PRIME MINISTER
CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY
SPEECH BY THE PRIME MINISTER
THE SIR ROBERT GARRAN ORATION
ROYAL AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
MELBOURNE 27 OCTOBER 1988
Hedley Bachmann,
David Shand,
Ladies and Gentlemen.,
Sir Robert Garran was the first public servant of the
Commonwealth of Australia and, in the period immediately
after Federation, he was briefly our only public servant.
in the succeeding decades Garran played a leading role in
establishing the foundations of the public service as we
know it today. At his retirement in 1932 he had been a
permanent head for thirty-one years a record period of
service that, as the Australian Dictionary of Biography
notes, is unlikely ever to be broken.
Billy Hughes is supposed to have once said that the best way
to govern Australia was to have Sir Robert Garran at his
elbow, with a fountain pen and a blank sheet of paper, and
the War Precautions Act.
Well, I don't think I'd like to extend that degree of
latitude to Mike Codd. Besides, I don't have recourse to
the War Precautions Act.
But the judgement by Hughes does go the heart of Garran's
unique skills. Anyone reviewing this extraordinary career
and assessing his immense contribution to the Commonwealth
of Australia cannot but be impressed by two outstanding
elements. First, Garran was the paragon of professionalism. He served
eleven different Attorneys-General and sixteen Governments,
covering the spectrum of political affiliations in that
initial period of quite rapid political change. He served
them all with absolute loyalty, and received their
confidence and trust, setting a fine example of one of the
most fundamental values of our Westminster-derived system of
gove rnment.
: 3032
Second, as Garran responded to all the diverse challenges of
administration he faced initially as an advocate and agent
of Federation, then as the trailblazing public servant and
parliamentary draftsman, then in the international field
during and after the First World war he proved an
unquenchably creat'ive force. In a time of change, his
creativity in building new institutions, developing
practical solutions and creating workable machinery still
stands as an admirable model for his successors today.
On the basis of my own experience of five and half years as
Prime Minister, I can say that the Government I have the
honour of leading has been well served by a public service
which has sought, largely successfully, to emulate Garran's
professionalism and his creativity.
Indeed, I argue that today's public administrators those
elected to Parliament as well as those appointed to the
bureaucracy face even greater challenges than those
presented to Garran by Federation, Depression and World War.
AS tough as it would have been to establish a Commonwealth
Government where none had been before, it is perhaps even
tougher to manage and to reform machinery of government
which is inherited. In the era of nuclear missiles, optical
fibres, instant news and 24-hour money markets, it is
anomalous that we face these challenges with a Constitution
inherited from the days of the penny farthing bicycle.
In the economic sphere, we face the challenge to restructure
the Australian economy so as to guarantee the future
prosperity of our people. And we must do this in an era
when we can no longer assume, as those of Garran's and
succeeding generations of Australians-assumed, that greater
prosperity results simply from shearing more sheep,
harvesting more wheat and finding fabulous new veins of
minerals and metals.
This restructuring process has been the principal activity
of our Government over the past five and a half years.. It
has demanded a fundamental rethinking of the economic
assumptions that we inherited from the past. At the same
time it requires vigilant attention to ensuring our
political arrangements remain relevant to the task we face
without of course modifying the democratic and parliamentary
character of our political system.
To a large extent, meeting this challenge of restructuring
has relied on improving the performance of the private
sector, through for example practising the hard discipline
of becoming more productive and competitive, making our
manufacturing industry more efficient, boosting our research
effort, and building new industries in the service and high
tech areas. 13083
These have been areas of special priority for this
Government and, thanks to the tremendous contribution we
have received from the entire community, we are starting to
see the fruits of our efforts: a more diverse and efficient
economy capable of competing and winning on world markets.
But it would have been senseless to have believed that
restructuring was a task solely for the private sector and
that the public sector was immune from a similar need to
improve its performance.
The public sector is a substantial employer and producer in
its own right, and its functions in regard to the private
sector, such as taxation, regulation, economic analysis and
policy advice, have assumed critical importance in
determining the overall efficiency of our economy.
