Findings and recommendations

Board achievements

A collegiate and collaborative Board

The general view expressed in interviews was that the Board works well, is collegiate and collaborative, able to have honest discussions and sets a good tone across the APS.

It has benefited from new Secretaries being appointed and bringing with them fresh ideas and different ways of working, particularly those with experience in other jurisdictions.

While significant areas of disagreement are rare, dissenting views can be voiced and discussions occur in a respectful way.

In this respect, the general tenor of input to the Review was seeking to build on strengths and enable continuous improvement rather than correct dysfunction.

The Board was seen as largely fulfilling its legislative functions across stewardship, APS improvement strategies, collaboration and modelling leadership behaviours, with less success in the area of external engagement.

There continues to be a tension between the Board as a forum for collective action and decision-making and the responsibilities of individual Board members as accountable authorities for their organisations.

The Board, in reality, has multiple functions that can at times come into tension. It operates:

• as a means of collective action for one APS;
• to advance the policy priorities of the government and to ensure there is the necessary capabilities and connections in place;
• to provide mutual support and share knowledge between the principals;
• to identify emergent issues and develop thinking and capability to address them;
• to provide leadership and support and to manage differences.

Feedback to the Review suggested that the current Board has the maturity and capability to manage the tensions that may arise between these functions, but needs to focus more directly on identification and management of strategic priorities, emerging issues and risk.

Stewardship

A number of examples were provided to the Review where the Board had acted to identify and address an issue with APS-wide implications. The Board’s engagement with these issues and the processes it put in place were seen as adding value to the response of individual Secretaries.

Two case studies follow.

In both the illustrated cases, there was a need for urgent and coordinated action in an area with whole of APS implications. There was clear purpose to the work, shared commitment sufficient to warrant allocation of resources, an end date and deliverables.

While both of these cases require implementation and monitoring they benefited from focused attention from the Board in their development stages and gave a clear message to the APS of the importance that the Secretaries accorded to shared action.

Economic and fiscal update

An economic and fiscal update provided by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of the Department of Finance has been a long standing feature of Board meetings. While their content is at the discretion of the Secretaries, these tend to cover the prevailing economic circumstances, recent economic indicators, fiscal climate and strategy and expenditure review updates.

Board members reported that these updates were very useful as they give a whole of government perspective that can be difficult for individual Secretaries to see from a line agency perspective. They particularly appreciated insights into expenditure review committee processes. The economic and fiscal update should continue, mindful of the benefit individual secretaries elicit from an insight into the expenditure review process and economic circumstances.

First Nations priorities

Standing updates on First Nations priorities, including Closing the Gap and the Central Australia Plan, was a feature of all Board meetings from October 2022 to present. In this period, the Coalition of the Peaks addressed the Board on two occasions.

There is strong support for the Board to continue its focus on First Nations priorities including Closing the Gap. There was recognition that improving the experiences and outcomes for First Nations people is a priority of government, with Secretaries needing to lead and be held to account for action within their own portfolios (through policy, program and operating lenses) and that it is an area where cross-government effort is needed.

The central role of the Secretaries Board in ‘promoting and embedding the transformation of public sector systems and culture’ in the context of Closing the Gap has also been highlighted in the Productivity Commission’s Review of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap¹.

Secretaries are seeking to take this engagement to a next level – rather than standing updates that can become operational in focus, Secretaries are seeking to have strategic discussions at the Board on First Nations priorities, where milestones and deliverables are required, where Secretaries are held to account, where there is a focus on substantial cross-portfolio action(s), and commissioning and delegating work for further development.

The work program that has been developed by the NIAA should be considered at the first available Board meeting to identify those elements that are significant and require cross-portfolio action, and where milestones and deliverables can be set at the portfolio level. This should guide the actions and processes of the Board in 2024.

APS reform

APS reform is an important area for Board engagement. The government has an ambitious APS reform agenda with a number of elements that need close coordination and analysis across government agencies. The Board has focused on this in 2023.

A challenge for APS reform is getting the engagement with the Board pitched at the right level and coming at the right time – neither too early, when there are operational issues still to iron out, or too late, when it is difficult to move away from a particular implementation path. It is also important that the larger service delivery agencies are able to have a voice, given their employment footprint.

