Australian Government - click here to go to our home page

go to start   text resizing

Australian Public Service Commission
Employment policy and advice - Click to go to the Publications page

related resources

Downloads:

Download the PDF Building better governance

Contents:

on our site

Site help

help with using this site

Site menu

news

Home page
> Publications > Building Better Governance > Building Blocks for Effective Governance > Next: Departmental case studies
> Employment policy and advice
‹ Previous page

Last updated: 1 February 2008

Building Better Governance

Part Two—Building Blocks for Effective Governance

Approaches or models for building better governance differ considerably depending on agency size, complexity, structure and legislative background. Agencies striving for better governance should constantly test and adapt their models to meet changing circumstances.

However, strong governance models are of little value if agencies do not encourage employees to take responsibility for issues within their control and to actively deal with matters as they arise.

It is also vital that agencies have well-established processes for monitoring all aspects of their corporate health and for escalating issues of significant risk, and that they do not sweep bad news under the carpet, but ensure it is resolved by the right people at the right time. A strong focus on building and sustaining effective governance frameworks and on detecting signs of poor governance or failing corporate health can help agencies deal with problems before they develop into serious performance issues.

While there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach, the case studies in Part Three illustrate common themes that are fundamental to successfully implementing better governance. These building blocks reinforce the elements contained in the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) ‘house of public sector governance’ (see Appendix A). In particular, the building blocks support the elements of leadership, ethics and performance culture; stakeholder relationships; risk management; planning and performance monitoring; and review and evaluation of governance arrangements.

The basic building blocks that need to be considered when establishing or reviewing governance arrangements are:

1. Strong Leadership, Culture and Communication

Strong commitment from the top that cascades across the agency

Strong leadership is critical. The case studies highlight the importance of strong leadership by heads of agencies and senior management. For example, several agencies cite the clear direction and support of their Secretary as a crucial success factor. But success also depends on the leadership of the senior executive as a whole. Senior managers must ‘walk the talk’— modelling good governance behaviours and demonstrating a commitment to achieving Government objectives through accountable processes.

Line managers also need to consistently and regularly send the same messages to reinforce the organisation’s governance approaches. All employees must be encouraged to take their governance responsibilities seriously, and be active participants in the agency’s governance processes.

Employees are key players in the organisation. They are ‘on the ground’ and can see where things need to change, what’s going wrong or who is doing the wrong thing.

‘The ‘tone at the top’ strongly influences virtually all elements of governance.’13

An ethical and values-based culture

Excellent leadership must be supported by a strong organisational culture. Clear and ongoing communication about the agency’s governance requirements needs to be coupled with strategies that encourage cultural change where required.

Agencies need to demonstrate to staff how governance systems help improve performance and achieve goals. It is also important that everyone understands the governance system and their responsibilities for contributing to a sound governance culture.

As part of a sound ethical culture, staff should clearly understand their responsibilities under the Public Service Act 1999 to abide by the APS Values and Code of Conduct. Agencies should also have well-understood procedures for dealing with problems or complaints raised by citizens and staff, including whistleblowers’ reports. Procedures should ensure fairness, transparency, independence and appropriate recordkeeping.14

‘Ethics is embedded in culture. Those at a governance level can ensure an ethical culture by modelling desired behaviours, discussing difficult ethical issues, and ensuring consistency between any rules and actual behaviours.’15

Frequent and consistent communication

Communication to all staff about their objectives and responsibilities must be ongoing, consistent and part of all senior management communication to staff including in everyday situations. Information can be made available through speeches, staff meetings, articles in newsletters and on the intranet, performance appraisal discussions and regular discussions about policy and programme development. One way to ensure that a constant and consistent message is sent to all staff is to make a specific area of the agency responsible for governance-related communication.

Employees’ responsibilities

Good governance requires all employees to think carefully about their decisions and actions, and to be interested and active players in their agency’s management and outcomes. It is not an ‘us and them’ situation with only executives and managers responsible for governance matters—everyone in the agency is responsible. The quality of the agency’s governance relies on each employee taking individual responsibility as well as a team effort.

