Kenneth Coghill & David Spratt

Comment on Proposal 2, APS Review Priorities for change by Ken Coghill.

Proposal 2 Secretaries Board driving outcomes across government and

APS performance: comments.
The APS Review invites people to “visit our website, challenge our assumptions, test our

thinking, and have your say.” This invitation is severely qualified by the structure of the website

which channels comments into five (5) categories (Box 1),

Box 1. Screenshot < https://www.apsreview.gov.au/> as at 19th April 2019.

1
Comment on Proposal 2, APS Review Priorities for change by Ken Coghill.

Our comments will go to broader, over-arching issues which do not fit neatly into these proposals but

are fundamental to ensuring that “the Australian Public Service is fit-for-purpose in the decades

ahead”1 and answering the three (3) questions:
■ How can we strengthen each proposal?
■ What are we missing?
■ How do we ensure lasting change?2

Somewhat confusingly each webpage opens to a proposal with a title different from that of the

webpage. Further adding to confusion is the incomplete correspondence between the four (4)
Priorities listed in the text:
❖ Strengthen the culture, governance and leadership model
❖ Build a flexible APS operating model
❖ Invest in capability and talent development
❖ Develop stronger internal and external partnerships

and five (5) proposals:
➢ Build a flexible operating model (Networked enabling systems and common
processes across the service)
➢ Secretaries Board driving outcomes across government and APS performance
(Culture, governance and leadership model)
➢ Genuine transparency and accountability for delivering outcomes for
Australians (Culture, governance and leadership model)
➢ Empowered managers accountable for developing people and teams (Invest in
capability and talent development)
➢ Dynamic ways of working and structures to empower individuals and teams –
making collaboration the norm (Build a flexible operating model)

These comments are submitted to each of the proposals but should be accepted as relating to

broader, over-arching issues.

1 Message from the chair, Priorities for change p. ii.
2 Priorities for change p. 23

2
Comment on Proposal 2, APS Review Priorities for change by Ken Coghill.

Comments on proposal: Secretaries Board driving outcomes across government and APS

performance (Culture, governance and leadership model)
The responses in respect of the second Proposal are summarised in Box 2 and discussed in the

following narrative.

Box 2. Summary of responses to questions
Question Response
How can this proposal • A rigorous process for senior appointments to the APS, including
be strengthened? boards, should be spelled out and recommended
What is missing? • A rigorous process for senior appointments to the APS, including
boards,
• Recommendations for the structure and operation of the
process.
How can lasting change • A rigorous process should be entrenched in legislation, with a
be ensured? requirements to report to parliament annually and on breaches of
the provisions,
• Mandatory reporting of suspected breaches to ACLEI (or the
proposed Commonwealth/National Integrity Commission).

Appointments of agency heads

It is in the interests of good governance that members of the political executive receive short-lists

of candidates for appointment from among applicants who have been found to have the best

knowledge, skills and abilities relevant to the requirements of each position.
Such shortlists should be prepared by one or more appointments commission(s) acting under the

authority of an Appointments Commissioner.
The Prime Minister’s legislated role to make recommendations to the Governor-General should

be retained.
This model would both protect the integrity of the APS and shield ministers from risks of making

ill-informed and/or misguided appointments.
This suggests a model similar to the UK model but having regard to other models such as the

New Zealand model, to which Priorities for Change referred.

….

3
Comment on Proposal 2, APS Review Priorities for change by Ken Coghill.

Implications for Proposal: Secretaries Board driving outcomes across government and

APS performance (Culture, governance and leadership model)
Question Response
How can this proposal • A rigorous process for senior appointments to the APS, including
be strengthened? boards, should be spelled out and recommended
What is missing? • A rigorous process for senior appointments to the APS, including
boards,
• Recommendations for the structure and operation of the
process.
How can lasting change • A rigorous process should be entrenched in legislation, with
be ensured? requirements to report to parliament annually and on breaches of
the provisions,
• Mandatory reporting of suspected breaches to ACLEI (or the
proposed Commonwealth/National Integrity Commission).

4