related resourcesHome page
> About
the Commission > Public
Service Commissioner > Media archive > Speech
‹ Previous page
Whole of Government innovations and challenges
Keynote Address to 'Innovations and Impacts' seminar, IPAA National Conference, Adelaide
A S Podger
Public Service Commissioner
16 November 2002
(Special thanks to Mary Reid, Jill Adams and Debbie Phillips from the Commission for their assistance in the preparation of this address.)
Introduction
The last day of IPAA's national conference has traditionally focused on research agendas relevant to the conference theme, to evaluate experience, assess the impact of past initiatives, and thereby to promote innovation.
The Conference theme is "Powerful Connections", and the Conference has been greatly assisted by IPAA's research report "Working Together : Integrated Governance" published earlier this year. Integrated or 'joined-up' government, or whole-of-government collaboration, is receiving international attention. There have been many initiatives and continuing demands. It is timely to reflect, and to consider the agenda for future research and evaluation, and to help identify the lessons for improved public service.
My purpose this morning is firstly to place the current interest in whole-of-government activities into context, summarising our experience over the last few decades. I then will attempt to tease out the drivers of whole-of-government activity, refer to a useful framework for considering the elements of whole-of-government management, and identify some of the different types of whole-of-government activity. This, I will suggest, may help to draw out lessons of recent history both here and overseas and to clarify the key challenges for the future.
Finally, I hope to encourage you to think about where we should focus future research and evaluation to support policy analysis and improved performance.
Australian Experience
The notion of joined-up government is not new. We have had different types of coordination and collaboration for many years, and have called them different things at different times. They have been both within and across governments. In Australia, in our federal system, there exist many different dimensions and layers of government integration. Flowing from this, there have been different responses and different methods employed at different times.
Within government we have sought ways to cut across organisational boundaries and particular departmental policy perspectives by a broad range of coordination methods; from the establishment, as early as 1911, of a Prime Minister's Office, the creation of inter-departmental committees, task forces, and more recently the clustering of departments into portfolios across broad subject areas. Most recently, Centrelink was created to deliver integrated services for sixteen Commonwealth agencies and all State Housing authorities.
Our federal system of government itself has presented regular challenges for coordination for over a hundred years. Let me focus, however, on the last 30 years.
The Whitlam Government had a strongly interventionist style, and a scepticism about existing structures. It pursued the merging of various functions and the delivery of cross-sector services in part through new organisations such as the Social Welfare Commission and the Department of Urban and Regional Development (DURD). The Social Welfare Commission established Regional Councils for Social Development based around local service delivery organisations under its Australian Assistance Plan. DURD focused more on regional groupings of local governments under its Area Improvement Program. In both cases, a central aim was to improve responsiveness to local communities and their articulation of needs and priorities.
There was also an underlying distrust of the States, notwithstanding the widespread use of section 96 grants to the States to pursue national agendas for schools, hospitals and, indeed, the Australian Assistance Plan.
The Royal Commission into Australian Government Administration (RCAGA), set up by the Whitlam Government but reporting to the Fraser Government, addressed coordination issues directly. It noted the organisational dynamics that lead to vertical or 'silo' operations, and highlighted the benefits of cluster groupings of departments. It also argued for:
'a new style of administration which places much greater emphasis on the availability of a comprehensive service at a local level and gives the citizen a greater sense of being in touch with the decision-makers rather than an amorphous, unreadable, "department".'
(RCAGA 1975:4).
It proposed a 'one-stop-shop' at which government transactions with governments at all three levels could be undertaken (RCAGA 1975:7).
The Fraser Government, concerned about rapidly increasing Commonwealth outlays, pulled back from federal government involvement in delivering community services and supported recognising and upholding states rights. 'Cooperative federalism' looked to avoiding duplication, overlap and interference with the affairs of the states.