Ongoing training and support for staff

It is essential to provide ongoing training and support for staff responsible for decision- making, programme implementation and financial management. The level of training and support needs to be commensurate with the level of responsibility devolved to staff and the complexity and risk of the decision-making context. Otherwise it is difficult to ensure compliance even with the best-designed governance model.

Training should also cover the APS Values and Code of Conduct. These define the standards of behaviour required by APS staff and cover issues related to governance such as recognising conflicts of interest, maintaining confidentiality, complying with the law and agency directions, and reporting unlawful or unethical behaviour through proper channels.

‘Good governance is enacted through the behaviours and actions of staff at all levels as they contribute to the efficient, effective and ethical delivery of their organisation’s goals.’16

2. Appropriate Governance Committee Structures

Factors influencing committee structure

All agencies use committees to support the agency head in decision-making and governance arrangements. Some committees are mandatory (such as those for audit and occupational health and safety) while others are of an advisory nature only.

The appropriate committee structure for an agency depends on its size, the breadth and diversity of its functions, the complexity of its responsibilities, the nature of its business and its risk profile.

Where an agency is small, where staff are concentrated in one geographic location, and/or where the range of functions is reasonably narrow, communication of key issues across the organisation may be relatively straightforward. Group managers or division heads may meet face-to-face with the agency head (and their deputies) on a weekly or fortnightly basis to raise and deal with matters—requiring only a small number of committees across the agency.

Larger agencies, with a wider geographical spread and/or a greater diversity of functions, typically have more detailed committee structures, including flexibility to deal with complicated (and often urgent) matters that cut across several areas. Larger agencies may grapple with ensuring that many divisions with devolved responsibilities (and sometimes with very different objectives, stakeholders and cultures) operate within a clear, cohesive and integrated governance framework. The case studies include examples of agencies that allow for high levels of devolution but within a structured and centrally controlled framework.

Occasionally, the operation of committees can create confusion regarding accountability issues. A committee’s role should be to advise the agency head or chief governance team, and/or to undertake specific work or make decisions about specific issues. Committees can build agency expertise and share workloads. They should not assume ultimate decision-making power, which is the responsibility of the agency head or chief governance team.

‘In establishing a committee, chief executives must remember that they cannot delegate their ultimate responsibility for governance.’17

Typical committee structure

A fairly typical committee structure in APS agencies includes:

There may also be frequent and regular formal meetings between the agency head and deputies (or their equivalents) and division heads to identify and manage ‘hot’ issues and progress against objectives.

Appendix B depicts an example of a typical governance committee structure and its interaction with the planning processes and day-to-day operation of the agency.

Additional committee structures

In addition to the typical committee structure, agencies examined in the case studies had implemented a range of other oversight or coordinating committees, many of which were sub-committees of the senior executive committee. Matters overseen by such additional committees include:

In some cases, these committees are established to implement specific Government initiatives or complex work cutting across the agency. In other cases, they are formed to oversee programmes or policy areas identified as key risks. These committees are often time-limited.

It is possible for agencies to appoint external members to their committees to provide a broader perspective. The ANAO suggests that appointing external members to audit committees is an effective way of strengthening the committee’s actual and perceived independence.20

Appendix C provides examples of the internal governance committee structures of some of the case study agencies.

Establishing effective committees

Regardless of the committee structure, these best practice protocols should be followed when establishing and operating committees:

‘Confidence in a committee will be enhanced if it has clear and transparent governance arrangements. A regular schedule of meetings, with prearranged dates and written agendas, papers and minutes, as well as a list of actions decided at each meeting, is important. It follows that staff support, including a confidential secretary, should be available. It may also be necessary for the chief executive to arrange for a committee such as an audit committee to be able to seek external professional advice when needed.’21

The review of Department of Defence management released in early 200722 provides some commonsense advice about committees and how to use them most effectively. Although the advice is specifically directed to Defence, it is generally relevant to all agencies, particularly large organisations.

The review notes that the committee system plays a major role in binding together a large and diverse organisation. The review recommends that the guiding principle for committees is to establish and retain only those that contribute to the effective and efficient running of the organisation, and also reduce the pressure and workload on senior staff.

