Home page
> Management Advisory Committee > Connecting Government > Structures and processes > Next: Culture and capability
> Connected Government website
‹ Previous page

Last updated: 20 April 2004

Connecting Government: Whole of government responses to Australia's priority challenges

2 Structures and processes

Chapter findings

The Cabinet, under the Prime Minister's leadership, is the principal coordination forum of the executive arm of the Australian Government, but most day-to-day decisions are made by ministers and the agencies that comprise their portfolios. This is efficient. It allows specialisation and reduces the load placed on the Prime Minister and the Cabinet process so that they can focus on the key strategic issues. It does, however, mean special thought has to be given to the handling of problems that cross portfolio boundaries.

The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C), through the Cabinet Implementation Unit (CIU), should be the central point in government for spreading advice on best practice in whole of government work and for reporting on successes and failures. It will provide support to whole of government work through a web presence devoted to practical guidance to departments.

Portfolio secretaries take responsibility for monitoring whole of government work across the APS. Their regular meetings should be enhanced by receiving regular feedback from the CIU on progress on multi-agency initiatives, and by canvassing whole of government issues or initiatives. This provides an opportunity for ensuring that all the appropriate parties are engaged.

This report also recommends that major whole of government issues continue to be discussed at annual high-level retreats for secretaries and agency heads. These provide an opportunity to discuss in-depth one or more of the most complex issues facing Australia and how the APS is responding to support the government in addressing the issues.

Experience has shown that secretaries are often able to resolve the way forward on difficult whole of government issues more quickly and effectively than lower-level committees. By modelling good practices in interdepartmental collaboration, secretaries can provide a development opportunity for APS employees. Within the limits of practicality and security, opportunities for APS employees to observe secretary-level committees in action should be provided.

There is a need for careful choice of the appropriate structures to support whole of government work-for example, well run interdepartmental committees (IDCs) are very effective in coordination, including crisis management, and in producing policy options.

Their representative nature and consensus approach to decision making can make them less useful for dealing with difficult policy issues where there is deep contention between portfolios, or in the community, and tight time limits. Dedicated taskforces under strong leadership and working directly to the Prime Minister, a senior minister or a committee of Cabinet have proved to be more likely to produce high-quality outcomes in these circumstances.

A number of options are available to deliver integrated programs or services to a region or individuals, or in support of a range of government objectives. These include joint teams, agency arrangements and the 'one-stop shop' now provided by Centrelink across a range of income support and related services. Increasingly, information technology will facilitate the provision of 'virtual' one-stop shop services to business and individuals. Choosing the appropriate model will reflect the timeframe over which the services are to be delivered, the policy roles of the principal partners, the scale of the task and whether it can be delivered at a marginal cost by an existing agency. The right governance and accountability arrangements are critical to good outcomes.

The amendments to the Public Service Act in 1999, and earlier to the Financial Management and Accountability Act, have allowed the creation of new agencies, working to ministers, to carry out functions not suitable for a single department. Some of the new 'frontier' agencies, such as the Australian Greenhouse Office, the National Oceans Office and the Australian Government Information Management Office, have an important whole of government role. They are operating in fields that are in important ways new and potentially controversial. Once more, governance, accountability and stakeholder management arrangements are very important.

Good practice in terms of structures and processes should be highlighted in the State of the Service report, and maintained as part of the proposed whole of government web presence.

However, whole of government work is not just about structures. It is as much about the way things are done. Successful outcomes depend on power sharing, thinking outside the box and solving practical problems of information management and infrastructure, staffing, budget and accountability, and stakeholder relationships. These issues are addressed in the following chapters.

The core of whole of government work includes the Cabinet system and meetings of key leaders such as regular portfolio secretaries' meetings.
Existing structures can be used better to support and monitor APS whole of government work and this chapter recommends some new roles for these structures.
There are other horizontal structures which can be used as platforms for whole of government work.
This chapter discusses the features, and advantages and disadvantages of the following horizontal structures: interdepartmental committees, taskforces, joint teams, agency arrangements and frontier agencies.
Each type of structure is defined and discussed in terms of its suitability for different types of APS work.

Introduction

Many Australian government priorities cannot be met by one agency alone

Achieving many of the outcomes that are key priorities for the Australian Government requires coordination of policy advice, program development and/or service delivery over a number of portfolios. Typical issues that no one portfolio could effectively address include:

security, counter-terrorism and managing borders
growing a vibrant and competitive economy in a sustainable natural environment
nurturing an equitable and self-reliant society
supporting Indigenous communities in tackling problems of health, employment, loss of social coherence, violence and substance abuse
tackling problems of drug dependence across the community
supporting rural and remote communities to maintain social, economic and environmental sustainability
providing income, health, family, education and other support in a way that is clear, convenient and simple for individuals to access.

Cabinet is a key coordinator

Executive authority can be called 'vertical' management. It is efficient...

