10	60	17	4

Table 10.3 shows that agencies most commonly report providing policy and protocols in order to assist employees to:

• promote consistent and accurate contract management decisions
• safeguard access to ICT systems and protect private and commercially sensitive information
• measure and evaluate performance (e.g. outcomes, value for money).

Almost all agencies had at least one of the policy and protocol measures in place and close to half reported having all four measures in place (an increase compared with 2006–07). Over 80% of agencies indicated they had at least two of the four policies and protocols in place. Compared to 2006–07, the incidence of these protocols is increasing but it is likely that along with the protocols, further initiatives may still need to be implemented to support stronger collaboration and achievement of better joined up outcomes. Better protecting citizens’ interests remains an issue in need of attention by a greater number of agencies.

Employees working with external stakeholders were also asked to indicate whether they agreed with a range of statements relating to their agency’s support for dealings with external stakeholders (see Table 10.3). Consistent with the 2007 result, around half or more of relevant respondents agreed with each of the statements, with employees being most confident that processes were in place to protect private and commercially sensitive information held on ICT systems. The level of employee agreement recorded in 2007–08 was much the same for all categories as in 2006–07, apart from an increase in the level of agreement recorded in relation to ICT processes.

Employee experience of working with external stakeholders

Working with external stakeholders is a frequent activity for many APS employees.³⁸ Most employees (80%) reported that they had dealt directly with external stakeholders and that they did this mainly through liaison with stakeholders, or attendance at meetings.

Working with other agencies and other levels of government

Working with other Australian Government agencies continues to be the most common form of interaction for APS employees (55% of respondents), although this was less than in 2006–07 (61%). Declines were recorded in the frequency of interactions by all APS employees with State and Territory Government agencies and local government during 2007–08 (see Table 10.4).

Table 10.4: Interactions with government agencies, 2006–07 and 2007–08

Stakeholders	Total APS		EL/SES
	2006–07 (%)	2007–08 (%)	2006–07 (%)	2007–08 (%)
Source: Employee survey
Commonwealth agencies	61	55	75	77
State/Territory agencies	34	30	40	42
Local government	19	15	12	13

As in previous years, SES and EL respondents reported much higher levels of working with people from other Australian Government agencies (77%) compared to other groups of stakeholders. For the SES and EL classification groups, dealings with people from other levels of government in 2007–08 remained similar in number to those of previous years.

Some 83% of all APS employees, and 84% of EL and SES employees, who had worked directly with people from any of the government agencies, indicated that their agency culture encourages a constructive approach to collaboration with public service agencies.

These results are encouraging, but the survey data also shows that the SES continue to see themselves as working collaboratively with staff from other agencies (more than 80%); ELs rated SES collaboration much lower (53%).

Employees were asked to provide suggestions about their ability to work with external stakeholders. A small number of comments were provided specifically in regard to improving whole of government approaches, and included recommendations for better information sharing between agencies, as well as improved understanding of shared responsibilities and a suggestion that a body responsible for inter-agency collaboration be established to resolve issues of poor cooperation.

Working with other stakeholders

Public servants identify a range of stakeholders with whom they work directly outside government; those levels of interaction vary. Such interaction is necessary to support effective programme and policy development, and the forms of interaction include direct liaison, attendance at meetings, negotiation around policy positions and/or agreement on, or implementation of, contracts. Tables 10.5 and 10.6 show the most frequently consulted groups (excluding government) for all APS 1–6 and EL and SES staff.

Table 10.5: employee interaction with non-government stakeholders (all APS), 2006–07 and 2007–08

Stakeholders	2006–07 (%)	2007–08 (%)
Source: Employee survey
Groups representing communities	22	20
Industry stakeholders	38	37
Outsourced service providers	23	23
Other contractors or consultants	34	35
Members of the public	46	43

Outside of government, for APS employees, members of the public are identified as the group of stakeholders (43%) that they most frequently work directly with, typically by liaising with them or attending meetings to hear their views.