Each committee must have a clear purpose and a clear sense of its strategic obligations. The core questions agencies should ask themselves include:

The review recommends that, while the agency head is the ultimate decision-maker, a top executive committee should set the strategic direction of the agency, advise on significant management and investment decisions, and monitor financial performance and compliance standards.

The review considered that core sub-committees in the Defence context included audit, people management, OH&S and risk management committees. It strongly recommended that committees established for specific purposes or projects should have a sunset clause at which time their existence should be reconsidered.

The review also recommended that rather than seeking representational membership, committees limit membership to those who are essential to reaching informed decisions. Others can be invited to participate on an ‘as needed’ basis. Of course, membership depends on the committee’s role and purpose. For example, if a critical role is to ensure a consistent approach is taken across the agency, representational membership may be appropriate.

3. Clear Accountability Mechanisms

Organisational structure

Clear and unambiguous lines of reporting, accountability and responsibility, both within the organisation and with its stakeholders, are critical to effective governance. Several of the case study agencies had recently reviewed and realigned their organisational structure to achieve this.

In its response to the Uhrig Review, the Government agreed to a central area providing advice on appropriate governance and legislative structures when establishing or reviewing statutory authorities. In this context, the Department of Finance and Administration published whole of government guidance entitled Governance Arrangements for Australian Government Bodies23 in August 2005, to provide a solid platform for informed discussion on governance.

Some agencies have established a particular branch or unit charged with the overall strategic governance of the organisation. Responsibilities of such areas commonly include:

‘…the importance of a good governance framework is that it helps bodies to implement government policies, deliver services well, meet their organisational goals and achieve sustainable outcomes.’24

Managing the relationship with the Minister

A key governance process is the agency’s relationship and communication with the Minister and his or her advisers. The Australian Public Service Commission provides examples of good practice protocols for dealing with Ministers in Appendix 3 of Supporting Ministers, Upholding the Values: A Good Practice Guide25. For example, one department issued General Principles for the Preparation of High Quality Advice to Ministers, and another department prepared documentation setting out the regular meetings that occur between agency officials and the Minister, and how these work.

‘Managing the relationship with the responsible Minister, and through him or her with the government as a whole, is a critical element of public sector governance.’26

Relationships with portfolio entities

The accountability relationship between the Minister, the head of the portfolio and agency heads is particularly important. The exact nature of that relationship is generally defined by the legislative framework surrounding the establishment and operation of the portfolio entities, but within any framework sound communication plays a central role.

In his review of statutory authorities and office holders, John Uhrig identified a number of factors causing ineffective governance in some authorities, including ‘unclear boundaries in their delegation, a lack of clarity in their relationships with Ministers and portfolio departments, and a lack of accountability for the exercise of their power’. The review suggests that such problems often arise due to a ‘hands-off ’ approach assumed by many when dealing with statutory authorities.27

Clearly articulated responsibilities and lines of reporting are required, along with communication through both formal and informal mechanisms. Written protocols can assist by detailing the processes for identifying high risk problems and notifying the departmental Secretary and Minister of pertinent issues.

4. Working Effectively Across Organisational Boundaries

Relationships with external stakeholders

APS agencies are accountable to the general public through the Parliament as well as to the Government. The success of relationships that agencies develop with stakeholders, including the public, is affected by the agency’s reputation of integrity, openness and accountability. On a practical level, stakeholders need to trust that decisions affecting them are made consistently and openly, and that they will be dealt with in a consistent way by all parts of the agency.

Agencies need to ensure that they can explain and defend their decision-making and that they have clear procedures for dealing consistently and equitably with stakeholders. Agencies can develop organisation-wide protocols and checklists for dealing with external stakeholders. Protocols may include service standards or charters, and systems for monitoring complaints and identifying systemic issues. Regular stakeholder surveys can measure satisfaction levels.

‘Relationships with stakeholders need to be reflected formally in governance structures to provide adequate communication flows and manage possible conflicts of interest’.28

Whole of government approaches

The governance implications of whole of government approaches centre on the need to know ‘who is responsible for what; whether there is a common goal or whether agencies have discrete responsibilities; and which agency provides the leadership’.29

According to the Auditor-General for Australia, challenges in whole of government arrangements may include a lack of clear leadership; blurred lines of accountability; difficulties in measuring overall effectiveness and impact; and transitional costs and some level of duplication in ongoing administrative costs.30

Whole of government approaches require management and coordination of governance, particularly accountability arrangements, across a range of boundaries, especially agency boundaries and sometimes state or local government sectors.

