related resourcesHome page
> About
the Commission > Public
Service Commissioner > Media archive > Speech
‹ Previous page
"Public threats, Public reponses- Challenges for us all"
WA Public Sector Leadership Convention
Address by A S Podger
Public Service Commissioner
6 August 2002
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.
The theme of your conference - Public Threats, Public Responses: Challenges for Us All - is I believe a very timely one. Looking back over the past two years or so, one can almost reel off significant challenges, and in some instances threats, with which the Australian community has had to deal - from staging the 2000 Olympics and protecting the nation from the potential devastation of animal diseases such as Foot and Mouth and Mad Cow, to responding to the influx of Asylum Seekers and the aftermath of September 11.
In all of these cases, the Government and the community have looked to the public service to facilitate the development and implementation of appropriate responses. We can rightly take some pride from this, because it reinforces the status of the public service as a key national institution - perhaps the only institution with sufficient breadth of perspective and experience, and depth of capability, to deal with issues of this magnitude.
This message of the community's rediscovered reliance on the public service is not only comforting for us, but an opportunity for both new confidence and a focus on public service renewal. The message presents a real challenge as the issues of national importance with which we are dealing are becoming increasingly complex and multi-dimensional. They require us to think and act beyond our traditional structures and processes. A characteristic of the responses to all of the challenges and threats I mentioned earlier was the need for the public service to operate outside established organisational and jurisdictional boundaries.
And the expectation of Government and the community of its public service is high, and heightened still in times of national challenge or threat. In his 2001 Centenary of the APS Oration, the Prime Minister reflected that "complex issues such as regional development, environmental repair and protection, scientific and industrial research, overcoming entrenched social problems will only be addressed through collective action by governments at all three levels, by business, community groups and impassioned individuals." The Prime Minister challenged us all in the Australian Public Service "to successfully interact with each other in the pursuit of whole of government goals and more broadly, for the entire Service to work in partnership with other bureaucracies, with business and with community groups".
In my time today, I want to share with you some of my perspectives as Public Service Commissioner on how the public service should respond. I will focus on three particular themes, recognising there are other elements of good management practice that I might have mentioned.
First, we must ensure that we take full advantage of the opportunities we now have under the Values-based Public Service established by the Public Service Act 1999.
The new Act was the culmination of a series of major changes in public administration in Australia in the last quarter of the last century. To a considerable extent the changes were driven by external pressures: a more demanding public not willing to accept without question the wisdom of a professional public service, and able to make more demands in the information age; and a more competitive world from which public sector performance could no longer be immune.
As these shifts were taking place, there was also increasing interest in articulating the values of the Service and codifying standards of official conduct within a more devolved and flexible system.
The challenge was to identify some enduring principles within which the Service could continue to operate as an institution of government but with increased capacity to respond to the needs of the elected Government and to adapt to other changes and developments affecting policy and program management.
Through its shift away from prescriptive rules towards a Values-based approach, and its devolution of powers to Agency Heads, the aim of the Act was to remove any structural or process impediments to the ability of the Service to respond with agility, flexibility and creativity to complex challenges, and indeed public threats, and to "manage for results". At the same time, we needed to ensure we preserved the fundamental principles of public administration which form the basis of the continuing trust of the Government and the community in our institution.
To appreciate the full impact of the Values, it is important to look at them as a package and to think about the cultural aspects they are designed to reinforce.
While the Act does not group the Values, or prioritise them, it might assist if I group them in terms of the way they define or shape:
- the APS as a key institution in our democratic system;
- the relationship between the APS and the Government;
- the relationships between the APS and the public;
- relationships in the workplace; and
- personal behaviour and ethics in the APS.
Five Values represent the classical principles of Westminster public administration which you will see in any text: an apolitical impartial, professional Service; the merit principle; high ethical standards; responsiveness to the elected Government; being openly accountable within the framework of Ministerial responsibility.
They need to be read together, because too much weight on one may conflict with another:
- note we are not independent, but we are apolitical and impartial;
- our responsiveness to the government actually requires us to be frank, honest, accurate, comprehensive and timely in our advice and to implement the government's policies and programs
In our relationship to the Government may I also highlight a key element of the APS Code of Conduct:
- that we comply with all appropriate Australian laws.
This is no minor caveat to our responsibility to be responsive to Government. Most public servants have legal obligations in terms of the legislation administered by their agency, as well as obligations under financial legislation, various administrative laws and so on. In many respects, this defines us as public servants - our appreciation of due process under the law.