'Our aim is to strengthen the independence and flexibility of state and local governments . each sphere of government should make decisions on matters appropriate to that sphere'
(Fraser 1976:3-4)
In 1990, the Hawke Government embarked upon its 'new Federalism' policy. In part, this was driven by a desire to ensure the Commonwealth's micro-economic reform agenda was pursued at the State as well as the Commonwealth level; but it also reflected concern about duplication, and whether the Commonwealth should reduce its involvement in direct service delivery notwithstanding expansion under the Hawke Government of Commonwealth spending on health, education and community services. The communiqué of the 1990 Premiers' Conference reported that:
'Leaders and representatives . declared their intention . to maximise co-operation, ensure a mutual understanding of roles with a view to avoidance of duplication and achieve significant progress towards increasing Australia's competitiveness.'
(Special Premiers' Conference 1990:1)
In Mr Hawke's view:
'. the experience of years tells us that there are important services which would be improved if the Federal Government were not directly involved in their delivery'.
(Hawke 1990:381-2)
The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) was established to deal with non-financial issues in response to increasing pressure for economic, social and environmental policy reform, and the consequent need for a formal structure for progressing and resolving major inter-governmental policy issues. It proved particularly successful in the area of competition policy and associated regulatory reform, but has had mixed success in social policy and service delivery.
The Hawke Government also took up some of the RCAGA themes, including a restructuring and amalgamating of departments in 1987, with each having a portfolio Minister with Cabinet ranking; other Ministers were appointed to assist the portfolio Minister on particular aspects of the portfolio.
The Keating Government's increased focus on employment and Commonwealth involvement in social programs led to some subtle changes in COAG arrangements, with explicit acknowledgement of areas of shared responsibility, but continued effort to clarify respective roles to improve overall management.
Mr Keating called for a 'much more cooperative relationship' between the Commonwealth and the States to reshape Australia's institutions:
There is now much to be done about the prerogatives of the States and the Commonwealth in managing this great country of ours and choosing to work cooperatively together to deal with the great micro-economic areas of this country, much that we have to do.
(Keating 1994: 6)
The new Department of Housing and Regional Development also pursued a fresh approach to regional economic planning through Regional Development Organisations. These sought shared strategic commitment by the three levels of government, together with business and community organisations, in order to expand employment through competitive business opportunities.
The Howard Government came in with a major budgetary challenge and a policy platform emphasising contestability and quality of service delivery, and for giving more recognition to the role of the states. In its second term of office it effectively increased the financial capacity and independence of the states through its GST reforms.
In 1996 it transferred the regional development function to the renamed Transport and Regional Development Department (now Transport and Regional Services). After a period of sharply curtailed funding, the function re-emerged covering both metropolitan and country areas. Most recently, the national network of community-based Area Consultative Committees have come under Transport's responsibilities, providing the opportunity, in rural and remote areas, for more integrated government support for country communities with improved responsiveness to the needs and priorities they identify.
COAG has continued, proving its capacity to support coordination in new areas of priority, including gun control and security, as well as further micro-economic reform such as food policy and regulation.
One of the Howard Government's key whole-of-government initiatives was the creation of Centrelink in 1997 to bring together the service delivery networks of several departments, as recommended back in 1976 by RCAGA. Mr Howard saw it as a partnership 'between all sections of the Australian community'.
'It will reach millions of people . it will bring a modern understanding all over the country to the need for public services to relate in, not only a sympathetic way, but also a responsible way towards those in the community who are getting government assistance.'
(Howard 1997: 2)
Centrelink's success is due in no small part to its creative use of technology to carry different services through a single channel. It is also able to devote management attention to service delivery, while meeting accountability requirements through purchaser-provider agreements with relevant government departments. The Howard Government has also promoted integrated service delivery through Rural Transaction Centres and Family Allowance Offices, again drawing innovatively on technology.
Integrated services also continue to be a key theme in the health area where coordinated care trials have tested ways of funds-pooling and integrated care, and the GP strategy continues to promote a more sophisticated structure of primary care to improve continuity of care and care integration.
More recently, the Commonwealth has begun to work closely with both state and territory governments to improve service delivery to Indigenous communities in regional Australia.
This short history demonstrates that the issue of coordination is not value free.
'Coordination is rarely neutral. To the extent that it results in mutual agreement or a decision on some policy, course of action, or inaction, it inevitably advances some interests at the expense of others or more than others.' (Seidman & Gilmour 1986: 223)
The style and approach depends critically on politics and power. This can be seen most clearly when considering the range of powers acquired by the Commonwealth during both the Great War and the Second World War. The states and the people of Australia were prepared to give up their autonomy for the greater good. But after the wars the retention of those powers by the Commonwealth was no longer acceptable.