Agencies should develop written protocols or Memoranda of Understanding to document the responsibilities of the various parties. Useful guidance about consultation and accountability arrangements can be found in the document Working Together produced by the Management Advisory Committee.31

There is a need for careful choice of the appropriate structures to support whole of government work, and these are discussed in the Management Advisory Committee report on Connecting Government32. Structures and processes must be matched to the task—no one size fits all. For example, if there is deep contention between portfolios, or in the community, and tight timeframes are involved, a dedicated taskforce under strong leadership and working directly to the Prime Minister, a senior Minister or a Cabinet committee may produce better outcomes than a more standard interdepartmental committee.

Cross-portfolio work can particularly challenge the budgeting and accountability framework. The Department of Finance and Administration should be consulted at an early stage in the development of major cross-portfolio initiatives to ensure that the flexibility that is possible in the existing outcomes and outputs budget framework is maximised and used to facilitate a cross-portfolio approach.

‘Business and the wider community reasonably expects that government programmes and services will be delivered, increasingly, in a seamless way; and this includes cross-government or jurisdictional boundaries.’33

Devolved governance arrangements

Agencies increasingly deliver services with and through non-government bodies or networked government arrangements with the states and territories. While the actual service delivery may be outsourced, accountability and risk management cannot be outsourced— ultimate responsibility lies with the APS agency concerned.

Effective, responsive and sustainable devolved governance requires agencies to develop strong accountability frameworks that emphasise the importance of standards which can be contractual and/or set through service charters and other governance arrangements. The standards are enforced through administrative review and performance management regimes.

At an operational level, agencies involved in such arrangements have devised and implemented a number of control mechanisms to assist them to meet their own accountability requirements as well as the Government’s accountability to service users and the general community. Broadly, these control mechanisms are intended to leave the provider free to manage the delivery process but still be accountable to public servants for specified outputs and for meeting targets or indicators. The APS, in turn, is accountable for setting and monitoring these indicators, and should build evaluation and review into contracts and regulations to ensure accountability frameworks are rigorous.

It is important, however, that performance measures, especially lower level indicators, are set in such a way that they do not undermine the responsiveness of more complex devolved governance arrangements. There is a danger that excessive direction and compliance can stifle innovation and flexibility. A balance needs to be struck between proper levels of accountability and allowing third-party providers some measure of flexibility and responsiveness to their clients. There is no one appropriate governance arrangement, but rather a spectrum of control possibilities, against which agencies will need to develop the arrangements that are particular to their situation. A focus on genuine outcomes rather than narrow targets, however, is likely to be appropriate.

5. Comprehensive Risk Management, Compliance and Assurance Systems

Comprehensive and flexible systems

Agencies should recognise the importance of having flexible compliance, decision-making and risk management systems to allow for changes in leadership, objectives, direction, resources and risk. Without inbuilt flexibility, there is the possibility that agencies may simply use a ‘tick-box’ approach which could encourage complacency followed by major problems.

‘Strong, transparent and well communicated governance mechanisms like risk and fraud plans, business or budget committees, audit committees, and structured HR mechanisms, together with an emphasis on integrity and ethics, combine to form the cement which binds together the other characteristics needed for organisational confidence.’ 34

Risk management

Risk management underpins any agency’s approach to achieving its objectives. An important responsibility of any Government body is the effective and efficient use of Commonwealth resources. This aim can be aided by sound risk management practices. To increase the likelihood of achieving desired outcomes, informed decisions should be made based on evaluation of the associated risks.

All agencies need to establish and implement sound systems for risk oversight and management and internal control, and these systems should be integrated into the business planning process. Systems should be designed to identify, assess, monitor and manage risk throughout the agency. They also need to provide mechanisms for staff to report risks to senior management.

Agencies examined in the case studies incorporated risk management as a key component of good governance.