Table 10.6: employee interaction with non-government stakeholders (EL/SES), 2006–07 and 2007–08

Stakeholders	2006–07 (%)	2007–08 (%)
Source: Employee survey
Industry stakeholders	43	51
Tertiary and/or research groups	22	29
Outsourced service providers	23	26
Other contractors or consultants	43	53
Members of the public	34	35

This year, levels of interaction were highest for EL and SES employees, with other contractors or consultants (53%), and much higher than in 2006–07 (43%). Excluding government agencies, the public ranked third for EL and SES employees’ interaction in 2007–08 (35%), similar to the outcome for this group in 2007 (34%). Industry stakeholders comprise the second largest non-government group that APS employees report they most frequently and directly work with, including amongst EL and SES employees. For APS employees overall, there did not appear to be any change in the frequency of working with unions in 2008 (8%), compared with 2007 (7%), although some increase was reported by EL and SES staff (10% compared with 7%).

Figure 10.3 shows the main types of interactions employees reported, with liaison the most common activity followed by attending meetings and negotiating with stakeholders to develop mutually agreed positions or understanding of issues.

Employee views on support for dealing with external stakeholders

In relation to the support provided by their agency for employees in their dealings with external stakeholders, over half (56%) of relevant employees reported that they have access to appropriate training and information to meet their responsibility to stakeholders—up from 51% in 2007. Seventy-three per cent agreed that processes are in place to protect private and commercially sensitive information and to safeguard access to ICT systems—up from 69% in 2007.

However, there was a decline in the proportion (58%) of relevant employees reporting that they are usually able to resolve conflicts and address concerns quickly—down from 65% in 2007. Just over half of all employees (52%) reported that they usually foster teamwork and reward these behaviours in others—this was also another significant reduction on the outcome for 2007 (60%).

There was also a small reduction in the number of employees agreeing they were able to share information with stakeholders to ensure people are kept informed of progress and issues—63% compared to 67% in 2007. Given the increased emphasis being placed on collaboration and the value of seeking views from and working with stakeholders, further consideration of how to ensure that employees are able to provide information to stakeholders may be required.

Employees were also asked about how confident they were, when working with external stakeholders, of being able to balance the APS Values (the Values) of being fair, effective, impartial and courteous in delivering their services to the Australian public, and responsive to Government. Over 70% of employees continued to indicate high levels of confidence in their ability to do so, a result similar to those in previous years.

Suggestions were sought from employees on how they could improve their ability to work with external stakeholders. They also provided feedback on how their agency could improve their capacity to collaborate with other agencies. As in previous years, common themes emerged:

• A need for cultural change to better support collaboration with other APS stakeholders or external stakeholders.

The organisation culture is not conducive to engaging in truly collaborative partnerships with other agencies. Staff are encouraged to withhold information and compete against the interests of other agencies.

Agencies seem to operate in their own independent cells because of funding pressures. This, combined with the very risk averse culture of the public service means that APS employees are reluctant to collaborate with other agencies, maybe for fear of sharing strategic policy directions? This might be improved by encouraging, rather than discouraging, contact between employees at levels other than the executive, as well as more communication between agencies at the executive level.

More confidence that the senior management would back my judgements/advice—so that I could negotiate more effectively i.e. in a true negotiation, sometimes you have to be willing to give a bit. However, needing to get the OK from busy senior people often slows down the process or results in them needing to take over because they won’t give an indication of their view.

• A need for greater provision of staff learning and development to support engagement with external stakeholders, including some comments about the need for more support in contract management.

Our organisation needs to develop a clearer, simpler guide to the steps required in engaging with external stakeholders. At present, there is no singular point of reference to give appropriate information about documentation, submissions required, etc.

Provision of appropriate training (appropriate in quality) in the range of stakeholder engagement skills, contract management, tendering, negotiation, conflict resolution etc.

Further training relating to legal issues and risk management would be good.

Some specific training in external stakeholder management and alliance management would be useful—most agencies really just stumble through and often take a very defensive approach offering little engagement with external partners and where they are required to do so by Government drawing the boundaries of the engagement as narrowly as possible and adopting a passive placating approach to negotiations with industry.

