print this page
© Copyright Commonwealth of Australia - Australian Public Service Commission
Home page
> State of the Service reports
> State of the Service Report 2005-06 > Whole of government > Key chapter findings > Next: Key chapter findings
‹ Previous page
Last updated: 30 November 2006
Chapter 10: Whole of government
Abbreviations
A list of the abbreviations used in this report is available in the Glossary
Whole of government culture and capability
Agency culture and capability critically shape the success of whole of government activities.The challengefor the APS is to create a service-wide bias towards looking for wider whole of government objectives. Making sure that the right capabilities are in place for whole of government work needs to be a theme in workforce planning across the APS, including through recruitment and induction, learning and development activities and performance management.
Building a whole of government culture
Building a whole of government culture means encouraging public servants to move beyond agency- bounded limits to their thinking, and to embrace problem solving that is integrated, efficient and focused on achieving shared outcomes across portfolios, and across jurisdictional boundaries. Experience shows the ongoing importance of issues of culture and working relationships to the success of on-the-ground operations of whole of government endeavours (e.g. the ICCs).
Most SES and EL respondents to the employee survey (77%) dealt regularly with people from other public service agencies, with a significant proportion of this group also dealing with different levels of government—41% with state and/or territory agencies, and 14% with local government agencies. Only 20% had none of these interactions.
The level of formal participation in whole of government activities is, however, much lower. Of SES and EL employees who dealt directly with other agencies, 13% reported having been a member of a task force, 22% reported having been part of an inter-departmental committee, and 16% reported having been a member of a joint team. Sixty-one per cent had had no involvement in such arrangements.
Developing a whole of government culture is of course relevant to all employees. Nevertheless, agencies may need to have a particular focus on the group of employees who are at the whole of government ‘front line’.
Agency support and guidance for collaborative activity
Agencies are increasingly recognising the need to provide support and guidance for collaborative activity (see Table 10.1). Requirements that employees maintain adequate records and report back to other employees in their agency are the most widespread, followed by procedures for ensuring that employees have the appropriate authority to express views on behalf of their agency. However, less than half of agencies have procedures for ensuring that employees have the relevant skills, knowledge and authority to participate in multi-agency decision-making forums.
| 2003–04 % | 2004–05 % | 2005–06 % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedures for ensuring that employees have the relevant skills/knowledge and authority to participate in such forums | 29 | 35 | 40 |
| Requirement that relevant employees maintain records of discussions, decisions and actions of the forum or structure | 48 | 63 | 63 |
| Procedures for ensuring that employees have the appropriate authority to express views on behalf of agency | 46 | 54 | 58 |
| Requirement that Minister(s) are briefed on relevant issues | 45 | 54 | 55 |
| Requirement that agency representatives report back to other employees in your agency | 59 | 61 | 63 |
| Access via your agency’s Intranet to the Working Together document a | - | 38 | 48 |
(a) Working Together is a publication by MAC released in March 2005 that provides broad guidance on the handling of whole of government communication, organisation, standards of behaviour and inter-agency working arrangements. Source: Agency survey |
|||
SES and EL employees who had been involved in structured whole of government activities were generally positive about the underpinning governance structures for these arrangements. In particular:
- 90% were required to report back to other employees in their agency
- 77% were required to maintain records of discussions, decisions and actions of the forum or structure
- 67% were required to ensure that they had the appropriate authority to participate in the forum or structure.
Only 52% were required to brief Ministers on relevant issues. This may reflect the nature of the issues being dealt with by the particular forum. This result is an increase on the 36% of relevant employees who indicated such a requirement in 2005.
Employees expressed mixed judgments on how collaborative and well supported formal whole of government structures had been in practice (see Table 10.2). Fewer relevant employees believed that participants are primarily focused on solving whole of government priorities, than believed that participants are primarily focused on meeting agency-specific objectives.
As discussed above, the results indicate some concerns about the quality of budgetary and ICT systems. Only 51% of respondents believed that participants pool resources where necessary. The proportion of employees believing that participants are supported by adequate ICT infrastructure was also relatively low, although there was a marked improvement on last year’s result of 45%.