At these times, when public interest dominates, and failure is unconscionable, whole of government strategies have been acceptable and successful. More recent examples are the management of the Olympics and the tremendous cross-government and cross-agency efforts put in last year to quell the bush fires in eastern Australia. Planning for border protection or foot-and-mouth disease requires much the same level of cooperation.
The challenge for governments is to develop mechanisms, structures and cultures that facilitate whole-of-government approaches beyond times of crisis but as part of the way governments work in our accountable, democratic system.
As the Prime Minister, John Howard noted when marking the centenary of the APS:
We live in an increasingly complex and interdependent environment and there is no doubt that, in recent years, issues have more consistently reached across traditional portfolio boundaries. This trend will continue. Whole of government approaches, collectively owned by several Ministers, will increasingly become a common response.
Senior Public Servants and their staff will need to find ways to minimise any limitations associated with what could be described as the 'Silo effect'. A methodology for rapid and effective integration of work units from traditionally unrelated departments will need to be further refined to achieve broader government objectives.
(Howard 2001)
It is worth noting here that in the APS one of the key responsibilities of members of the Senior Executive Service set down in the Public Service Act of 1999 is to promote cooperation with other agencies (s. 35(b)).
Current Drivers and Demands
There is strong evidence of increased interest in what the UK government calls 'joined-up government', the Canadians, ' horizontal government' and we've dubbed 'integrated government', both here and overseas, regardless of the political inclination of the government of the day.
This is reflected in a wide range of initiatives in integrated service delivery, program integration (in particular, to address so-called 'wicked problems') and whole-of-government integration. The IPAA study suggests that the key drivers for these initiatives are globalisation, budgetary pressures, community expectations and technology. These are not independent forces: I suspect technology is the key underlying driving force proving that more integration is possible, and feeding community expectations of improved and seamless services at lower costs. Integration is at times cheaper anyway where technology can capture economies of scale.
Technology is not only increasing pressure at the service delivery end. It also lies behind globalisation; competitive pressures on public as well as private services; increased scrutiny and time pressures on government; and industry pressure for smarter, quicker and more coherent regulation; and so on. Similarly, of course, it can provide the wherewithall for setting performance benchmarks and monitoring performance in a devolved management framework with flexible funding and some discretion at the point of service delivery.
As the IPAA suggests, the different forms of integration (or different demands for integration) may require different approaches and structures.
In considering the overall issue of integration, I found a paper presented recently by a Canadian Treasury Board official, Ralph Heintzman, to be helpful. Speaking to the Commonwealth Association of Public Administration and Management Conference in Glasgow in September this year, he started with the basic diamond diagram of integration : with policy integration at the top of the diamond and integrated service delivery at the bottom leaving the wide area in between as the challenging 'organisational space'. The key question, he argued, concerns the best governance arrangements for that 'organisational space'.
Perhaps the answer is different for different demands for integration. Heintzman is certainly of that view, advocating the matching of form, function and culture to meet 'specific needs of specific service within specific community'.
It may be useful to explore for a moment all three key parts of this diamond, against recent Australian and overseas experience. I will also pay some particular attention to the impact of Australian federalism. The intention is to see if we can find some tentative answers about good practice and whether we can identify some key challenges for further study.
Possible lessons and challenges
Top of the diamond
Let us start with the top of the diamond. The Australian Government is generally well served, I believe, by our system of Cabinet and top level bureaucratic support. Cabinet, and the ERC in particular, have become well-oiled machines for informed decision-making particularly since the Hawke Government. PM&C has since the early 1970's built a formidable capacity to support the Prime Minister and the Cabinet process. Its style shifts, according to the style of the Prime Minister, between interventionist and light-touch coordination as a secretariat; the style also changes, of course, depending on the issue at hand. The system has proven reasonably adept at establishing policy coherence across portfolios as required. In recent years, there has been more use of task forces for particular projects and priorities and less use of ongoing IDC's.