Portfolios consist of a core department and, frequently, one or more agencies responsible to a minister(s). The minister is directly aware of the key priorities of Cabinet. Coordination within the core department and within each agency is facilitated by clear lines of control and accountability. In general, employees are accountable to the agency head, who is then accountable to the minister (either directly, as in the case of a secretary of a department, or indirectly, through a board as is sometimes the case for statutory authorities). Subject to any statutory limitations, the minister and, under the minister, each agency head therefore has the power to require that policies and programs within each agency are coordinated. Again, with assistance from the portfolio secretary and subject to any statutory constraints, the minister is in a position to ensure coordination between agencies in the portfolio so that Cabinet priorities are delivered. Of course, with large and complex portfolios this task can be formidable, but the point remains that the scope of executive authority (vertical management) will usually be sufficient to enable the coordinated management of most issues for which the portfolio has sole responsibility.

Larger portfolios make coordination easier

That is why the decision in 1987 to reduce significantly the number of Australian government portfolios and to have each represented in Cabinet was important for the coherence of policy and the delivery of services. It reduced the need for 'cross-boundary' coordination, reduced the load on Cabinet and at the same time ensured that each portfolio was led by a minister directly aware of Cabinet views and priorities. There are, however, practical limits to the size and scope of individual portfolios. Changing portfolio responsibilities in an attempt to 'internalise' an issue can simply shift the point at which coordination has to take place.

It is when issues span one or more portfolios that coordination (horizontal management) can become particularly difficult. In principle, the Cabinet and the Prime Minister, or ministers acting bilaterally coordinate across portfolio boundaries. The clear articulation of guiding government philosophies and priorities by the Prime Minister and senior ministers is in itself a powerful mechanism to encourage coherence in policy advice and service delivery across the government administration. There is much, however, that better structures and processes can do in support.

Ministers drive policy

Ministers drive policy, and Cabinet and its processes are at the centre of horizontal management. Cabinet processes are outside the scope of this report, but some considerations that have been pursued by governments include:

retaining a clear strategic focus to Cabinet's work
accordingly settling lesser-order policy issues between ministers (including the Treasurer and Minister for Finance where there are revenue or expenditure implications) in a way that is transparent and only requires Cabinet discussion where there is disagreement
paying meticulous attention to maintaining an effective budget process that is attuned to the government's key priorities
consulting departments (and, if appropriate, stakeholders) in the development of papers for Cabinet's consideration-this will ensure, as far as possible, accuracy of analysis and facts, the comprehensiveness of options and realistic assessments of implementation requirements and timelines
as a corollary, avoiding wherever possible disputes about the facts or options that have not been subject to analysis occurring in the Cabinet room so that the focus can fall properly on the key policy choices
ensuring that Cabinet's decisions-and particularly its key priorities-are carried through expeditiously and effectively.

The establishment by the Howard government of the Cabinet Policy Unit (CPU) reporting to the Prime Minister is a sign of the growing importance of whole of government coordination. It helps to ensure that these issues are considered in relation to matters that are to come before Cabinet.

The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has a key role in implementing and supporting whole of government work...

In turn, the CPU will be supplemented by the creation of the Cabinet Implementation Unit (CIU) in PM&C. This aims to improve the implementation of government decisions, particularly multi-agency initiatives, by bringing the consideration of implementation issues up-front into the policy development phase. This will also encourage a culture of project and program management in the APS. Tracking and reviewing implementation of government initiatives will enable the APS to gather better practice experience to add value to the planning of new proposals. One of the proposals of this report is that the PM&C should use that experience as a basis for spreading advice on best practice in whole of government work through a web presence.

...but all departments have a part to play

Not all whole of government activity, however, can or should be driven from the PM&C. All departments share the obligation to adopt a whole of government approach when this is necessary to achieve the outcomes the government is seeking.

Attitudes, skills, information management and stakeholder engagement are critical. Sometimes special horizontal structural arrangements or processes are necessary or helpful in managing these horizontal issues.

Coordination starts at the top...

Interdepartmental coordination starts at the very top of the APS

...portfolio secretaries' meetings

Regular brief meetings of portfolio secretaries, chaired by the Secretary of PM&C and attended by the public service commissioner, facilitate exchange of information, the provision of advice on government priorities and the consideration of important service-wide issues. The meetings model the importance of open, collaborative approaches between portfolios and relevant agencies and reinforce a collegiate culture. This report proposes that the already important role played by these meetings should be enhanced by receiving regular feedback from the CIU on progress on multi-agency initiatives.

It also asks secretaries to adopt a discipline of informing the meeting when important or major whole of government issues or initiatives are under consideration. This will provide both an opportunity for ensuring that all the appropriate parties are engaged and that careful thought is given to whether there are staff development opportunities through participation in the exercise. The importance of seeking these opportunities for developing a more collaborative culture, and a senior cadre of employees with experience in working across departmental boundaries is a finding in the next chapter.

...annual secretaries' and agency heads' retreats

An annual retreat, at which portfolio secretaries and agency heads consider major issues facing Australia and the APS and meet with the Prime Minister, is also very important in providing a framework for whole of government priorities. Every portfolio secretary is now equipped and expected to be a champion for a whole of government approach. These retreats usually discuss in depth one or more of the intractable issues facing Australia and how the APS is responding to support the government in addressing the issue.