The best results were for participants sharing information and actively trying to work across boundaries to make sure outcomes are achieved. In the latter case, this was a significant increase on the 2005 results (62%).
| Agree % | Neither agree nor disagree % | Disagree % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Participants are primarily focused on meeting agency-specific objectives | 67 | 18 | 15 |
| Participants are primarily focused on solving whole of government priorities | 54 | 25 | 21 |
| Participants actively try to work across boundaries to make sure outcomes are achieved | 72 | 20 | 8 |
| Participants share information relevant to the project/issue | 78 | 14 | 8 |
| Participants pool resources where necessary | 51 | 32 | 16 |
| Participants are supported by adequate information and communications infrastructure | 61 | 24 | 13 |
| Source: Employee survey | |||
The majority of SES and EL employees whose job required them to deal directly with people from other public service agencies believe that their agency’s culture encourages a constructive approach to collaboration (see Figure 10.1). Employees were more likely to believe that their agency culture encouraged a cooperative approach to collaboration if they were located in the ACT.
Figure 10.1: Views of SES and EL employees whose job required them to deal directly with people from other public service agencies, on whether their agency’s culture encouraged a constructive approach to collaboration, 2003–04 to 2005–06
Source: Employee survey
These results are very good with 78% of SES and EL employees dealing with other public service agencies indicating that their agency always or usually encouraged a constructive approach to collaboration. However, results ranged from a low of 55% to a high of 95%. Large agencies where a significantly higher proportion of relevant employees reported that their agency always or usually encouraged collaboration were AGD, DEST, DAFF and DFAT.
Of the four agencies whose results were significantly above the APS average, three—DEST, DAFF and DFAT—provided detailed comments to the Commission on how they had promoted whole of government work within their agency, indicating a strong link between active promotion and employee views. These included:
- DAFF using its leadership alumni to assess its whole of government activities and capability and developing a whole of government policy statement
- DEST emphasising whole of government as a key strategy in its strategic plan, introducing a Secretary’s Award for Excellence in Whole of Government, and re-designing its training programmes to include emphasis on improving the capability of its employees to undertake whole of government activities
- DFAT promoting relevant publications, using an administrative circular to encourage staff to think strategically about meeting whole of government interests in their work, and integrating whole of government issues into departmental training programmes and performance agreement templates for managers.
In line with the generally high levels of agreement that their agency behaves collaboratively, agency heads are putting significant emphasis on communicating the importance of whole of government to their senior leadership teams. SES respondents were significantly more likely to agree that their agency head had communicated to them the importance of working collaboratively with other agencies in 2006 than in 2005 (95% compared to 83%).
Employees involved in service delivery also indicate that there have been improvements in their agency’s cooperation with other APS agencies. Forty-seven per cent of employees involved in service delivery reported an improvement in cooperation between their agency and other APS agencies over the last 12 months that had improved their work area’s capacity to tailor service delivery to the needs of their clients, a substantial increase over the 2005 result of 35%.
Employees made a number of comments about their involvement in whole of government exercises. In particular, they stressed the need for greater communication and the need for simple processes for sharing information.
Some employees raised the need to clearly identify goals and responsibilities. This is a point that has also been identified in a review for MAC of the implementation of Connecting Government. The review found problems are encountered where there is insufficient clarity and specificity in the upfront setting of shared outcomes and objectives, with this issue having the potential to detract from the success of particular whole of government endeavours. It also stressed the need to ensure that employees have the appropriate authority to express views on behalf of an agency.
Animal diseases pay little heed to jurisdictional, legal and agency boundaries. A whole of government approach, across government and between jurisdictions, is critical to prepare for and manage an emergency response.
DAFF has in place established and robust national arrangements for such emergencies that include Australian Government agencies, the states and territories, and industry in a framework that addresses policy, planning, public communications, and border protection. Lessons learnt from national exercises and responses to emergencies such as Newcastle disease, citrus canker, anthrax in cattle, and wheat streak mosaic virus, have strengthened these arrangements and extended the capability of response staff, as well as ensuring the early engagement of key government and industry stakeholders.