There are governance structures that can support the Board and which could be used to advance matters in the development stage. The COO Committee, for example, can advance specific pieces of work, as can the Future of Work Committee.

With many of the APS reform actions now maturing and moving to implementation, there is an opportunity for the Board to perform a more strategic role.

While APS reform should remain a priority for the Board in 2024, the focus of Board engagement should be at the strategic level, setting direction for further detailed development and engaging on areas with significant cross-portfolio implications or potential flow-on impacts. Use of existing Sub-committees to advance operational details should be mapped and curated to ensure that items are ready for discussion at the Board. The way that the Board engages on APS reform should be reviewed mid-year as the reform agenda moves to an implementation stage.

Strategic priorities and stewardship

Strategic agenda setting and risk mapping

The Board is a valuable forum for meaningful discussion and alignment on strategic and policy issues, where information can be shared, differences aired and actions taken to prepare the APS for emerging policy challenges. All Board members considered there were the foundations for the Board to engage constructively on strategic issues.

Board members were united in a desire to have more discussion and a view from the centre on government priorities and emerging issues and to make room in the agenda for strategic and policy matters.

An area highlighted was national security and foreign policy developments, where those secretaries less involved in the Secretaries Committee on National Security (SCNS) can find it difficult to access and share relevant information. There was strong support for injecting the international perspective into Board discussions.

The Board does not have a standing item on risks (current and emerging) and risk mitigation, though this is often implicit in how priorities have been identified and set (for example the work on APS integrity in 2023). While there are instances where horizon scanning and scenario planning have been on the agenda, this has not been in a systematic way. A more methodical and proactive approach to identifying and engaging with risk, conducting horizon scanning and undertaking scenario-based exercises would improve the quality of Board discussions and its responsiveness.

Areas identified as priorities for the Board agenda were:

• observations from the Chair on government priorities and emerging issues;
• the economic and fiscal update from the Secretaries of the Treasury and Finance (already a standing item but will benefit from being part of the strategic agenda);
• an international update from the Foreign Affairs and Defence Secretaries (and others as appropriate);
• a capacity for all secretaries to engage on emerging risks and strategic policy issues of concern to them and where there are significant cross-portfolio implications.

Establishing an annual work program

There is benefit in the Board agreeing an annual work program early in the year. Ideally this should happen at an off-site annual strategy session, as there is more time for in-depth consideration.

An annual work program would establish those matters that the Board intends to prioritise, enable work to be commissioned and timing to be set. It would focus the work of the Board Sub-committees, inform establishment of taskforces and map out participation of others in Board processes, such as the large service delivery agencies. An annual work program that schedules formal horizon scanning and a scenario-based exercise would round out the strategic Board agenda.

A number of areas were identified during consultations that could be considered for a 2024 work program:

• horizon scanning of emerging risks and responses;
• a planned scenario-based exercise on an issue with significant cross-government implications;
• federation policy and learnings;
• the geo-strategic context and intelligence issues;
• highest priority domestic policy challenges;
• accumulated learnings from APS capability reviews and response.

A reflection on progress against the work program (achievements and learnings) should be a standing item of the last Board meeting of the year.

An annual work program would not preclude the capacity for the Board to be flexible as unforeseen issues arise. Room needs to be left on the agenda for this purpose.

Operational arrangements

There was general support to retain the current membership of the Board and the length and scheduling of Board meetings.

A three-hour meeting in a secure environment is a big commitment for Secretaries. Scheduling needs to be alert to this, for example avoiding parliamentary question time.

It is important that the meetings deliver high value in the way the agendas are structured. This requires the active engagement of individual Secretaries in agenda setting and agenda items.

There will be items where it is imperative that voices beyond Board members are heard. Most notable are those of the service delivery agencies of ATO and Services Australia, which together represent 25% of the total average staffing level (ASL) of the general government sector². A generous approach to co-opting agency heads where items have an operational focus should be taken.

Under current arrangements, the Board agendas are mainly driven from PMC and the APSC. An alternative is to establish an Executive of the Board, comprising the Chair and Deputy Chair and two other Secretaries on a rotating (annual) basis.