Other provisions that define our relationship with the Government include the obligation to maintain appropriate confidentiality with any Minister or Minister's member of staff - critical to the trust that is an essential ingredient to being responsive - and the requirement to use Commonwealth resources in a proper manner.
In our relationship with the public I would draw attention to the Value of achieving results and managing performance, as well as the need to be fair, impartial and courteous.
In our workplace relations, the central requirement is the merit principle, but I would also draw attention again to achieving results and managing performance, and to equity in employment and freedom from discrimination.
In terms of personal behaviours, we are obliged to have the "highest ethical standards". This is a natural consequence of the authority the public, through the Parliament, has vested in us: that authority must be exercised in the most ethical way.
Taken as a package, the Values define "how we work around here". This provides an enduring framework and point of reference for the public service as it deals with agendas than can and do change dramatically.
Remind you Values are not just rhetoric
- Values and Code of Conduct are in law (APSC Directions)
- sanctions are available for breaches of Code, including failures to abide by Values
- Agency Heads must promote and uphold
- Commissioner's first two responsibilities relate to evaluating Agencies' practices in upholding the Values and ensuring compliance with the Code
We are currently working with six Agencies evaluating their approaches with a view to developing a good practice guide
- Values only make sense if people understand the behaviours that are not acceptable.
The Values also exhort us to ensure we have the capability to respond to complex and changing agendas and achieve the best outcomes for the Government:
(f) the APS is responsive to the Government in providing frank, honest, comprehensive, accurate and timely advice and in implementing the Government's policies and programs...
(h) the APS has leadership of the highest quality...a. the APS focuses on achieving results and managing performance
The Values (or principles) framework represents a risk management approach, replacing the risk averse approach of central prescription. One of the risks to be managed, which has increased by the very devolution involved in a principles framework, is that of narrow agency-based approaches. It is critical that the flexibility and agility allowed by the new approach is used to cross boundaries rather than to heighten them.
Second, we need to shift from a purely program approach to make more use of project management. More often than not the answers to a challenge or threat will not be found in established program management structures, or in organisational or functional silos - because the problem itself is too complex.
The answer here is not to keep restructuring program structures whenever a new challenge arises or priorities change, but to complement program structures with time-limited projects that cross boundaries, and to build in matrix management approaches.
Let me mention a couple of examples from my old portfolio of Health.
The Private health insurance reforms were of a scale and priority that warranted the establishment of a dedicated team, which I placed within the central Portfolio Strategies Division for about 2 years. That team drew together some of the best innovators and analysts in the Department and a couple of managers with proven capacity to "make things happen". The team also built linkages across the ongoing program areas of Health Benefits and Health Services in particular, and to the Health Insurance Commission, and developed strong networks with the private health insurance and hospital industry.
The team not only developed the details of complex reforms such as Lifetime Cover, but managed the huge tasks of implementation, firstly of the Government's election commitment of the 30% rebate (which had to be in place within a couple of months of the 1998 election) and then of very complicated LifeTime Cover reform. It operated with a classical project management style, including a project director with considerable authority and Gantt Charts with strict timelines.
The team has since been returned to a program area, with more standard ongoing program management arrangements.
Similarly we built a Task Force to help during the Aged Care crisis in 2000, and the need to handle accreditation without leaving elderly people fearful of their ongoing safety and support. Again, dedicated project leadership was critical and project management techniques came to the fore. Linkages across the Department's State Offices, with State and Territory Governments on contingency planning, and with relevant portfolio agencies were central to the success of the Task Force. Equally, as in the private health insurance case, relations with external groups were essential, including both the industry and the elderly themselves and their representative groups.
I mention these to highlight that project management approaches are not relevant only to the huge issues like the Olympics or the asylum seekers, but to lots of issues faced in every portfolio.
One of the key skills of public sector leaders is the capacity to identify those who can add value to the resolution of the problem or issue - wherever they are from. Leaders need the ability to bring these people together and facilitate a process that comes to grips with the issue in the shortest possible time and proposes workable solutions. So the capacity of our leaders to facilitate productive working relationships between individuals of different backgrounds and perspectives, and allow a genuine contest of ideas while keeping a close eye on the imperative of quick results, is paramount.
