We’ve heard how important it is that the Australian Public Service not rely on the Commonwealth’s financial power to achieve outcomes with other levels of government, but rather to focus on collaboration and partnership.
- What are the best ways of bringing together public servants from different levels of government to tackle issues of national significance?
We’ve heard how essential it is to draw on local expertise and diverse insights in shaping decisions and solutions that affect communities and regions.
- How can the Australian Public Service best draw on such expertise and insights to address community or regional issues?
- What is an example of where this is working well?
What does a trusting and respectful partnership between the Australian Public Service and other levels of government look like? What do all parties need to bring to the table? Tell us what you think!
I think this question dovetails nicely into contributing to civil society. If the APS and state and local governments had more 'open' social issues committees it may result in loads of cash being saved, huge innovation and better equality. For example; with the issue of homelessness, there needs to be local action plans created with all three levels of government involved and this not be to 'manager' focused. For example: Within an agency such as DHS , let Customer Service staff attend these meetings and not just El staff.
Government invest significantly in workforce capability at all levels of government and while there is isolated collaboration and partnering in this area, we could be doing much better.
As an example, training offered to our APS regional colleagues through the Australian Public Sector Commission has decreased over time due to a lack of take-up. By partnering with other APS agencies and state and local governments, there is greater opportunity to not only expand national learning and development opportunities but to also foster cross-government collaboration and networking, which is critical to any future services offered by government.
In my current position I am working with the APSC to increase learning and development opportunities in the regions which will not only support my own Department but other agencies within the region. The APSC has been very supportive on this initiative.
yes
I support the idea of using GovTeams as a collaboratively tool. The APSC Workforce Planning and Metrics team is currently trialling a GovTeams community to bring together Workforce Planners and HR practitioners from across Commonwealth, State and Territory Public Services. I think the platform has great potential to foster communication and collaboration while overcoming many of the traditional barriers to collaboration such as travel and time zones.
Local governements(LG) are in place to provide various administrative services for the benefit of the jurisdication, its inhabitants and commercial enterprises.
LGs are the link between the parliaments policy makers and the public but undertaking and enabling these policies to become fact.
We need to be aware the the Public Service(PS) sometimes becomes way too bureaucratic and their effective purpose becomes diluted in all the morass of sytems etc etc. fro eg the health department.
It is essential for LG and the PS to constantly be open to suggestions and implement change when required.
During Child Support Reforms (2005-2008), the Child Support National Stakeholder Engagement Group was established to regularly bring together representatives of groups with different 'stakes' and insights (ie CSA, FaHCSIA, AGs, Courts, Centrelink, Family Relationship Services, Separated Mums and Dads groups and researchers/experts) with Child Support State Stakeholder Engagement Groups established to enable state based engagement for the relevant state based bodies (ie including State Departments). The model saw joint chairing and ownership by the service delivery and policy agencies involved. This model recognised it's not just the public servants who tackle issues, and that they also can't tackle them alone. Everyone had resources, influence and contributions to make to achieving success. The groups (Federal and State/Territory) worked effectively to ensure successful delivery of a highly complex and sensitive policy reform involving many parties with different expertise and insights because trusting and respectful partnerships were developed. Maybe a model to consider.
For pretty much every issue or problem perhaps we need to have the right expertise, the right stakeholders, and all levels of government in the room.
Ideally, especially for regional and remote issues, this room should be mobile and spend time in the affected areas.
I've often noted the change in a person's views after they've spent time in the problem area; for example, politicians visiting remote communities and the SBS program 'go back to where you came from'.
The Australian public are often confused about who federal government, state government or local government are and what services and functions each organisation deals with. From the perspective of a member of the public who for instance is homeless, I don't think it is important that they cannot distinguish the difference, what is important is to deal with homelessness issues seamlessly. Just as important is the need to make sure that funding is sufficient and will meet its purpose.
There is nothing more frustrating than a Centrelink staff member, knowing that the customer they are speaking to is homeless and therefore in dire need of housing, referring the customer to a housing organisation only to find there is nothing available due to lack of funding.
Customers trust that when they are being handed over to the next department that help will be available to fix the issue and staff need to be confident that referrals are dealt with adequately.
Homelessness is a national issue and there should be an overarching department that deals with funding and coordination from a national perspective. This department should be able to work with both federal, state and local governments to ensure that adequate land is set aside for public housing and money is allocated from both state and federal reserves (perhaps in a dollar for dollar agreement) to adequately address the national public housing shortfall.
A subsidiary of this department should be created to deal with those most at risk (prison release, mental health, disability and domestic violence customers) ensuring there are adequate ongoing policies that cover those groups that are likely to fall through the cracks.
The Apolitical website (global network for government) seems like a good model, or perhaps limited solution, for drawing together public servants of all levels and locations on significant topics. The Victorian Public Sector Commission has already commissioned a 'Future of Government' deep dive within Apolitical - perhaps the APS should get on board or create something similar?
Also what about using GovTeams to facilitate national working parties on issues?
Of course, both these solutions facilitate collaboration, they don't necessarily provide the incentives to collaborate, which would require political and possibly financial benefits.
In terms of working together, critical to understand the limitations in different local government areas. For example, desire to be digitally inclusive (#5) means those areas with no internet or mobile coverage will miss out unless there is a different solution.