This top level system is supported well by Finance (and Treasury), and by the budget estimates system which I suggest is amongst the best in the world.
The success of this top level system relies greatly on the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Finance Minister, and their Departments. This lines up with the IPAA findings. I would also place emphasis on the information system.
The links between the Commonwealth's top of the diamond and the states' top of their diamonds is a little more fraught. There is some evidence of COAG supporting a more constructive and comprehensive policy discussion than the Premiers' Conferences of past eras and, with the assistance of COAG Senior Officials, providing useful guidance and discipline from time to time to portfolio-based Councils of Ministers and officials (Weller 1995, Stewart 2000). But distinguishing between good practice and the happenstance of political factors is not easy.
The bottom of the diamond
At the bottom of the diamond, Centrelink has effectively responded to RCAGA's call 25 years ago for a one-stop-shop, but importantly it relies heavily on information systems not available in the 1970's. Other areas of community services such as health have not yet been so successful. The chequered history of regional coordination frameworks also suggests we have yet to settle upon a framework for broader integration of government programs for economic and social development. And, notwithstanding the recent important initiative to pursue Indigenous economic development in eight areas around Australia, our record in Indigenous health, education and welfare suggests no current model provides all the answers.
This mixed success at the delivery end may well reflect the fact that the key challenges, as my Canadian colleague suggests, are in the organisational space between these two points of the diamond.
The middle of the diamond
(a) Information
As mentioned, information and information systems are critical in my view, and these are, perhaps, not given enough attention in the IPAA paper. This is important firstly to be able to offer integrated services in the first place. One of the problems for health is the absence of an electronic health record system. It is being progressively developed, with the recent linking of MBS and PBS records representing one advance, but both policy and technical obstacles need to be overcome for full success.
More generally, as the recent Management Advisory Committee's report on Australian Government Use of Information and Communication Technology states:
The development of effective whole-of-government approaches to ICT is critical to achieving further significant gains in the delivery of government services.
(Management Advisory Committee 2002: 2)
Information and information systems are also vital to achieve the IPAA's finding of the importance of outcome-based funding and the use of KPI's.
(b) Accountability and responsiveness
Behind this finding is one of the main challenges of integrated services : facilitating responsiveness downwards and outwards to individual customer needs or community requirements while confidently maintaining lines of accountability upwards to Ministers and the Parliament. Centrelink may have found the right balance through its purchaser-provider arrangements with client departments, though I understand there remain challenges for defining and monitoring service standards and output targets.
There are of course a number of governance arrangements that might allow a degree of flexibility at the delivery end while maintaining appropriate accountability up the line. The advantages claimed for separate agencies relate to their capacity to focus management attention on customers and service delivery issues; the risks relate to limits to Ministerial involvement and lack of responsiveness to the elected government's agenda and priorities. My Canadian colleague notes that it is not always necessary to set up separate agencies to get the flexibility that is desired on the ground.
Perhaps the risk of lack of responsiveness to the elected government is greatest where the policy context is most fluid and where standards of service and performance measurement are least well-defined. As a corollary, the more clearly performance can be measured and the more stable the policy context, the more likely it may be that agencies separate from portfolio departments are likely to offer the capacity to provide customer-oriented services, including integrated services. Similarly, in these circumstances purchaser-provider splits might include competition amongst providers and
private provision, to get the highest quality service at the lowest cost. The more services to be integrated, however, the more risk that one or more may not lend itself to arms-length provision subject only to defined standards and performance monitoring. This is a complex set of issues and the search for a specific formula for good practice may not succeed.
I was impressed during a recent visit to the UK with the quality of their performance measurement, and their disciplined focus on particular priorities. The Australian experience with program budgeting and, more recently, with the outcomes/outputs budget structure and our use of performance-based agreements with the states and with providers, points in the same direction. But the UK has taken this further with more up-front identification of whole-of-government priorities that then flow throughout. Originally, the priorities focused on health, education, transport and crime. More recently, they have been extended to many other areas of activity.