In 2002, COAG recognised that a foot and mouth disease outbreak in Australia would require a comprehensive management approach because of the immediate implications of export trade ceasing in livestock and livestock products and the long-term consequences to local and regional communities and the national economy in general. In response, DAFF led the development of a national framework and conducted a nationally coordinated exercise known as Exercise Minotaur to evaluate our preparedness for a possible outbreak.
The release of Connecting Government coincided with the escalation of disease emergency and biosecurity issues, in particular the emergence of H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza (bird flu) as a threat to animal and human health. To remain well-prepared, a second national exercise, known as Exercise Eleusis, was held at the end of 2005 to simulate a zoonotic disease outbreak of bird flu in poultry.
DAFF is responsible for the coordination and administration of the National Management Group, which has ultimate decision-making responsibility in the event of an emergency. The group is comprised of chief executives of Australian Government, state and territory primary industry departments and chief executives of industry bodies. Where appropriate, an inter-departmental committee involving key Commonwealth agencies is also convened to coordinate response eff orts and facilitate information transfer.
An agreement between the Australian, state and territory governments and industry, known as the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement, assigns responsibilities, activities and functions necessary for preparedness and response to an animal disease threat. The agreement encompasses cost sharing arrangements that can be invoked in the event of an emergency.
DAFF has developed a Critical Incident Response Plan that underpins its internal response to a critical incident. The plan emphasises clear coordination arrangements, cross-portfolio, cross- government and national involvement, and information sharing. A National Rapid Response Team has been established to respond to jurisdictional calls for assistance with the establishment of Emergency Animal Disease control arrangements. A national communications network charged with information dissemination and exchange, and crisis communication at times of national emergency, has also been established
Cross-agency support
Agency efforts to support a whole of government culture have been reinforced by a number of activitiesat cross-agency level.
In particular, MAC released a statement in October 2005, outlining its expectations for the SES across a range of matters titled, One APS—One SES.5 The statement specifically emphasises the responsibility of the SES to:
- position their work in its context, to know the business of their organisation and of the Government, and to contribute to the agency’s broader responsibilities in the Australian community and abroad
- connect with other agencies to leverage better outcomes, including through whole of government strategies.
The statement emphasises the fundamental role of the SES in making effective whole of government ways of working happen. The SES cadre is expected to work effectively across agencies and jurisdictions to deliver outcomes within the framework established by their statutory responsibilities. SES employees must actively foster a supportive culture and capabilities.
The One APS—One SES statement was distributed to every member of the SES. The Australian Public Service Commissioner also sends a copy of One APS—One SES to all newly appointed SES.
A further mechanism to reinforce the whole of government message across the APS is the Connected Government website, launched in August 2005 to help Australian public servants work more effectively across Government departments and agency boundaries, and promote the benefits of cross-agency approaches.
The website was a key recommendation of MAC’s Connecting Government report. It includes practical guidance and examples to assist public service employees to work across multiple agencies, and provides users with links to guides, tools, directories, training information, and research and reports.
The website has been well used, with an average of over 1300 unique visitors to the site every month since it was launched in August 2005. The Connected Government website is available on the Internet at: www.apsc.gov.au/connectedgovernment.
Building whole of government capability
Developing the right capabilities is essential to effective whole of government working. Project management, contract management and financial management are all important for the delivery of whole of government programmes on the ground, as are negotiation and relationship management skills.
Training
There has been a substantial degree of activity in developing whole of government capability at agency level in 2005–06. Just over half (51%) of agencies had redesigned training programmes or refocused training objectives to specifically improve employee capability in undertaking whole of government activities during 2005–06. A further four agencies (5%) were developing such initiatives.
Agencies who were redesigning training programmes or refocusing training objectives put the greatest priority on relationship management, project/programme/contract management, and communications—72% of these agencies placed a high or very high priority on these skill sets. Other high priority skills sets included clarifying and specifying shared outcomes, objectives and priorities (60%), ICT, and Budget/ financial management (both 58%), team building (53%) and records management (51%).
Agencies were least likely to view building negotiation/mediation and change/conflict management skills as a priority for their agency (33% and 23% of relevant agencies stated that these areas had not been a priority in 2005–06).