Third, I believe we need to sharpen our ability as public sector leaders to deal with the sorts of communication issues that have been inherent in all of the significant national challenges of the past couple of years, and will be a crucial element of our strategies for addressing the challenges to come. My two examples from Health involved extensive communication strategies, supported by market research and involving a wide range of approaches from TV campaigns to regular meetings with residents and their families in every aged care home where accreditation was at risk.
Importantly, they also require conscious effort to appreciate the different perspectives and values of the different groups affected, and the leadership quality of strong and productive working relationships.
In my view the importance of communications in public administration has long been under-recognised. Communications are critical to achieving objectives and to successful implementation of any policy initiatives. And I would argue that the more significant or "threatening" the issue, the more crucial it is to ensure there is a strategic approach to communication.
It is safe to say that in any future national challenge or threat we will not have the luxury of being able to control the flow of information. Information will be instant, delivered through diverse media, and widely available across the community. This will, in turn increase the community's demand for speedy decision-making and an "instant" response.
All of this points to the shift in emphasis from reactive to pro-active communications, and to two-way communications not one-way.
- The old defensive approach was largely response-based. Our focus was on such things as the preparation of Question Time Briefs for Ministers, or briefs to respond to critical media stories. The pro-active work - such as it was - was largely left to Ministers and their Offices.
- This is no longer tenable. Over the last decade, the requirement to manage risk in the public sector has become obvious and this requires a forward-looking approach - one that anticipates problems and provides solutions and appropriate resources to minimise the adverse impact of complex or difficult issues.
- The public - and Ministers - also expect communications to work both ways. It is not just a matter of spreading the message; it is also about listening and engaging, and understanding the fears and sensitivities of those affected by the programs we run and the initiatives we are implementing. And about understanding the different values and perspectives of our stakeholders and partners. We need to be able to advise Ministers of the views of our client groups and stakeholders, and of how best to take them on board as well as how best to explain the Government's policy decisions. We also need systematic feedback arrangements.
Public sector leaders need to invest heavily in communication strategies. These are no longer the preserve of Ministerial offices and the "political" end of public administration - they require professional expertise, serious investment and integration with our policy advising and management of issues.
The management of communications accordingly requires increased professionalism principally through the dedication of resources and specialist communications staff to this task, as occurs in nearly every professionally-managed organisation.
I am mindful nonetheless, that communications management can raise some thorny issues given our Values of apolitical professionalism, but these can and must be worked through.
Finally, let me move to the role of the Australian Public Service Commission in helping to prepare the Service to respond to national challenges and national threats. There are two aspects I would like to mention today.
First, the Commission proposes to play a central role in promulgating good practice on establishing whole-of-government approaches. By way of example, the Commission currently has a major involvement in a Management Advisory Committee project on a Governance and Investment Framework for Australian Government Use of Information and Communications Technology. One of the aims of this exercise is to identify issues that can most appropriately be handled at the whole-of-government level so as to optimise outcomes from a whole-of-government perspective. This will then feed into the development of a cross-Service framework for the governance of Information and Communications Technology architecture, standards and investment choices. While the subject matter is IT, this exercise will provide us all with substantial insight into the issues involved in achieving a whole-of-government approach on a key issue.
Second, the Commission will continue to research and define the attributes that public sector leaders will need to be able respond effectively to the challenges and threats of the future. Our key document on leadership in the Australian Public Service - the Senior Executive Leadership Capability Framework - already refers to some of these attributes:
- building relationships with key people across the public service and external organisations;
- creating a sense of 'interconnectedness' with other agencies, ensuring opportunities to share views and ideas;
- initiating fluid and flexible resourcing options based on an appreciation of emerging requirements in a constantly changing environment, and looking outside the organisational silo to identify what resourcing requirements will deliver the best results;
- creating an environment which facilitates the sharing and effective utilisation of professional knowledge and skills;
- engendering a culture of achievement.
- The Commission will continue to work in close collaboration with agencies in the design of development options to address these capabilities, and to promote technical training in related areas such as project management and communications.
Finally, as public service leaders you will all need to be personally involved in ensuring the service is able to respond to future challenges and threats. It is inevitable, I suspect, that at some stage you will be called upon to participate in or even lead the development of a whole-of-government, or cross jurisdictional, response to an issue of national importance. You will need to stay engaged in the issues and prepared to be involved, and by taking responsibility for your own development ensure that you have the capability to provide your best contribution.
Thank you.
Start of page