...secretaries' committees

There are also some important committees of secretaries on particular priority areas for whole of government action, including secretaries' committees on national security, greenhouse policy, biotechnology, oceans policy, youth affairs and Indigenous issues. These committees often support a Cabinet committee or ministerial board and can be used as a high-level forum for clearing Cabinet submissions or making decisions on matters that do not need to go to ministers.

Experience has shown that secretaries are often able to resolve the way forward on difficult whole of government issues more quickly and effectively than lower-level committees. Again, by modelling good practices in interdepartmental collaboration, secretaries can provide a development opportunity for APS employees. Within the limits of practicality and security, opportunities for employees to observe secretary-level committees in action should be sought.

...central agencies

As part of the ongoing central coordination process, the senior employees of central agencies-PM&C, the Treasury and the Department of Finance and Administration-play a critical role in promoting effective whole of government outcomes. Frequently, however, there is a need to establish (with the appropriate ministerial endorsement) special purpose mechanisms to advance whole of government outcomes.

Structures: new and old

Traditionally most whole of government work has been carried out through interdepartmental committees. In recent years, these have been complemented by more frequent use of dedicated taskforces, formal partnerships to deliver programs, delivery of services by one agency on behalf of one or more other departments (under service-level or purchaser-provider agreements), and special-purpose agencies created outside the normal departmental structures to develop and/or deliver whole of government products.

The choice of structure depends on the task

Which of these structures is used will depend very much on the nature of the task, its urgency, priority, level of contention and difficulty, as well as the resources available. These are matters established at a senior level-frequently for important issues by the Prime Minister, ministers or Cabinet. Departments can draw on the examples set out below in deciding what mechanism to recommend, as well as the best practice to follow, once a decision is made. These decision tools should be maintained, updated periodically and made available as part of the whole of government web presence which is proposed in this report.

International negotiations require a whole of government approach

International negotiations are a particular case where whole of government action is essential. Once entered into, international commitments are difficult to change. Effective coordination is required overseas where Australia must speak with one voice and delegations often include employees from a number of different agencies. A whole of government approach is essential in preparing for such negotiations, particularly given the rapid growth of international agreements on subjects that have complex implications for a range of domestic policies and the increasing linkages between issues that are not always easy to see. Efforts by some countries to use international environmental negotiations to advance their trade agendas is one example. Australia's approach in a particular negotiation can impact on its relationships with other countries and on other negotiations. Effective interagency coordination in preparing for negotiations has been a key element in Australia's ability to achieve positive international outcomes.

International obligations require effective coordination and consultation at all levels

Decision making on international matters rests with the Australian government. In practice, the views of parliament are sought before any formal treaty action is taken. In addition, domestic implementation of international obligations often falls to the states and territories on matters where they have primary competence, or for practical reasons. This therefore requires effective coordination and consultation at all levels. It is also important for other domestic stakeholders to be engaged on a whole of government basis.

Building a strong culture of consultation on international activities is important

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has overall carriage of Australia's external relations, but other agencies have primary responsibility for international negotiations on a number of specific issues. Processes designed to achieve whole of government outcomes on domestic policy issues-including cabinet committees, secretaries' committees and traditional IDCs-are generally used to coordinate this work. Such processes need to be designed to deal effectively with negotiations, especially in multilateral forums where Australia does not control the process and timelines, and where there is often the need to respond rapidly to developments. Building a stronger culture of consultation on international activities is important, given the increasing linkages between international issues and domestic policy matters. Agencies with primary carriage for a particular negotiation need to be aware of the potential sensitivities that might arise outside their portfolio's responsibilities.

Interdepartmental committees

Interdepartmental committees are the most traditional form of crossdepartmental coordination

Interdepartmental committees are the most traditional form of cross-departmental coordination. The defining characteristics of an IDC are:

employees meet formally as representatives of their departments
they are expected to speak with their department's authority and accordingly seek appropriate clearance for the positions they advance
the scope of business and membership of the committee is defined and its establishment authorised at an appropriate level
decision making is by consensus
records of outcomes are kept.

IDCs may be standing committees to coordinate the execution of established policies, to provide a forum for formal consultations, to facilitate clearance of Cabinet submissions or to coordinate delivery of programs or services. Alternatively, they may be ad hoc committees to tackle a particular issue or manage a particular event.

As the term 'IDC' is now regarded as being particularly unexciting and bureaucratic, a number of these committees have come to be called taskforces or working groups.

For the purpose of this report the term 'taskforce' is restricted to a different, less representative form of cross-departmental structure.

The strengths and weaknesses of IDCs flow from their representative character and their consensual approach to decision making.

IDCs can be efficient and responsive to government...

IDCs are a good way of coordinating action, assigning responsibilities for shared tasks, documenting agreement and ensuring no surprises in delivery or subsequent decision making. When well led and supported, and the participants adopt the behaviours that are critical to good whole of government cooperation, they can play a positive role in developing and reinforcing the whole of government ethic, as well as informal networks. The consensual approach adopted by IDCs encourages negotiation and allows the expression of dissenting views. This can be particularly important in exposing uncomfortable issues and choices.

