Download (38.8 KB)Submission to Independent Review of the Australian Public Service (APS)
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the capacity, culture and operating model of the APS. I
commend the government for establishing “an independent review to ensure the APS is fit-for-purpose for
the coming decades”. It is in Australia’s long term national interest to have a public service that is fit-for-
purpose. However, this is easier said than done, given that current approaches to public management (an
umbrella term covering public administration, new public management, and public governance etc) give
reasons for considerable concern.
The limitations of current approaches
Policy issues such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and the pervasive presence of plastic waste have
profound social, economic and ecological consequences. If such consequences are to be avoided or
mitigated, public management must be ecologically sustainable and socially just.
In recent decades public sectors have been the focus of widespread, major and sustained reform, but it is not
clear that capacity for environmental governance (or promoting social justice) has improved.
Public management efforts often fail due to the complexities, uncertainties and contestation involved, with
the significance of this problem captured in the expression ‘fitting a square peg in a round hole’: current
approaches to public management struggle with the complexity and dynamism of ecological systems. Put
simply, Australia’s current approach to public management is not fit for purpose.
Practically, this problem is evident in degrading ecosystems, frequent re-structuring of public sector
agencies, and flawed programs. More broadly, this is evident in the regulatory failures which, for example,
have culminated in the Royal Commission into Banking and Australia’s current waste crisis.
Theoretically, this is evident in the considerable theoretical soul searching about public management that is
going on in the research community (internationally and within Australia) about what kinds of governance
are needed (for example in major academic journals such as Governance, Public Management Review and
Australian Journal of Public Administration).
Clearly, the capacity, culture and operating model of our approaches to public management are not ‘fit-for-
purpose’ to deal with the challenges we face in coming decades. Put simply, Australia’s current approach is
not fit-for-purpose.
Sustainable development as a conceptual focus for the public service
Fiorini (2010, S78) argues that sustainability should provide ‘the conceptual focus for public administration
[management]’ and that by doing so ‘public administrators may achieve a more theoretically complete and
empirically valid foundation for education, research, and practice’.
Such an approach would provide a clear sense of purpose for the public sector and would assist the APS to
tackle the ‘very complex policy problems which it is increasingly being tasked to solve, which are so
complex that they have been called ‘wicked’ (APSC 2007, xviii).
Put simply, sustainable development should be at the conceptual and practical heart of public management.
This is not a mere add on to issues of economy, efficiency, or effectiveness, but instead a through
reimagining of public management.
Governance for sustainable development
The means for developing and implementing such an approach remains a considerable challenge globally, as
well as in Australia.
In relation to government within national boundaries, a core requirement is the establishment of public
management frameworks and settings which provide a means for promoting more sustainable forms of
development.
Hence, there is a considerable need for the development and implementation of frameworks and associated
processes that promote consideration of sustainability. International organisations such as the OECD provide
assistance regarding strategies for promoting sustainable development (OECD, 2002a; OECD, 2002b)
although it is clear that there is much room for improvement. For example, as long ago as 2002 the OECD
(2002c) highlighted the importance of, among other things:
• A clear, widely accepted and operational definition and goal structure for sustainable development;
• A clear commitment within government at the highest level [with this commitment communicated]
throughout the government machinery in order to support the development of a clear strategy;
• This strategy should be enforced by a ‘focal point’ at the centre of government, and non-environmental
policy sectors should be mandated to develop their own sectoral strategies in conformity with the
overarching goals defined; and,
• Citizens should be encouraged to engage in decision making (OECD, 2002c, 31-33).
Embracing the OECD approach would represent a useful starting point for the development of an approach
to public management that provides the APS with a better chance to deliver upon the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDG), established by world leaders on 25 September 2015, to guide development in
both developed and developing countries (United Nations 2015).
The SDG represent the new development agenda, and the overall outcomes towards which the international
community agree are the overarching goals for human societies (Griggs 2013, Thwaites 2015).