The UK is now taking a firmer line on top-down priorities of key performance indicators, what they call Public Service Agreements, and in establishing a wider range of options for agency structures within and outside line departments. One approach the UK has taken to handling the balance between local autonomy and central control is the concept of 'earned autonomy', where proven performance down the line earns the right to greater flexibility.
The UK is facing challenges now, with managing the expectations their targets have raised, with the widening of the range of priorities and the number of targets, and with the rhetoric of devolution and choice.
Heintzman presents the issue of balance between local autonomy and central control as a series of 'dualities' to be considered on a case by case basis:
- efficiency and integration
- efficiency and accountability
- efficiency and participation.
As the Australian Auditor-General has recently noted:
'Effective performance measurement and reporting will often be even more difficult in areas of connected government, partly because departments/agencies will have the same individual reporting obligations to Parliament but need to also ensure that their partners can live up to these reporting standards.'
(Barrett 2002: 29)
Over time, the way that the public service reports to Parliament, and the scope of parliamentary committees, may have to change to take account of these wider responsibilities.
(c) Leadership and cooperation
Whatever the model, the IPAA paper rightly highlights the importance of the willingness of key players to cooperate. Equally, the more players, the more difficult this becomes to achieve and to sustain. I suspect this to be a contributor to the challenge the health system faces. A small but by no means minor initiative is promoting leadership development across governments and across major systems like health. Encouraging greater understanding of different perspectives and different roles and responsibilities is essential to building the capacity to work constructively across organisational boundaries. This, as most of you know, is a particular priority of the Australian Public Service Commission and is also a key focus of the new Australia New Zealand School of Government.
The IPAA study also supports the use of lead agencies, rather than continuing committees, for whole-of-government activities. This approach is similar to UK experience, and also to the growing interest across the APS in project management rather than just program management.
I suspect that, consistent with the theme of leadership, there is a need for authority and local clout to deliver integration. Recent experience in task forces and program integration supports this view, the latest example being the Government's initiative in the area of Indigenous employment and social development. My own experience in Housing and Regional Development was that a Commonwealth policy to directly promote regional development required clout on the ground, to gain the confidence of key local leaders and to influence government agencies at any and all of the three levels of government. Similarly, my experience in Aboriginal health was that the coordinated care trials required strong local leadership that had the confidence and support of the Commonwealth and State Departments, as well as those of the local communities. The considerable success of the Tiwi and Katherine West trials was due in part to the quality of the original administrative leadership.
Commonwealth-State relations
This brings me to perhaps the biggest challenge for whole-of-government integration : Commonwealth-State relations. I have mentioned the developments of the last decade to improve policy coherence through COAG. There has been considerable success, but some areas remain more problematic.
The 'subsidiarity principle' is sometimes cited as a basis for clarifying roles and responsibilities in federal systems (Industry Commission 1996: 60-2). Under this principle, responsibility should be devolved to the lowest possible level where there is community interest. While coordination may well be easier if roles and responsibilities are well defined, there is no simple way of doing so whether by way of interpretation of the Australian Constitution or by way of a principle like the subsidiarity principle. There will always be political argument, and public servants must be able to adjust to the policies of the government of the day.
I have always seen some merit therefore in a pragmatic approach based on what might be called the 'control, influence, appreciate' principle (Smith 1992: 173-4). Under this approach, who controls what might be defined as firmly as possible, through the Constitution and the subsidiarity principle; but it is recognised that each level of government will wish to influence the others in a number of areas; and, as these areas change from time to time under different governments and in the face of different situations, it is important for public servants to have and maintain a good appreciation across the whole, including the areas under the control of another level that your level of government may want to influence in the future.
Let me identify two examples here. Firstly, in the field of urban planning. The elected Commonwealth government may choose not to play a significant role in this field at all. Yet, its direct responsibilities for transport and communications, defence, and indeed functions like Centrelink, means it has a big set of footprints across urban (and other) areas. It will be affected by, and will influence, urban planning. Some residual appreciation of the urban planning activities of state and local government, say within the Transport portfolio, may be wise. This might then be more easily ramped up if a future Commonwealth government decided to play a more influential role in this field.