Most IDCs work very well and they continue to be the structure used for most formal interdepartmental coordination.

...but less useful for agreement on contentious issues where stakeholders disagree

Long experience has, however, shown that IDCs can be less useful in joint problem solving in areas of policy contention where there is not an accepted factual and analytic base and where departments are responsive to the views of external stakeholders with conflicting objectives. IDCs typically have little capacity to do original analysis or research in their own right. They rely on the line agencies to do the work and bring it to the table. Whether the resources are made available by the line agencies in a timely and open way can itself become a matter of contention.

As a result, their representative nature and consensus-based decision making can lead to IDCs primarily defining areas of difference and/or proceeding on the basis of negotiated lowest common denominator outcomes. At times this can help clarify facts, analyses, issues, stakeholder responses and options for senior employees and ministers in a way that assists decision making.

Difficulties that can arise in the IDC process have been long observed.¹

Sometimes the result can be complex and unclear. This is particularly so if senior employees or ministers are not prepared to authorise compromise by their representatives. The existence of a secretaries' or ministerial committee can chill decision making at the IDC level as positions are protected and the hard issues are consciously reserved for the senior committee.

IDCs can become a bureaucratic habit

Another risk is that IDCs-particularly standing committees-can become a bureaucratic habit continuing long after they have ceased to add value. In many areas more informal networks or communities of interest-often email or net-based-have replaced IDCs as a coordinating and information exchange mechanism at much lower cost.

The minimum expectation of an IDC is to clarify options and establish facts

Accompanying this report are Good Practice Guides providing advice to employees about expectations of their behaviour in preparing for and participating in IDCs. The minimum expectation from an IDC, even on a matter that is contentious, is that they clarify options and establish agreed facts clearly and succinctly so that subsequent decision making is facilitated.

Table 2.1 summarises the types of activities for which IDCs may be useful and provides a best practice checklist.

Table 2.1: Getting the best from an interdepartmental committee

Use an interdepartmental committee.
...for:	...where:
policy development	there is an accepted factual and analytic base (or commitment to develop it) members are authorised to compromise definition of areas of disagreement and options is acceptable and there are subsequent decision-making steps
program design and review	there are shared goals and a culture of joint work there is ability to resource design effort there are distinct roles
program management and service delivery	coordination is required in a formal setting decision making by consensus is acceptable or decision responsibility rests with member agencies
cross-jurisdiction and cross-sector	processes are mainly consultation and discussion, not decision making
crisis management	there are lead agencies decision-making responsibilities and urgency are clear and accepted by all parties

IDC: best practice checklist

Ensure clear purpose, membership and reporting lines.
Review points and/or end date.
Ensure quality meetings-chairing, briefing and skills of members, secretariat and follow-up.
Find an alternative if progress is not being made.

Taskforces

Taskforces have made major contributions on time-limited specific issues

A form of organising whole of government work that has become very important over recent years is the time-limited, specific-issue taskforce. These were used widely in the Whitlam government in the mid-1970s because of concerns about the slowness and consensual nature of IDC processes.² Since the mid-1980s, taskforces have addressed a range of important issues such as public service reform, microeconomic reform, income security and pensions, and so on. In the 1990s taskforces have made major contributions to government statements on investment and employment and to the development of policy and negotiation of outcomes on native title, forest policy, salinity, land clearing, national water policy, welfare reform and energy policy. These issues were all characterised by a high political priority, complexity, an impact on the responsibilities of a number of portfolios, and frequently by contention within the community and sometimes between portfolios.

Taskforces focus on joint problem solving for a shared outcome

Members of a taskforce:

have time limits and objectives to provide a clear outcome
are not usually engaged in a representative role but rather to bring their skills and experiences to joint problem solving
are sometimes expected to keep their home agency informed and engaged in support of the taskforce's work
can be drawn from outside the public service, as well as from the departments directly concerned, and reflect an appropriate range of disciplines and experience
are frequently engaged full-time with the whole of government task and work to the taskforce leader

Members work to the head of the taskforce...

frequently undergo a conscious separation from line accountabilities in the host department
often work to a Cabinet committee or committee of ministers
often engage with a consultative IDC drawn from the affected departments and conduct consultations with community organisations.

Unlike an IDC, taskforce decisions are not necessarily by consensus. Usually the head of the taskforce accepts responsibility for its decisions/recommendations. This can enable issues to be forced to decision and lead to greater clarity with less compromise.

Most of the major policy development/negotiation taskforces have been hosted by the PM&C, although they have frequently been led by senior employees seconded from other departments for the duration of the taskforce.