While the risk management system should be comprehensive—and the recordkeeping system appropriately detailed—regular, concise reports on how the agency is tracking in key risk areas should also be provided to the agency’s senior executive. Some agencies have adopted a one-page reporting format, with further detail available if required.

‘Risk management should not be an annual ‘set and forget’ exercise. A well-governed organisation regularly revisits its risks, measures the occurrence of any events identified as contributing to risks, and has in place strategies for risk mitigation.’35

Audit committees

Under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act) and the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (CAC Act), each agency must establish an audit committee to independently review and consider its operations and competence as well as the integrity of its accounts.

Audit committees are an important tool for identifying and monitoring risks to the agency. Generally they are responsible for overseeing an agency’s risk management and internal control framework, its external accountability and other legislative compliance responsibilities.

Detailed guidance on establishing and operating public sector audit committees is available in the ANAO better practice guide Public Sector Audit Committees.36

‘An Audit Committee plays a pivotal role in the governance framework of organisations in both the public and private sectors.’37

Compliance and decision-making tools

Agencies can introduce a range of tools and systems to enhance their compliance and decision-making processes. These include written guidelines and protocols, checklists, and help and advice from corporate areas. Several agencies examined in the case studies had developed organisation-wide written protocols for dealing with issues such as financial management, procurement and programme management.

Chief Executive’s Instructions (CEIs) are a particularly useful tool to ensure that the agency’s financial accountability and governance arrangements are aligned to its operational and legal needs. They often form the core of agencies’ accountability requirements. The Management Advisory Committee’s review of red tape in the APS38 highlights theimportance of reviewing and simplifying CEIs to ensure they are readily understood and adopted throughout the agency.

Documenting protocols and procedures can be particularly important even when agencies have long-standing, highly experienced staff. Their knowledge can be taken for granted and, as a result, knowledge transfer and recording of procedures can be neglected. Detailed documentation of procedures is equally important where there is high staff turnover.

‘Good recordkeeping is also essential to accountability. All significant decisions or actions need to be documented to a standard that would withstand independent scrutiny. Proper recordkeeping allows others to understand the reasons why a decision was made or an action taken and can guide future decision-makers.’39

6. Strategic Planning, Performance Monitoring and Evaluation

Planning and review mechanisms

Strategic planning and performance monitoring, reviews and evaluations are all essential tools for ensuring agencies regularly ‘reality check’ their governance systems and identify potential risks that could affect their ability to achieve outcomes.

An agency’s characteristics—its budget, staff, culture, objectives and environment—may change over time, even without significant events such as changes of policy or Government. Agencies must have systems in place which allow changing needs and circumstances to be identified quickly; current systems to be assessed against their ability to meet new needs; and new approaches to be investigated and implemented as necessary.

Strategic planning

As part of normal business practice, agencies generally develop a business plan each year. Agencies should have an integrated framework for business planning which cascades from strategic priorities to divisional priorities and activities.

These goals are then distilled into individual performance and development plans. This allows every employee to see exactly how their individual work affects their team goals, their division’s goals and their agency’s goals. It also shows how working towards these goals helps achieve the agency’s overall priorities.40

Performance monitoring and evaluation

Agencies should have systems in place that allow ongoing monitoring of performance. This includes internal audits and reviews of processes to ensure accurate information and quality assurance against agreed performance measures.

Performance measures should cover the effective and efficient delivery of Government policy and programme objectives as well as the internal management of the agency. Detailed guidance can be found in the Department of Finance and Administration document Performance Reporting Under Outcomes and Outputs.41

An agency’s monitoring and evaluation plan should be a rolling schedule which supports regular reviews of programmes and policies to inform future funding requirements.

Programmes, procedures and policy—including operational policy—should also be regularly reviewed to gauge their effectiveness in delivering desired outcomes, and to ensure that they are operating efficiently. They should also be examined for appropriateness—the extent to which the programme/policy objectives align with Government priorities. The monitoring and evaluation framework should also integrate risk management, resource allocation and performance reporting.42

Agency health

Processes for monitoring corporate health need to be an integral part of an agency’s governance framework. Assessing corporate health goes beyond measuring the current effectiveness of the agency in meeting its agreed performance measures. Corporate health covers all aspects of an agency’s governance. It includes issues such as how an organisation is managed, its corporate and other structures, its culture, its policies and strategies, and the way it deals with its various stakeholders. Monitoring the health of an agency allows agencies to ‘take the pulse’ of their organisation, and to identify early warning signs that they may be at risk of poor performance.