This Board Executive would set the forward work program, identify and engage with secretaries to sponsor and lead particular items (enabling more opportunity for the Chair to be a direct participant in discussions), agree whether and who should be co-opted for an individual item, liaise with Sub-committee chairs and provide a quality assurance check to ensure that papers coming forward are of high quality and ready to be considered by the Board. They would be the main point of liaison for the Secretariat to the Board and would sign off on action items.

The papers should convey key messages to the Board and be flexible in how material is best presented. For example, a placemat or diagram at times can communicate more effectively than a long form attachment to a paper.

An action register is an important discipline in ensuring forward momentum on agreed activity, disseminating outcomes and avoiding duplication. An action register should be established and reported at each Board meeting.

There needs to be clarity on how outcomes are disseminated. Practices currently vary from one Secretary to the next. While there are some matters that should stay confidential to the Board, there are others that it is important to share. There should be an expectation that each Board member is providing feedback within their portfolios and to item sponsors, supported by the action register.

Board Sub-committees

There are mixed views on the effectiveness and appropriateness of the current Sub-committee structure, with some support for a more issue-specific and time-limited approach.

Whatever model is adopted there should be a more methodical approach to establishing and ceasing Sub-committees, more equity of participation among Board members and in chairing arrangements, and greater effort to define issues and what is required before reference to a Sub-committee, with touchpoints to ensure they are on the right track.

Currently, three Board members are members of three Sub-committees, two are members of none. Co-chairing arrangements are shared among four members, with one member co-chairing two committees.

The reasons for this are historic. As new Secretaries are appointed, participation in Sub-committees should be considered. No one member should chair more than one Sub-committee and chairing responsibilities should rotate. Should Sub-committees be retained, the chairs should meet twice a year to ensure alignment.

Chief Operating Officer Committee

The Chief Operating Officer (COO) Committee has strong support. While it is not a Sub-committee of the Board in a traditional sense (it does not have Secretaries as members) it has an important role to play in implementing Board directions and communicating to the Board on operational issues.

A Chair drawn from participating members and rotated every two years has worked well and should be retained. The Chair should not be from the APSC. The APSC should continue to occupy the Deputy Chair position.

The link between the Board and the COO Committee could be much stronger. The chair of the COO Committee should attend the Board at least once a year to receive direction from the Board and to report on progress and emerging issues.

A Secretary should sponsor the COO Committee engaging after every Board meeting, to ensure strong lines of communication between the Board and the COO Committee Chair.

Future of Work Sub-committee

The Future of Work Sub-committee has sought to drive organisational and workforce reform priorities for the APS. The main focus of its work in 2023 included:

• a whole of government approach to flexible work;
• retaining specialists in the APS;
• capability uplift;
• employment experience of diversity cohorts;
• emerging technologies.

The Committee supported the development of Board papers on an APS-wide approach to flexible work, the SES performance framework, and APS specialist arrangements.

There is the potential for overlap between the Future of Work Sub-committee, the COO Committee and the work of the APSC.

It is important that any future work program of the Sub-committee focuses on those issues that will exclusively benefit from the involvement of a group of secretaries and agency heads.

Data and Digital Committee

The Secretaries Data and Digital Committee (SDCC) is the pre-eminent forum to promote an APS enterprise approach to digital and data capabilities across government. It has benefited from bringing data into its remit, broadening its scope and enhancing the data/digital connection.

The main focus of its work in 2023 included:

• data and digital government strategy;
• developing an integrated digital investment plan;
• national data integration infrastructure;
• responding to emerging data and digital issues (cyber incidents, privacy breaches);
• digital identity;
• shared services transformation program.

The SDCC is advancing important whole of government strategies of significance to all secretaries, with input from the large service delivery agencies.

It has tended to operate at arm’s length from the Board and would benefit from stronger alignment and line of sight of its work program and deliverables.

Partnership Priorities Committee

The Partnership Priorities Committee commenced in 2023 as a time limited committee (to February 2026), with an aim to embed partnership behaviours and culture in the APS, to support engagement and co-design. The main focus of its work in 2023 included:

• creating foundation documents to support partnerships, engagement and place-based solutions;
• facilitating roundtables on place-based partnerships and social impact investing;
• supporting user-centred service delivery;
• advancing Closing the Gap priority reforms.

The focus of the Partnership Priorities Committee is to embed engagement standards and apply those across subject areas through methods, practice and governance. Once these foundations are in place, there is a question as to whether the Committee’s work could form part of a broader social policy committee.