Members put their agency's interests behind them

By their nature, taskforces bring the capacity to do fresh and original work, and have proved to be very effective at solving difficult problems and developing complex integrated packages. They enable highly skilled public servants to put their departmental interests behind them and join with expert and creative outsiders to focus on developing outcomes backed by comprehensive analysis. They provide the opportunity to work iteratively with ministers (and secretaries) to craft outcomes that are not only intellectually rigorous but politically robust. In this sense they are more likely to produce practical and enduring recommendations than independent inquiries, which are often an alternative in tackling these difficult issues.

Taskforces can be expensive and may fail to canvass all options

Their disadvantage is that they are expensive compared with IDCs, and can run the risk of failing to canvass the full range of options, facts or stakeholder interests. Ministers will only devote the time and resources needed if the matter is a key priority for the government. In most cases the Prime Minister's backing, if not his direct participation, has been critical to success.

Taskforces can also be used in program development and service delivery. For example, there is a taskforce to support the COAG Indigenous Trials. In service delivery, cross-agency taskforces can be useful to deal with backlogs in service provision, targeted interventions to secure the turnaround of an area or community suffering multiple disadvantages, and the follow-up to crises (e.g. natural disasters). Again, the same requirements apply-it is critical for the venture to have the full backing of the key decision makers, a sound governance structure and the right skills.

Taskforces offer APS employees valuable development opportunities...

Participation in taskforces can be of great developmental value because they encourage effective problem-solving skills, expose participants to other departmental cultures and stakeholders, and sometimes provide the opportunity to interact with the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Employees to participate in taskforces should be chosen carefully with these developmental opportunities in mind.

...but can distance people from their home agencies

At the same time, participation in taskforces can distance members from their home agencies. Employees become loyal to the taskforce and committed to the new work. This is a particular problem when taskforces are extended. Employees may miss out on opportunities for promotions or have difficulty assimilating back into their department.

Table 2.2 summarises the type of activities for which taskforces are particularly useful.

Table 2.2: Getting the best from a taskforce

Use a taskforce...
...for:	...where:
policy development	there is high government priority there is a complex problem creative solutions are required there is contention across key stakeholders or within government there are tight timelines
program design and review	there are 'turnkey' projects for tightly integrated multi-department programs there is a strategic review of program effectiveness and delivery
program management and	time engagement in the program is short and coordination service delivery needs are high priority problem areas or communities are to be tackled clients face multiple problems
cross-jurisdiction and cross-sector	there is a high level of trust and willingness to move from negotiation to joint problem solving there are complex issues a high level of cooperation is required governance arrangements are clear
crisis management	multidisciplinary skills and resources are required decision and executive power can be defined there are clear links with line agencies clients face multiple problems

Taskforces should have strong support from the key decision makers, a clear charter and timeframe, good protocols for interaction and strong team skills among members. They should be focused on outcomes. A best practice checklist for taskforces is below.

Taskforce: best practice checklist

Clear charter and term.
Appropriate decision reference points, e.g. Prime Minister, Cabinet committee, senior staff committee and process for reporting.
Clear protocols for relationship between taskforce members and home organisations.
Clear protocols for consultation between taskforce leadership, affected agencies and external stakeholders.
Appropriate skills mix and resources.
Focus on an outcome not just a product.
Loyalty to the taskforce.
Members with good interpersonal and consensus-building skills.
Co-location of members where the task is full-time and complex.
Attention to team building, roles of members and leadership.

Interdepartmental partnerships-joint teams

Agencies involved in joint teams share influence and accountability

Joint teams are a new and relatively uncommon form of interdepartmental cooperation, usually in program delivery. They differ from taskforces because they are blended, not stand-alone, structures-that is, they are not a separate unit reporting to and through one head who has the final say on policy positions to be recommended to ministers. Joint teams have employees from two or more departments working together in a common management structure, while continuing to be subject to the management control of the relevant secretary. The key characteristics of joint teams are:

employees from two or more departments work together to deliver shared outcomes in a blended functional organisation with an expected life of several years
no agency has the lead role, and joint decision making occurs between the team managers, the executives of the departments and the ministers, as appropriate
there are appropriate governance arrangements to allow this to happen efficiently
formal financial accountability rests with each department for funds appropriated to it, and each department remains accountable under the Public Service Act for its employees who continue to work under the personnel provisions of their home department
cross-delegations under the Public Service Act and the Financial Management Act enable joint team managers to administer blended groups
to external clients, employees are identified as members of the joint team rather than in terms of their home agencies.

Trust at the highest level is essential

For these arrangements to be successful there needs to be a high level of trust between the executives of the partner departments, as well as their ministers, and among the members of the joint team. Clearly the mission of the team has to be important to all the partners, and more readily achieved jointly than separately. Departmental cultures have to be broadly compatible, and team members have to be prepared to commit to understanding and appreciating the differences where they exist. Success breeds success and good experiences in a joint team can encourage better relations and joint work in other areas.