Contract management is particularly poor, there needs to be more rigor around establishing and maintaining contracts and contractor management.

More support around contracts, including legal issues, and privacy issues.

• Resources to support external organisations to better meet their obligations.

Training in and the ability (time and staff resources) to assess and deliver capacity building and business governance assistance to organisations and/or assess needs of organisations and work with them more comprehensively to achieve their outcomes.

Technology enablement

As indicated above, harnessing technology and using it where appropriate to underpin relations with external stakeholders will be a key issue for the APS in the future. To date, AGIMO has introduced a range of specific initiatives to provide support for and guidance to agencies on whole of government ICT issues. Responsive Government: A New Service Agenda³⁹ provides strategic advice to agencies on collaboration, and the Secretaries’ Committee on Information and Communications Technology (SCICT), established in June 2006, operates to help drive whole of government approaches to the use of ICT. Members include the Secretaries of central and service delivery departments and agencies.

SCICT is supported by a Deputy Secretaries Group, the Business Process Transformation Committee (BPTC). A blueprint has been drafted by Finance, on behalf of BPTC, to facilitate cross-agency coordination in service delivery. The blueprint outlines the primary business processes, services and technologies required for agency systems to communicate and interoperate. The Australian Government Email Address Naming Standards were also released by Finance, on behalf of BPTC, in February 2008, providing a common approach to email addresses. Some other initiatives progressed by AGIMO are discussed in Chapter 11.

There would appear to be considerably further scope for harnessing technology improvements and building on cross-service approaches to underpin better external stakeholder relations, including consideration of whether a more coordinated approach across agencies is required.

Sir Peter Gershon’s Review of the Australian Government’s Use of Information and Communication Technology will be important in this regard. The report, released in October 2008, made clear the need for better coordination across the APS on ICT and recommended changes to the existing ICT governance arrangements.⁴⁰ The Government is currently preparing its response to the Gershon Review.

Key chapter findings

Consultation, collaboration and joined up approaches, including whole of government arrangements, are being used in a variety of areas across the APS and are likely to be used even more. The cooperative government model, using COAG and involving State, Territory and local government partners, as well as other key groups to implement strategic reforms, is increasing the imperative to make sure that there is an appropriate APS framework for working well with external stakeholders. At the same time, the APS framework for supporting cooperative and collaborative approaches is also evolving. The key issues for the future that need to be considered are whether the framework and existing approaches to working with external stakeholders are evolving rapidly enough to meet this increased imperative for working well with external stakeholders. More effort would appear to be required in a number of areas.

The decline in employee perceptions about being able to resolve conflicts or to foster teamwork and collaboration, as well as to share information with external stakeholders are matters for concern. These issues suggest that an increased focus by agency leaders on promoting and supporting sound relationships with external stakeholders is required. A stronger leadership cadre that supports cooperation and collaboration—with all stakeholders—is essential.

The framework and skills required for building effective relationships of all types are likely to be similar, even where the APS is engaging with different sets of stakeholders. The APS must create a cross-service culture that identifies collectively, is interconnected and at the same time, outward-looking. It is disappointing that this year’s employee survey showed a significant decline (40% in 2007–08, compared to 55% in 2006–07) in the proportion of SES staff who identified more with the APS than with their own line agency. Leadership across the APS has an important role to play, and one of the key pillars of an effective leadership strategy is to build a cohesive senior leadership cadre that supports working with a range of stakeholders, including government partners, and citizens and communities. Portfolio Secretaries and MAC will also play an important part in providing guidance and reinforcing a culture that rewards cooperative and outward-looking approaches. The role of performance management schemes in encouraging these leadership styles also needs to be considered.