In addition to activity at agency level, the Commission has had a particular focus on whole of government capability development in the design of a suite of new learning programmes and opportunities for the SES. All new programmes are underpinned by the theme of developing whole of government capability, and the concepts and principles outlined in One APS—One SES are woven throughout the programmes (the programmes are outlined in more detail in Chapter 7).
The Commission has also organised ‘Getting Connected’, a series of seminars on whole of government issues for small groups at the EL 2 and SES classifications. Six seminars were delivered in 2005–06, with a total of 143 attendees representing 52 agencies.
Experience and exposure
A common theme emerging from MAC’s Connecting Government and Managing and Sustaining the APS Workforce, is the need for potential leaders to take steps to broaden their experience and exposure. In some cases, this will be through working in different environments to assist potential leaders to work productively across agencies, other jurisdictions and non-government organisations (both private and not-for-profit). This might include moves between agencies and sectors, or more internally focused opportunities.
APS-wide inter-agency mobility rates (transfers and promotions) have varied considerably over the past decade, with some fluctuations, falling from 3.3% in 1997–98 to 1.6% in 2003–04. However, mobility rates have now risen for two years in a row, to 2.7% in 2005–06. Although it is premature to suggest that this represents a reversal of the previous trend, the growth in mobility is encouraging. Engagements of people from outside the APS at higher classifications have also increased significantly over the period, bringing a wider range of experience and skills to the APS, with some APS employees returning to the APS having gained experience in other sectors.
Reflecting a commitment made in the context of Managing and Sustaining the APS Workforce, portfolio secretaries and agency heads, in consultation with the Australian Public Service Commissioner, are undertaking systematic career planning discussions with SES Band 2 and 3 employees and arranging mobility opportunities where these are deemed appropriate. Managing and Sustaining the APS Workforce also commits agencies to consider their employees’ need for, and opportunities to pursue mobility, as part of their regular performance management processes. The APS employment portal being developed by the Commission will include a facility for APS and external organisations to advertise rotation and mobility opportunities and for employees to express interest in accessing such opportunities. MAC will be reviewing the implementation of Managing and Sustaining the APS Workforce annually.
AGD—Document Verification Service
As part of the National Identity Security Strategy, AGD, in collaboration with DFAT, DIMA, Centrelink, the Births, Deaths and Marriage Registries and Road Traffic Authorities in NSW and the ACT, commenced implementation of the national Documentation Verification Service which will allow authorised government agencies to check Australian passports, citizenship certificates, birth certificates and drivers’ licences online and in real time.
DCITA—M2006 Commonwealth Games Taskforce
The taskforce, set up within DCITA, played a major role in assisting the Minister for the Arts and Sport to coordinate Australian Government involvement in the Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth Games.
DHS—Health and Social Services Card
DHS worked with 14 government departments and multiple agencies to develop a proposal and business case for a health and social service access card, which received government approval to proceed in April 2006.
PM&C—Response to Cyclones Larry and Monica
PM&C coordinated the Australian Government response to Cyclones Larry and Monica across a raft of departments as well as a range of COAG and other taskforces.
DEWR and Centrelink—Welfare to Work
DEWR was the lead agency in coordinating the whole of government implementation of Welfare to Work measures, designed to increase workforce participation and employment and reduce welfare dependence for working age Australians.
Centrelink developed a governance model for inter-departmental collaboration with DEWR, FaCSIA, DEST and DIMA, to implement the Welfare to Work reforms.
FaCSIA—Indigenous Affairs
FaCSIA developed a comprehensive eight-point strategy in partnership with other agencies and three state and territory governments to address petrol sniffing in Central Australia.
Health—COAG agreements
Health, working closely with PM&C, other Australian Government departments and state and territory governments contributed to the development of major COAG agreements in the areas of mental health and the health workforce.
ABS—National Statistical Service (NSS)
ABS, on behalf of a consortium of federal and state government agencies, expanded and improved the NSS to provide a national platform for acquiring, sharing and integrating data relevant to policy and research.
- Management Advisory Committee 2005, Senior Executive Service of the Australian Public Service: One APS—One SES, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