Six broad areas of corporate health are central to the early identification of agencies at risk of poor performance. These areas cover the broad spectrum of governance issues and include organisational direction, leadership, organisational capability, corporate governance processes, relationships and integrity, and organisational culture. There are also some issues that are specific to the public sector.

Against each of these areas there are key indicators of corporate health associated with organisations that perform well, and with agencies at risk of poor performance. For example, in an agency with high levels of corporate health, there is likely to be an awareness of, and focus on, core business throughout the organisation. Conversely, in an agency at risk of poor performance, there may be poor communication of organisational purpose, strategies and vision.

The Commission’s publication Agency Health—Monitoring Agency Health and Improving Performance43 deals with these issues in more detail and provides a checklist to facilitate agency discussions on corporate health. The checklist provides a detailed list of corporate health indicators associated with organisations that perform well, and those associated with agencies at risk of poor performance. It also provides ideas for how agencies can assess their corporate health.

7. Flexible and Evolving Principles-based Systems

Principles-based rather than rule-driven

Rules are necessary, but an organisation that is strictly bound by rules may not be able to respond appropriately to unusual, complex or new circumstances. An understanding of the policies and objectives behind the rules allows sound decision making rather than decision making by a ‘tick-box’ approach alone.

The case studies highlight the potential benefits of a stronger focus on a principles-based approach, leading to greater flexibility and responsiveness to Government needs. This also increases senior management’s ability to apply a broader, future-oriented strategic approach, including to whole of government issues.

Tackling wicked problems

The need for a flexible approach to traditional governance arrangements is most clearly highlighted in dealing with what are sometimes called ‘wicked’ policy problems. These problems share a range of characteristics—they go beyond the capacity of any one organisation to understand and respond, and there is often disagreement about the causes of the problems and about the best way to tackle them.

Very often, part of the solution to wicked problems involves achieving sustained behavioural change by some groups of citizens or by all citizens. There are numerous examples including dealing with obesity, climate change, Indigenous disadvantage or land degradation. For these problems, a traditional approach to governance which attempts to clearly identify specific outcomes and outputs, implementation plans and performance targets may lead to these types of wicked problems being handled too narrowly or the emergence of unintended consequences.

For wicked problems to be handled successfully, governance structures need to support holistic approaches, focus accountability on the whole of government outcomes the Government is seeking, and allow for the engagement of stakeholders and citizens. Performance measurement and evaluation needs to avoid a narrow ‘bean counting’ approach to whether the government’s objectives are being met, and take into account the likely need for longer time frames for results to become apparent.

There are no easy answers as to what the best governance arrangements for dealing with wicked problems are. It is important for agencies to look for a balance between achieving necessary levels of accountability and ensuring that governance arrangements do not stifle flexibility, innovation and collaboration. The Commission’s Tackling Wicked Problems— A Public Policy Perspective44 publication also deals with these issues.

‘Travelling the road of good corporate governance won’t guarantee success, but not travelling upon it will almost certainly guarantee failure.’45

 

13 ANAO, 2003, Public Sector Governance, Volumes 1 & 2: Better Practice Guide, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p. 15 <http://www.anao.gov.au/uploads/documents/Public_Sector_Governance.zip>

14 Australian Public Service Commission, 2001, Circular No 2001/4: Whistleblowers’ reports, <http://www.apsc.gov.au/circulars/circular014.htm>

15 Bartos, S., 2004, Public Sector Governance—Australia, Sydney, p. 40–101

16 ANAO, 2003, Public Sector Governance, Volumes 1 & 2: Better Practice Guide, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p. 1 <http://www.anao.gov.au/uploads/documents/Public_Sector_Governance.zip>

17 Bartos, S., 2004, Public Sector Governance—Australia, Sydney, p. 80–000.

18 ANAO, 2005, Public Sector Audit Committees: Having the Right People is the Key, Better Practice Guide, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. <http://www.anao.gov.au/director/publications/betterpracguides.cfm?pageNumber=2>