Joint teams are comprised of employees from two agencies but co-located

The Natural Resource Management (NRM) case study provides a current example of a joint team approach (see appendix 2). The NRM Team is a joint initiative of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Department of the Environment and Heritage to deliver the $2.7 billion Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) and $1.4 billion National Action Plan on Salinity and Water Quality (NAP). The team comprises employees from the two agencies, co-located to deliver these two large national programs that focus on addressing water quality, salinity, biodiversity loss and soil degradation and on developing more sustainable agricultural practices by investing to support catchment/regional plans made at the local level with federal and state support. The driver for the joint approach was recognition that progress on addressing environmental and sustainable agriculture issues would only happen if they received synchronised attention as part of a coherent plan with strong community commitment. The government had to model this integrated approach if it was to deal credibly with regional or state bodies.

Funding is appropriated to one agency but decisions about allocations are made jointly

Funding for the NHT is appropriated to the Department of Environment and Heritage, and for the NAP to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. However, the two relevant ministers make decisions about funding allocations and priorities jointly through a ministerial board which is attended by the secretaries of the departments. Both departments contribute equally to financial planning and decision making. These arrangements are discussed further in Chapter 5. The executives of the two departments meet jointly on a regular basis.

Joint governance mechanisms are needed

For the NRM Team to work effectively, significant effort was necessary to better align financial, administrative and other accountability systems, reporting and IT. Joint governance mechanisms, operating protocols and decision-making structures were also necessary as the team does not operate within a simple vertical structure. A single NRM business plan was developed and a risk management strategy was also developed to articulate relationships and protocols.

Table 2.3 summarises the type of activities for which joint teams are particularly useful.

Table 2.3: Getting the best from a joint team

Use a joint team ...
...for:	...where:
policy development	there is need for ongoing work it is of equal importance to partners there can be a high level of trust there are clear benefits in terms of cost or quality from joint work there is no disadvantage in loss of separate policy voices
program design and review	as above
program management and	time engagement in programs is medium to long term service delivery and integration needs are high defined areas or community issues are to be addressed clients face multiple problems that need integrated solutions
cross-jurisdiction and cross-sector	there is a high level of trust and willingness to move to joint program delivery there is no disadvantage from loss of separate Australian government branding a high level of cooperation is essential
crisis management	See Taskforce or IDC for preferable alternatives

Joint teams will only work where there is a high level of interdepartmental trust and powerful commitment from secretaries. They require careful attention to governance and accountability arrangements and benefit greatly from co-location.

Best practice for joint teams involves aligning systems, understanding cultural differences and being able to work as equals, as well as representing home agency views when necessary. Some best practice tips for joint teams are set out below.

Joint teams: best practice checklist

Ensure high level of interdepartmental trust.
Ensure clear governance arrangements for decision making and dispute resolution.
Provide nurturing from executives of home departments.
Maintain clear financial accountabilities.
Select staff carefully for ability to work in a joint problem-solving setting.
Emphasise team building.
Co-locate.
Align knowledge, communications/IT, financial and personnel systems as far as possible.
Have a single business plan with top-level sign-off from partners.
Have a single risk management plan.

Cross-departmental partnerships: agency arrangements

Agency arrangements involve one agency delivering services on behalf of another or others

Another form of organisational flexibility is for an existing Australian government department or agency to deliver services on behalf of one or more others.³ This will typically occur because of an ability to provide a better, less costly or more convenient service.

Examples of agency arrangements

The Australian Customs Service is a good example of one agency delivering services on behalf of others. In fulfilling its border control role it now provides services on behalf of a range of other Australian government portfolios including: Attorney-General's; Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; Environment and Heritage; Health and Ageing; and Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.

A single Australian Customs Service Coastwatch flight over the Barrier Reef and Torres Strait can provide vital data in relation to illegal fishing, pollution events and quarantine breach, as well as attempts at merchandise, wildlife or people smuggling.

Agency services are provided through:

core platforms (e.g. the Coastwatch assets)
staffing networks (e.g. presence at all major entry points)
functions (e.g. screening of merchandise imports and passengers)
skill sets (e.g. in relation to the development of net-based application and assessment systems, and in detection of offences and their prosecution).

Similarly, the Australian Taxation Office provides services on behalf of a number of other agencies such as IT systems and data sets in relation to the issuing of Australian business numbers.

The use of purchaser-provider arrangements in the social welfare, employment and health sectors is another type of interdepartmental partnership.

The concept of purchaser-provider arrangements was advocated in the 1996 National Commission of Audit⁴ to introduce market concepts that would ensure that service delivery suppliers were better focused upon efficiencies and outcomes. This concept can include government contracting with private sector service providers.

Policy agencies set standards that providers deliver

Policy agencies have been able to set out standards of service that a contracted provider will deliver, and then oversee the delivery without being directly involved. This has required clarification of program objectives and increased accountabilities.⁵ Major examples include the Job Network and organisations contracted to provide services on behalf of the Department of Family and Community Services (FaCS).

While these providers are sometimes focused on only one portfolio's concerns (and in that sense are not providing a whole of government service), in other relationships they might be delivering a range of government, and sometimes charitable or other, support. While care has to be taken in managing any potential conflicts or cost shifting, this means that the provider can sometimes deliver support that better matches client needs than if they administered only one program.