A social policy gap

There is no social policy equivalent to the Secretaries Committee on National Security. Consideration should be given to how those Secretaries operating predominantly in social policy areas (social services, education, health, veterans affairs) could work together more systematically to address shared challenges (care economy workforce for example) and advance shared priorities. Place-based approaches could form part of this work, with others co-opted as required.

Next steps

The Secretaries’ annual strategy session should consider the most effective structures to support the Board’s forward work program and whether, and if so in what form, the current Sub-committees should continue.

While it is important that Secretaries work together, and are seen to work together, on matters of significant shared interest, they have many demands on their time and their engagement needs to be both necessary and targeted.

A practice of sun-setting Sub-committees of the Board would require their achievements, effectiveness and ongoing relevance to be determined. There is also the option of using a more taskforce based approach to address specific issues and to empower Deputy Secretaries to work together on specific tasks.

There are examples of Secretary level committees on policy issues that are not Sub-committees of the Board, but where Board members work together on policy development and implementation that reflect the priorities of the government (for example the Net Zero Economy Taskforce). Updating the Board on the work of these committees from time to time – to ensure broader awareness - could be included in the Board forward agenda.

Diversity and Inclusion Champions

Secretaries have assumed the role of Diversity and Inclusion Champions for a number of cross-agency champion networks. These networks allow champions to share best practice, raise issues of significance and contribute more broadly to diversity and inclusion strategies across the APS.

The Secretary level champions in 2023 were:

• APS Disability Champions Network Chair: Secretary Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water
• Indigenous Champions Network Chair: Secretary Department of Social Services

While not formally part of the Board, the Secretary level network champions should be appointed for a fixed period, with new Champions appointed every two years. This sends a strong message about the level of commitment across the Secretaries Board to diversity and inclusion.

External engagement

A Board function is ‘to draw together advice from senior leaders in government, business and the community’ (s64 (3)(d), Public Service Act). The purpose is to enable the Board to have a two-way engagement with other senior leaders on matters of national importance and areas of shared interest.

There are a variety of ways that the Board can perform this function.

While ‘visitors’ to the monthly Board meetings have presented on a range of topics, it is not an ideal forum to advance the type of outreach and engagement envisaged in the Public Service Act. By its nature, these visits are short and there is limited time for questions and open discussion. External visitors to the monthly Board meetings should be limited to instances where there are matters the Board needs to know that are not able to be delivered through other means.

The Board has a place in promoting public debate on emerging issues and in informing itself and learning from business and community experience. It can deploy a variety of methods to perform this function:

• use the annual strategy session to hear from one or more external speakers – in an environment that allows open information exchange;
• be open to engaging as a group or sub-group of Secretaries with counterparts as opportunities arise – for example with State and Territory leaders, business and community organisations
  • there are many touchpoints now between individual secretaries and senior leaders. These could be broadened to include participation by other secretaries;
• use the APS 200 group to host external speakers and panel discussions with government and non-government representatives;
• engage with other national jurisdictions as a group or sub-group of secretaries, including with near neighbours such as Indonesia;
• continue to produce papers that contribute to debate on emerging issues, such as the recent Secretary-sponsored Insight publication on artificial intelligence.

Annual strategy session

All Board members see the benefit in an off-site meeting of Secretaries at least once a year for one to two days (an annual strategy session) that could support deeper and more policy-oriented discussions and strengthen links between members. It was seen as a priority.

Ideally the annual strategy session should be factored into the calendar well in advance and occur early in the calendar year, at a time when parliament is not sitting.

An organising group of two to three secretaries should be tasked with developing the agendas for these meetings in consultation with their colleagues.

The types of issues that should be considered for an annual strategy session agenda include:

• policy priorities for the coming year, with deep dives into areas of cross-portfolio significance;
• emerging risks and horizon scanning;
• external engagement and panel discussions on contemporary challenges;
• setting the forward work program and performance measures for the Board;
• reviewing the Sub-committees and determining their structure and priorities.

1. Productivity Commission of Australia. Review of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. January 2024 p.20 and chapter 7.Return to footnote 1 ↩
2. Commonwealth of Australia, Budget 2023-24. Budget Paper No.4Return to footnote 2 ↩