19 Occupational Health and Safety Act 1991. <http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/management.nsf/lookupindexpagesbyid/IP200401538?OpenDocument>

20 ANAO, 2005, Public Sector Audit Committees: Having the Right People is the Key, Better Practice Guide, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. <http://www.anao.gov.au/director/publications/betterpracguides.cfm?pageNumber=2>

21 Bartos, S., 2004, Public Sector Governance—Australia, Sydney, p. 80–110.

22 Proust, E., Ritchie, C., Kallir, A., Azarias, J., 2007, Report of the Defence Management Review, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. <www.defence.gov.au/dmr>

23 Department of Finance and Administration, 2005, Governance Arrangements for Australian Government Bodies, Financial Management Reference Material No. 2, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. p.v <http://www.finance.gov.au/finframework/governance.html>

24 Ibid, p.v

25 Australian Public Service Commission, 2006, Supporting Ministers, Upholding the Values: A Good Practice Guide, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. <http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications06/supportingministers.htm>

26 Bartos, S., 2004, Public Sector Governance—Australia, Sydney, p 10–030

27 Uhrig, J., 2003, Review of the Corporate Governance of Statutory Authorities and Office Holders, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p. 5 <http://www.finance.gov.au/governancestructures/docs/The_Uhrig_Report_July_2003.pdf>

28 ANAO, 2003, Public Sector Governance, Volumes 1 & 2: Better Practice Guide, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p. 17 <http://www.anao.gov.au/uploads/documents/Public_Sector_Governance.zip>

29 McPhee, Ian, Auditor-General for Australia, 2007, Governance: the ANAO’s Contribution to Making it Happen, speech delivered to the Queensland Regional Heads Forum, 18 May 2007.

30 Ibid.

31 Management Advisory Committee, 2005, Working Together: Principles and Practices to Guide the Australian Public Service, Commonwealth Government, Australia, <http://www.apsc.gov.au/mac/workingguide.htm>

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

33 McPhee, Ian, Auditor-General for Australia, 2007, Governance: the ANAO’s Contribution to Making it Happen, speech delivered to the Queensland Regional Heads Forum, 18 May 2007

34 Stanton, M. 2007, Building Confident Organisations: Looking Forward, Looking Back, in Public Administration Today, Issue 11: April – June 2007, Institute of Public Administration Australia, p. 15

35 Bartos, S., 2004, Public Sector Governance—Australia, Sydney, p. 110–080

36 ANAO, 2005, Public Sector Audit Committees: Having the Right People is the Key, Better Practice Guide, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. <http://www.anao.gov.au/director/publications/betterpracguides.cfm?pageNumber=2>

37 Ibid.

38 Management Advisory Committee (MAC) Report, 2007, Reducing Red Tape in the Australian Public Service, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. <http://www.apsc.gov.au/mac/redtape.htm>

39 Australian Public Service Commission, 2003, APS Values and Code of Conduct in Practice: A Guide to Official Conduct for APS Employees and Agency Heads, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. <http://www.apsc.gov.au/values/conductguidelines.htm>

40 Murphy, J., 2007, Undertaking a Governance Review, paper to the Ethical Leadership and Governance in the Public Sector Conference, May 10 2007, Canberra.

41 Department of Finance and Administration, 2003, Performance Reporting Under Outcomes and Outputs, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. <http://www.finance.gov.au/budgetgroup/Commonwealth_Budget_-_Overview/performance_ reporting.html>

42 Murphy, J., 2007, Undertaking a Governance Review, paper to the Ethical Leadership and Governance in the Public Sector Conference, May 10 2007, Canberra.

43 Australian Public Service Commission, 2007, Agency Health—Monitoring Agency Health and Improving Performance, <http://www.apsc.gov.au>

44 Australian Public Service Commission, 2007, Tackling Wicked Problems—A Public Policy Perspective, <http://www.apsc.gov.au>

45 Abetz, Senator The Hon Eric, 2003, The Role of Corporate Governance in Improving Transparency and Accountability in the Public Sector, p.8