For APS employees, new capabilities will be called for, including being able to think holistically about the full range of stakeholders, as well as the type of relationships required to develop cooperative and effective responses. Skills to develop and build those relationships will also be needed. To tackle cross-border issues, forging stronger links with external stakeholders in other countries may also be important. Encouragement to work flexibly with external stakeholders, along with support for trialling new approaches that rely on active stakeholder participation, is essential. Employee perceptions are already quite positive about agency support for working with other government agencies, and this needs to be broadened to include relations with other groups of stakeholders outside government. Internal governance arrangements in agencies will need to be aligned as well.

To support the development of these skills, agencies need to invest strategically in learning and development across the APS—including for their leader cohorts. The Commission offers a broad suite of programmes designed to enhance leadership development and develop skills and capability more broadly across the APS. It has focused on including strategic thinking and innovation components in its programmes and has also included a new cross borders programme for senior leaders. Other new initiatives have been introduced to support collaboration and working with external stakeholders. Chapter 5 provides further information on the Commission’s learning and development programmes and services.

There is already a wealth of experience across the APS in working with external stakeholders. Different agencies have experience with using different types of collaborative arrangements, and there is a need to ensure that other agencies can benefit from these experiences. Sharing knowledge and ideas on how to determine the appropriate relationship with external stakeholders is vital. Case study information on approaches that have been used, for example, profiles of place-based approaches, issues-based approaches, as well as experience of working with third party providers for delivery of services, would be beneficial.

Further consideration of whether there should be central agency support for trialling new partnering and collaborative approaches may be desirable. The current issue being experienced with the SCI—where there is no obvious ‘home’ for initiatives that cross agency boundaries—highlights the need to reflect on whether there is adequate support for the development and promulgation of best practice partnering and collaboration approaches. The need for further clarity around the Budget framework and how it can support cross-agency initiatives or more devolved arrangements is likely to intensify, especially as the reform of federal-state and territory financial relations is progressed. Finally, arrangements for more coordination in the area of ICT to provide the APS with a better basis for working with external stakeholders should also be considered.

 

1 Australian Public Service Commission 2007, Tackling Wicked Problems: A Public Policy Perspective, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p. 1, <http://www.apsc.gov.au>

2 Hon. Kevin Rudd MP, ‘Quality Education: The Case for an Education Revolution in Our Schools’, Address to the National Press Club, Canberra, 27 August 2008, p. 4, <http://www.pm.gov.au>

3 Management Advisory Committee 2004, Connecting Government: Whole of Government Responses to Australia’s Priority Challenges, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p. 89, <http://www.apsc.gov.au/mac>

4 State Services Authority and Demos 2008, Towards Agile Government, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne, pp. 1, 21, <http://www.ssa.vic.gov.au>

5 State Services Authority 2007, Victorian Approaches to Joined Up Government: An Overview, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne, <http://www.ssa.vic.gov.au>

6 COAG Meeting, Melbourne, Communiqué, 20 December 2007, <http://www.coag.gov.au>

7 The Australia 2020 Summit website is <http://www.australia2020.gov.au>

8 Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 2008, Australia 2020 Summit Final Report, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.australia2020.gov.au>

9 <http://www.pmc.gov.au/community_cabinet/meeting.cfm>

10 Review of the National Innovation System, Venturousaustralia: Building Strength in Innovation (Chair: Dr T. Cutler) (September 2008), <http://www.innovation.gov.au>

11 Review of Australia’s Automotive Industry, Final Report (Leader: Mr S. Bracks) (July 2008), <http://www.innovation.gov.au/automotivereview>

12 Department of Climate Change, Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Green Paper (July 2008), <http://www.climatechange.gov.au/greenpaper/report/index.html>

13 DEEWR 2008, A National Compact, <http://www.socialinclusion.gov.au/A_National_Compact.htm>

14 APSC Circular No. 2008/4: Requirements Relating to the Lobbying Code of Conduct and Post-Separation Contact With Government, <http://www.apsc.gov.au/circulars>

15 NZ State Services Commission, State of the Development Goals Report 2007— ‘Transforming the State Services’, <http://www.ssc.govt.nz>

16 NZ State Services Commission, Annual Report: 2007–08, <http://www.ssc.govt.nz>

17 UK Cabinet Office, Annual Report and Accounts: 2007–08, ‘Comprehensive Spending Review, 2007 (CSR)’ pp. 69–71, <http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk>