One-stop shops provide a single point of service

Centrelink is an example of a government provider which delivers a range of income support and employment services. One-stop shops are a single point of service for clients. Onestop shop concepts were first raised over 25 years ago in the Coombs report⁶, and were reflected in the emerging client focus across all portfolios in the 1980s.⁷

One-stop shops aim to meet citizens' demands for seamless delivery

The one-stop shop concept reappeared in the 1990s. Integration of government services was at the heart of the Centrelink development.⁸ In the Prime Minister's speech at Centrelink's launch in 1997, the key issues were consolidation of services and a more human face of government in the income support and employment arena. Centrelink took over major service delivery functions for FaCS, Health and Ageing, Employment and Workplace Relations, and Education, Science and Training. It was structured as a stand-alone agency with governance arrangements being a mix of purchaser-provider and wholly owned subsidiary.

Key features of a one-stop shop focus are:

common client base
opportunities for efficiencies (duplication otherwise exists)
benefits to clients and government by offering a seamless service.

There is potential for involvement in policy development processes

Where the service provider is a government agency, there is greater potential for its close involvement in policy development processes and for it to reflect otherwise broader government interests in its operational decision making.

Centrelink has pioneered the use of client-centred web-based approaches to service provision. Over time these raise the opportunity to offer virtual one-stop shops without the need to create special agencies, provided that there is the appropriate coordination of business systems, data standards and information bases.

Table 2.4: Getting the best from an agency arrangement

Use an agency arrangement...
...for:	...where:
policy development	Not applicable
program design and review	Not applicable-see Taskforce or IDC for preferable alternatives
program management and service delivery	engagement in services is medium to long term agent offers key infrastructure networks or skills agencies share clients or transactions agencies' values are compatible
cross-jurisdiction and cross-sector	there is a high level of trust and willingness to contract out program delivery there is no disadvantage from loss of separate Australian government agency branding agencies' values are compatible
crisis management	Not applicable-see Taskforce or IDC for preferable alternatives

At the heart of best practice for agency arrangements is the careful definition of the task, agreement on the respective roles and resourcing, attention to legal powers or constraints, adequate training and an effective means for monitoring and managing the arrangement.

Agency arrangements: best practice checklist

Clearly define requirements, resources, quality, quantity and role of each partner.
Make formal memorandum of understanding, service-level agreement, or purchaser-provider agreements.
Identify legal requirements and constraints.
Provide appropriate powers or authorisations.
Devise formal process for risk management, performance audit and review of the relationship.
Provide appropriate training and ongoing information support.
Ensure information feedback on program design, trends etc.
Have consistent values and mutual respect among purchasers.

Special-purpose agencies: frontier agencies

'Frontier agencies' are structures which symbolise to stakeholders a coherent whole of government approach to a contentious and complex issue

The past eight years have seen the creation of some specialpurpose agencies with a whole of government remit outside the normal departmental structures. In some cases their very creation outside the normal departmental structure is intended to symbolise their whole of government status. After a period it is possible to wind back these structures and have them merge with more permanent structures.

The creation of these special-purpose agencies has been facilitated by the amendments of the Public Service and Financial Management Acts to allow for the creation of executive and prescribed agencies respectively. These provisions give the head of the agency effectively the same powers and obligations as the secretary of a department. They also place the agency head in a similar relationship to the responsible minister or ministers.

Some special-purpose agencies have been created outside normal departmental structures to deal with issues that are important, contentious across a range of stakeholders and not yet mature in the way in which they are perceived by the public or managed within government. Their special status is used to symbolise a whole of government approach. They can be thought of as frontier agencies.

Frontier agencies provide expertise, dispassionate advice and program administration on complex issues

The Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO) is a whole of government special-purpose agency intentionally structured to reassure external stakeholders that it is an expert body, neutral between the contending interests of a range of external stakeholders and dedicated to providing dispassionate advice and excellence in program administration. It is the lead Australian government agency on the complex greenhouse issue which engages the interests of many portfolios, all sectors of the Australian economy, states and regions, other national governments, multi-lateral international organisations and the passionate concerns of many non-government organisations (NGOs). The AGO works to two ministers-the Minister for Environment and Heritage, and the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources-and closely with many agencies. It is not, and must not be seen to be, solely aligned with its host portfolio, Environment and Heritage.

The AGO provides the opportunity to develop real depth of skill in a very complex subject and provides a whole of government analytic and factual framework to underpin discussions of policy options at secretarial, ministerial and Cabinet level. By bringing together the major greenhouse programs, it ensures that policy learns from implementation experience and that the total effect of Australia's efforts to constrain emissions can be accounted for.

The National Oceans Office is a quintessential whole of government idea

Another example is the National Oceans Office (NOO) which has responsibility for the development of a comprehensive national oceans policy. This is a quintessential whole of government idea. It is a commitment to putting in place the means to understand and coordinate the interaction between sectoral policies and regulatory mechanisms. It also gathers the scientific and economic knowledge and engages stakeholders in the interest of ecologically sustainable management of Australia's vast ocean jurisdiction. A broad range of stakeholders is involved-the fishing, petroleum, transport and tourism industries, Indigenous peoples, coastal communities, state and local governments, conservationists, a range of NGOs, and recreational fishers and sailors. The range of stakeholders provides scope for controversy and contention.