In establishing the mechanisms and processes for administering the SDH agenda useful lessons can be
gained from recent experience in Australia and elsewhere, such as recent state level experiments in state
strategic planning (Brueckner and Pffor 2011, Coffey 2013; Coffey 2012; Crowley and Coffey 2007,
Manwaring, 2010) and Sweden’s system of environmental objectives (Swedish Environmental Objectives
Council).
Ecological literacy as a core competency for the public sector
Beyond these broader governing frameworks and process, there is also an important need to focus upon the
knowledge and cultural dimensions. This is because informed decision is critical to ensuring that the APS is
fit for the purpose of meeting future challenges.
Given the serious environmental challenges facing Australia (and other countries) it is critical that governing
institutions, public sector leaders, and core public servants are informed by conceptual models and practices
that are fit for purpose: ecological literacy, defined as “a basic functional education for all people which
provides them with the necessary knowledge, skills, and motives to cope with environmental needs and
contribute to sustainable development” (UNESCO 1989) could provide a basis for a core competency of the
APS.
The capacity of people to make informed decisions is influenced by the knowledge, understandings, and
conceptual models they bring to bear in the decision making processes they are involved in.
The lack of ecological literacy matters because public servants are involved in advising on matters that can
have profound ecological implications. As a way of giving public servants the necessary knowledge and
understanding it is suggested that additional efforts be implemented to improve the ecological literacy of
departmental heads, senior executives, and other public servants: for example, Treasury officials must be
ecologically literate (as well as economically literate).
Dr Brian Coffey
Vice-Chancellor’s Research Fellow
Centre for Urban Research
RMIT University
About the author
The author has a PhD in policy studies and previously worked in the public sector. His research centres on
public policy and governance (as they relate to the environment) and science-policy relations. He is
particularly interested in exploring how issues are conceptualised in policy processes, and the implications
this has for how they are addressed, including the organisational arrangements that are put in place. He has
published in a variety of public policy and environmental policy, planning, and management journals. Prior
to completing his PhD, he worked within the public sector for 17 years in a variety of policy, planning, and
management roles, in both capital city and regional offices.
References
Australian Public Service Commission 2007. Tackling wicked problems: A public policy perspective.
Canberra: Australian Government.
Brueckner M. and Pforr C. (2011) Western Australia’s short-lived ‘sustainability revolution’, Environmental
Politics, 20(4), 585-589.
Coffey B. (2012) Another lost opportunity? Victorian Labor’s enactment of sustainability, Australian
Journal of Public Administration, 71(3), 303-313
Coffey B. (2013) Strategic policy, planning and assessment for sustainability: lessons from Victoria,
Australia, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy, 4(1), 56-74.
Crowley K. & Coffey B. (2007) Policy making for sustainability: Tasmania Together and Growing Victoria
Together compared, Public Administration Today, 10, 48-60.
Fiorini D. (2010) Sustainability as a conceptual focus for public administration, Public Administration
Review, 70(s1), S78-88.
Gallop, G. (2007) Strategic planning: is it the new model? Public Administration Today, 10, 28-33.
Griggs D. et al (2013) Sustainable development goals for people and planet, Nature, 495, 305-307.
Manwaring R. (2010) Unequal voices: ‘strategic’ consultation in South Australia”, Australian Journal of
Public Administration, 69(2), 178-189.
OECD (2002a) Governance for Sustainable Development 5 Case Studies, OECD Headquarters, Paris.
OECD (2002b) Improving Policy Coherence and Integration for Sustainable Development, Policy Brief,
OECD Headquarters, Paris.
OECD (2002c) Working Towards Sustainable Development: The OECD Experience, Policy Brief, OECD
Headquarters, Paris.
Swedish Environmental Objectives Council –www.miljomal.se/Environmental-Objectives-Portal/, viewed
31/7/18
Thwaites J. (2015) The world’s new sustainable development goals, The Conversation, 22/9/15
United Nations (2015) development agenda – www.un.org/sustainable development viewed 24/9/15
UNESCO (1989) Environmental literacy for all. Connect: Environmental Education Newsletter 14.