18 OECD 2008, Ireland: Towards an Integrated Public Service, pp. 12, 14, <http://www.oecd.org>

19 Prime Minister’s Office, Finland, 2008, Government Strategy Document 2007, <http://www.government.fi/ministeriot/vnk/en.jsp>

20 State Services Authority and Demos 2008, Towards Agile Government, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne, p. 23, <http://www.ssa.vic.gov.au>

21 UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Public Administration and Development Management 2008, UN E-Government Survey 2008: From E-Government to Connected Governance, <http://www.unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN/UNPAN028607.pdf>

22 ANAO 2007, Whole of Government Indigenous Service Delivery Arrangements, Performance Audit Report No. 10, 2007–08, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.anao.gov.au>

23 Department of Finance and Deregulation 2008, Explanatory Memorandum to the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill 2008, <http://www.comlaw.gov.au>

24 Department of Finance and Deregulation, Explanatory Memorandum to the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2008–2009, <http://www.comlaw.gov.au>

25 Hon. Kevin Rudd MP, ‘Address to Heads of Agencies and Members of the Senior Executive Service’, Great Hall, Parliament House, Canberra, 30 April 2008, p. 7, < http://www.pm.gov.au>

26 COAG Reform Council, CRC Report to COAG, March 2008, <http://www.coag.gov.au>. CRC was established in March 2007.

27 Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts 2008, Water for the Future, <http://www.environment.gov.au/water>, <http://www.coag.gov.au>

28 Department of Climate Change 2008, Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Green Paper (July 2008), <http://www.climatechange.gov.au/greenpaper/report/index.html>

29 R. Garnaut, The Garnaut Climate Change Review: Final Report, Cambridge University Press, Port Melbourne, Vic., 2008, <http://www.garnautreview.org.au>.

30 Northern Territory Emergency Response Taskforce, Final Report to Government (June 2008), p. 16, <http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/nter>

31 Budget Statement, 2008–09, Closing the Gap between Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Australians, 13 May 2008, p. 32, <http://www.budget.gov.au/2008-09/content/ministerial_statements/html/index.htm>

32 Hon. Jenny Macklin MP, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Media Release, 6 June 2008, <http://www.jennymacklin.fahcsia.gov.au>

33 Hon. Jenny Macklin MP, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Media Release, 23 October 2008, <http://www.jennymacklin.fahcsia.gov.au>

34 <http://www.csiro.au/science/SCI.html>

35 <http://www.csiro.au/news/newsletters/Energy/0408_energy/HTML/Maines.htm>

36 AGIMO 2008, Consulting with Government—Online, <http://www.finance.gov.au>

37 Review of the National Innovation System, Venturousaustralia: Building Strength in Innovation (Chair: Dr T. Cutler), (September 2008), Recommendation 10.2, pp. 129–130, 175, <http://www.innovation.gov.au>

38 For the purpose of the State of the Service surveys, the term ‘working with external stakeholders’ was broadly defined as working with other government agencies and jurisdictions, community groups and not-for-profit organisations, industry groups and businesses, tertiary institutions and various research groups, unions, outsourced service providers, other contractors or consultants and individuals within the wider Australian community.

39 AGIMO 2006, Responsive Government: A New Service Agenda, <http://www.finance.gov.au>

40 Sir Peter Gershon, Review of the Australian Government’s Use of Information and Communication Technology (October 2008), <http://www.finance.gov.au>

41 Sir Peter Gershon, Review of the Australian Government’s Use of Information and Communication Technology (October 2008), <http://www.finance.gov.au>

Previous Next: Inclusive and innovative government

About the State of the Service Previous State of the Service reports are available from our State of the Service page

Navigation Letter of transmittal Preface Overview Who we are Enhancing productive capacity

Reinvigorating the traditions of Westminster government Working with stakeholders and moving to more inclusive government Appendices

Resources Glossary Downloads Figures and tables