The NOO was created to manage the process of creating regional marine plans, to coordinate the research and support community consultations, including in particular the National Oceans Advisory Group. It also supports a specialist science advisory body and the policy development processes which advise a ministerial board overseeing the venture. A secretaries' committee-the Oceans Board of Management-provides advice to the NOO and coordinates the advice to the ministerial board.

Again this is a frontier agency with a complex matrix management task in moving forward a whole of government agenda. As with the AGO, it has not only to act in a whole of government manner but to be seen to do so-its separate structure is part of the symbolic message to stakeholders.

Table 2.5: Getting the best from special purpose agencies

Use a frontier agency.
.for:	.where:
policy development	there are new complex issues which require more extended effort than a taskforce can provide there are contentious issues across a range of stakeholders the symbolism of separate agency is important there are clear governance arrangements to ensure whole of government approaches
program design and review	new instruments and measures cut across traditional boundaries multidisciplinary skills are drawn from other agencies delivery and program design needs to be tightly aligned for effective outcomes there are clear governance arrangements to ensure whole of government approaches
program management and service delivery	mutual support and coherence between programs in a non-mature field are a high priority there are clear governance arrangements to ensure whole of government approaches
cross-jurisdiction and cross-sector	Not likely to be applicable
crisis management	Not likely to be applicable

Creating a frontier agency is not without risk. Employees will probably derive from several different home departments, and at first might represent policy views previously in conflict, or will focus on the narrower group of external stakeholders that they dealt with before. A key to the successful creation of a frontier agency is in early planning. Planning should focus on inculcating a new set of values related to the new agency's charter and could encompass physical co-location, single IT and financial systems, and staff development work to develop a new culture and set of values relevant to the new agency's charter. A summary of issues to consider is set out in the best practice checklist.

Frontier agencies: best practice checklist

Gain a clear charter from government, preferably in legislation.
Identify the gamut of stakeholder interests which must be publicly addressed through the creation of the frontier agency.
Consider governance issues carefully, including whether authority will be shared (e.g. via joint ministerial responsibility) or whether other innovative governance arrangements will be used including budgeting and reporting.
Ensure the new agency encompasses all interests on the issue it is created to address.
Define which government priorities will be addressed by the frontier agency and which will not.
Define outcomes for products early (e.g. the production of 'regional marine plans').
As most frontier agencies will be built from parts of existing agencies, plan early for physical, systems and personnel integration.
Offer explicit training for employees joining a frontier agency in its new culture and charter.
Provide ample 'championship' from the top: both the agency's CEO and external key players.

Matching structures to policy, program and service delivery challenges

The discussion above should aid consideration of which structure might best suit different types of policy, program management, or service delivery work. Table 2.6 summaries the likelihood (using a High, Medium, Low scale) of structural options being suited to the major APS tasks.

Table 2.6: Matrix for matching whole of government structures to tasks

Structural options	Policy development	Program design and review	Program management and service delivery	Cross- jurisdiction and cross-sector	Crisis management
	Major APS tasks
Interdepartmental committee	H	M	L	M	H-M
Taskforce	H	H	H	H-M	M-L
Joint team	H-M	H-M	M	M-L	L
Agency arrangements	L	L	H	M-L	L
Frontier agencies	H	H	H	L	L

1 RCAGA, HC Coombs, Chairman, Report, 1976; M Painter, & B Carey, Politics between Departments: The Fragmentation of Executive Control in Australian Government, University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, 1979; PWilenski, Public Power & Public Administration, Hale & Ironmonger, Sydney, 1986.

2 P Wilenski, op. cit.

3 It is also possible that the delivery agency might be a private or community sector provider.

4 National Commission of Audit, Report to the Commonwealth Government, June 1996, p. 13: 'a purchaser-provider relationship is one in which the purchaser is the party who decides what will be produced, and the provider is the party who delivers the agreed outputs and outcomes. By separating and clarifying these roles, accountability is enhanced, conflicts of interest are minimised.and the principles of contestability can be embedded.'

5 Australian Public Service Commission, APS Reform 2003, pp. 131-2, 167.

6 RCAGA, op. cit., appendix Vol. 2, p. 162: The original one-stop shop concepts were advocated based on the North-west One-stop Welfare (NOW) Centre in Coburg, Victoria. The coordinated arrangements between Australian government departments and other levels of government were highlighted as a new way to stimulate devolution of decision making and enhance user satisfaction with government-sourced services. The model was small in its origins and operations. The Coombs report noted its potential in relation to 'experimental organisation structures and non-hierarchical patterns of work'.

7 Australian Public Service Commission, op. cit. p. 141.

8 Institute of Public Administration Australia, Working together-integrated governance, IPAA National Research Project undertaken by Success Works, Brisbane, 2002, pp. 25-31.

Downloads

Contents

On our website:

Site help

Site menu