Health is more complicated. There have been many attempts to improve policy coordination and to effect service integration, and I believe the health system is far better today than in the past. It is hard to see either the Commonwealth or the states totally vacating the field given the level of public interest health always generates. But there are some areas that seem more naturally a national responsibility, such as regulating pharmaceuticals and undertaking cost effectiveness analysis to set PBS and MBS prices; similarly, it might seem more naturally a State responsibility to manage hospitals. Yet the boundaries between are not clear. Whatever the future of federal arrangements, I saw it as important, during my period in Health, to promote informal discussions and information exchange, not only on issues where we knew collaboration was important, but also on issues each level saw as primarily their own responsibility. Appreciation of the whole system by both Commonwealth and state officials is vital to future integrated services.
Whole-of-government integration
A final point on my Canadian colleague's diamond : the possibility of a whole-of-government drive from the top through to the bottom. This is perhaps best illustrated in the IPAA case study of 'Growing Victoria Together'. I note also, here in South Australia, the recent response by Premier Rann to the 'Public Sector Responsiveness in the 21st century' report. The Premier acknowledges the strong message in the report that clarity of purpose needs to be fostered by the government in order to provide a clear vision and direction to the public sector, and responds:
I am committed to providing such a direction.
We are taking a new approach to government and have set up new mechanisms and bodies to take a cross-cutting approach and to deliver better whole of government outcomes. We want to see greater collaboration and cohesion in service delivery and policy development-initiatives that cut across a number of departments to deliver more effective solutions to the community.
The Premier notes that his Government is already:
- Ensuring that chief executive performance agreements reflect the delivery of whole of government outcomes and holdl[ing] them accountable for effective and ongoing performance management in their departments; and
- Using the budget process as an important tool to promote more effective working across government, not just in a bilateral way but also in a multilateral way.
The reforms, he recognises, will require leadership from ministers, chief executives and all employees and planning and direction. Cultural change will be crucial:
With respect to the facilitative culture, the report identifies that there is a need to place collaboration, innovation and risk management at the heart of what is valued in the public sector. This will require that significant action be taken at all levels to make the changes in culture, practice and attitude that are necessary to drive an efficient and effective public sector.
(Rann 2002)
There are strong similarities here to the UK Government approach I mentioned earlier involving firm, centrally determined priorities and clear performance targets, which are drilled down through and across portfolio agencies to local service providers. In the UK it is being complemented by rigorous personal performance assessment of senior and local managers. It relies heavily on outcomes-based funding, clear outcome and output targets and strong monitoring arrangements. In the UK, the rhetoric is also of devolution and consumer choice, but so far the reality seems more centralist and deterministic.
It will be interesting to see whether Victoria-and South Australia-face similar challenges, and how they grapple with them. It will also be interesting to see how the Howard's Government's third term priorities-including environment, demographic change, welfare reform and security-are reflected systematically through the diamond's organisational space and delivered on the ground.
Research and Evaluation
The IPAA paper is a very useful start to research into the more recent developments in integrated government. I hope my comments will encourage further work.
I have attempted to distinguish between different elements of integration, and between different types of activity where integration may be desired. There may be other ways of doing so that provide better guidance to good practice.
I have also highlighted the management space between policy coordination and integrated service delivery. The governance of that space is in my view where most attention needs to be paid. Much of the debate rests upon the balance between accountability upwards and responsiveness downwards and outwards.
Information support is also central at every level. Yet it is a challenge in its own right, not only for technical reasons but also reasons of policy. The Management Advisory Committee Report I referred to earlier focuses on the governance of information and communications technology, setting out an approach that continues to allow most investment to be based on business assessments at the agency level, while also encouraging interoperability to address current and possible future demands for connectivity. More research and evaluation could be helpful in this area too.
Finally, there is the people dimension. Integration is based fundamentally on relationships. It needs leadership, if there is to be confidence that flexibility will be applied responsibly.
The IPAA study recognises that we could be searching for the philosopher's stone:
The quest for coordination is in many respects the twentieth-century equivalent of the medieval search for the philosopher's stone. If only we can find the right formula for coordination, we can reconcile the irreconcilable, harmonize competing and wholly divergent interest, overcome irrationalities in our government structures, and make hard policy choices to which no one will dissent.
