Whole of Government

Key chapter findings

Since the release of MAC’s Connecting Government report in 2004 there has been a growing focus on whole of government ways of working in the APS. The APS has responded successfully to a range of cross-agency issues, from one-off crises, to ongoing significant policy challenges. There have also been initiatives to support whole of government at both the cross-agency level and at the individual agency level in the area of Budget and accountability, ICT and capability.

Despite some successes, however, the overall implementation of the Connecting Government report has been disappointing and the report does not appear to have had a fundamental impact on the approach that the APS takes to its work. There are a number of reasons why this is so. Experience with the COAG trials, and with other major whole of government exercises, illustrates that whole of government approaches can be complicated, expensive and difficult to make work—especially for a sustained period of time. They also require a fundamental change in APS culture and in our standard approaches to policy development and programme implementation—such changes require high-level commitment, and even then, will take time to become the norm.

There are a range of areas that require continued attention and action if whole of government operations are to become more firmly embedded in the APS, at both the systems level, and at the level of culture and capability.

One of these areas relates to agencies’ understanding of the application of the Budget and accountability framework to whole of government work. There are still perceptions among employees that Budget arrangements do not fully support joined-up approaches, and also a need for clearer lines of accountability and reporting against whole of government outcomes, highlighted particularly in ANAO’s audit of whole of government Indigenous service delivery arrangements. The current framework does provide significant flexibility, but there also appears to be a need for a more sophisticated understanding of how to apply this flexibility.

There is a strong case for more detailed guidance to be made available to agencies and APS employees involved in whole of government work on the sorts of Budget arrangements that are likely to suit different types of whole of government exercises. The revised guidance to agencies being prepared by Finance in response to ANAO’s performance audit of the application of the outcomes and outputs framework will be particularly important in this regard. There is also a case for stimulating debate among APS leaders on the application of the financial framework to whole of government exercises, and whether there are any barriers that need to be addressed.

There continues to be a need to develop more effective arrangements for cross-agency taskforces. This includes better clarifying issues of authority and responsibility—particularly through the early identification of a lead agency—developing clearer lines of accountability, and more clearly specifying the scope of whole of government exercises. Effective governance arrangements are also essential for whole of government work that involves working with State or Territory Government agencies.

Governance arrangements within agencies that support whole of government work are also important. There is potential to look at the design of our agencies and their incentive structures to see how they can best foster cross-government interaction. A key area for improvement here is in the effectiveness of agencies’ performance management systems. There is potential for agencies to place a much greater priority on ensuring that their performance management systems adequately recognise and reward whole of government work.

Despite the significant activity at the whole-of-APS level, ICT incompatibility is still perceived by some employees as a barrier to whole of government work. Although some issues of incompatibility may need to be dealt with at a whole-of-APS level, there is potential for a much more collaborative approach to ICT across agencies. There is a particular requirement to look at barriers within the current ICT infrastructure to information sharing between APS agencies, and to look at whether we are maximising the potential for coordinated service delivery. Such approaches are fundamental to providing a more streamlined experience of Australian Government services for the community as a whole.

At the level of agency culture, despite some positive results, there are a range of indicators that a whole of government culture is not yet deeply embedded within the APS. Relatively poor perceptions of the tendency of senior managers to collaborate are of particular concern, given that it is the senior leadership within the organisation that sets the tone for whole of government work. The synopsis review of the Indigenous COAG trial evaluations, for example, found that how well Secretaries worked to model a whole of government approach, as opposed to a single agency approach, was a significant factor in supporting the trials.

If the SES is to work more collaboratively they need to have a clear understanding of their role. The SES must see itself as part of a broader APS-wide leadership group. Communicating the importance of working collaboratively with other APS agencies should be a continued priority, particularly for new SES. Attendance at SES orientation courses can also help new SES employees to better understand their role.

A continued focus on capability development in collaborative ways of working is also important. There is potential for more agencies to make training in the area of whole of government a priority, particularly for the SES feeder group. Clearly, however, formal training is not the only avenue. There is a desire among employees for more opportunities to network with employees from other agencies and share experiences. There is also potential to look more strategically at encouraging employees to broaden their experience, particularly at the EL 1 and EL 2 classifications.

Improving the capacity of the APS to work effectively in a whole of government way will be an ongoing exercise—it is not an issue that we will ever be able to declare ‘solved’. The pressures for the APS to be able to implement effective whole of government approaches and new ways of working, including in new and challenging policy areas and, in particular, in dealing with ‘wicked’ problems, continues to grow. The rapid implementation of the National Emergency Response to protect Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory is just one example of the significant challenges that the APS needs to respond to in a coordinated way. Portfolio secretaries, agency heads and the SES have a specific role to play in making collaborative approaches the norm in the APS. However, the onus is on all of the APS to make whole of government work effectively.