(Seidman & Gilmour 1986: 219)
But it warns that integrated government is not necessarily a panacea for all occasions.
Integrated governance is hard and resource intensive. While it can be beneficial its use should be selective.
(IPAA 2002: x)
There are costs and tradeoffs in coordination. It is not value free. We have gained a great deal from having stable, workable administrative structures. The challenge is not on how to replace them but how to capitalise on their benefits without compromising their effectiveness. Ralph Heintzman's 'dualities' represent another way of expressing this challenge.
And, of course, this is not just an administrative issue but also a political one.
References
Barrett, Pat J 2002, 'Achieving better practice corporate governance in the public sector: Keynote address to the International Quality & Productivity Centre Seminar, 26 June 2002. (http://www.anao.gov.au/WebSite.nsf/Publications/4A256AE90015F69BCA256BE4000827D3)
Cabinet Office, Performance and Innovation Unit 2000, Wiring it up: Whitehall's management of cross-cutting policies and services, Cabinet Office, London. (http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/innovation/2000/wiring/wiring.shtml)
Cabinet Office, Performance and Innovation Unit 2000, Reaching out: the role of central government at regional and local level, Office, London. (http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/innovation/2000/regions/contents.htm )
Fraser, Malcolm 1976, 'First Premier's Conference on New Federalism, 4-5 February'.
Hawke, Robert 1990, 'Towards a closer partnership, speech to the National Press Club by the Prime Minister', 19 July, Canberra.
Heintzman, Ralph 2002, 'Getting service delivery right: presentation to CAPAM 2002 Biennial Conference, Glasgow, September 10 October. (http://www.capam.comnet.mt/Docs/Biennial2002/topics.htm)
Howard, John 1997, 'Speech by the Prime Minister at the official launch of Centrelink on 24 September 1997', Canberra. (http://www.pm.gov.au/news/speeches/1997/centlink.html)
Howard, John 2001, 'Centenary of the Australian Public Service-oration to the Centenary Conference of the Institute of Public Administration Australia, 19 June', Canberra. (http://www.pm.gov.au/news/speeches/2001/speech1163.htm)
Industry Commission 1996, State, territory and local government assistance to industry: final report, Report no 55, Melbourne, Productivity Commission.
Institute of Public Administration Australia 2002, Working together: integrated governance, IPAA, Brisbane.
Keating, Paul J 1994, 'Reshaping Australian institutions: speech at ANU, 22 February', Canberra.
Management Advisory Committee 2002, Australian Government use of information and communication technology, AGPS, Canberra. http://www.apsc.gov.au/mac/technology.htm
Mulgan, Geoffrey 2002, 'Joined up government in the United Kingdom' Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration, 105, September, pp. 25-9.
Rann, Mike 2002, 'Premier's Ministerial Statement on Public Sector Responsiveness Report', SA House of Assembly, 22 October 2002. (http://www.premcab.sa.gov.au/html/PSReview.html)
Richards, David & Kavanagh, Dennis 2000, 'Can joined-up government be a reality? A case study of the British Labour Government 1997-2000', Paper presented at the Australian Political Science Association 2000 Conference, ANU, Canberra. (http://apsa2000.anu.edu.au/confpapers/richards.rtf)
Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration 1975, Regionalising government administration, Discussion paper 1, AGPS, Canberra.
Scotton, RB & Ferber, Helen (eds) 1978, Public expenditures and social policy in Australia, vol. 1-the Whitlam years 1972-75, Longman Cheshire, Melbourne.
Seidman, Harold & Gilmou, Robert 1986, Politics, position, and power-from the positive to the regulatory state, 4th ed., Oxford University Press, New York.
Smith, William E 1992, 'Planning for the electricity sector in Columbia', in Marvin R Weisbord, ed. Discovering common ground, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Fransicsco.
Special Premiers' Conference Communique 1990, 'Towards a closer partnership, Brisbane, 30-1 October'.
Stewart, Jenny 2000, 'The Howard Government and federalism: the end of an era?' in Gwynneth Singleton, ed. The Howard Government, UNSW Press, Sydney.
Weller, Patrick 1995, 'Commonwealth-State reform processes: a policy management review', Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 95-110
Start of page