Further, the tendency over many years, and with increasing
frequency since the Second World War, to see the answer to
emerging community needs lying almost automatically in an
expanded role for Government has in fact created a number of
problem areas, both potential and real. These include:
the inefficiencies of excessive regulation;
the expensive spiral of Government assistance, be it by
direct payment to welfare recipients or indirectly to
inefficient industries;
the distortion of the taxation system by the creation of
rorts for the privileged few;
the inefficiencies of overlapping local, state and
federal jurisdictions;.
the pervasive role of statutory authorities; and
the drain and danger caused by excessive federal budget
deficits.
In declaring my pride in my Government's record of
achievement in minimising these danger areas, I hasten to
point out that we have by no means accepted the simplistic
analysis that small government is necessarily better
government or that deregulation is a desirable end in
itself. That is a misconception to which our conservative
opponents fall victim with amazing regularity in the same
way as, for that matter, some on the Left find themselves
making the too-easy assumption of the desirability of
government intervention. Deregulation or interveption are
not ends in themselves; they may simply be means to the real
goal which must be the creation-of a fairer and a more
efficient Australia.
30u34
As a Labor Prime Minister I am proud of the way in which we
have met our responsibilities as a Government, protecting
the needy, helping the battlers, and making Australia a
fairer society. And as a Prime Minister committed to
reform, I am proud of Labor's proven capacity to improve the
efficiency and cbmpetitiveness of our economy which is
helping to guarantee the prosperity of all Australians.
My point is that in today's circumstances, unless there is
constant vigilance by an elected government alert to the
demands of the international economy, and unless
organisational and attitudinal change becomes a constant
part of the Government's management of the bureaucracy, the
public service may succumb to the-almost overwhelming
temptation to look inwards; to become absorbed in its own
process rather than its output; to grow inexorably; in
short, to serve its own ends.
If that were to happen, our overall economic performance
would suffer and the community would be the poorer.
The business of government must be the provision of the
greatest public good at the least private cost and the
public service must achieve those ends without losing its
professional capacity to serve governments of differing
political views and with different policy priorities.
Indeed, that capacity should be always enhanced.
In today's environment, when the economy as a whole must
overcome its entrenched inflexibilities and inefficiencies,
that prescription poses a massive management challenge.
The aim of Government must be not only to ensure that the
public service does its own job professionally and
efficiently. The aim must also be to ensure that the public
service is not a stumbling block for broader, economy-wide
change; indeed, that the public service becomes where
possible an effective instrument for the achievement of that
change. Having established this broad context, I want tonight to
describe the efforts the Government has made to achieve
those goals, and to spell out our consistent set of
principles which has underpinned those efforts. You will be
broadly familiar with the extent of our reforms the new
legislation in 1984, the budget reforms, the streamlining of
personnel administration in 1986 and our continuing reforms
of statutory authorities. I have briefly outlined these
changes in an appendix to this Oration. I will address in
more detail tonight the important structural changes I
announced in July last year and the associated changes in
Cabinet arrangements I announced the following month.
Most commentators on the machinery changes have, perhaps not
surprisingly, tended to concentrate on whether or not the
two-level ministerial structure is working effectively.
From my perspective it is working well a point I will
return to shortly. 035
Th
It follows, however, that the commentators have put too fa
little weight on the very substantial changes that have been dr
wrought in the public service itself, and the improvements th
they have made to the quality of policy development work, to be
the capacity for co-operation and co-ordination within the no
public service, and to the degree of accountability and pe
flexibility for managers.
The likely benefit of these changes in improving the quality
of management and decision making was more important to the aF
Government than the achievement of savings through the su
elimination of overlap and duplication. ob
Commentators have similarly overlooked the importance of the
changes in the Cabinet Committee system we introduced, and Th
in particular our decision to establish three policy pr
development Committees: re
the Structural Adjustment Committee which co-ordinates
reform of the micro-economy to achieve medium term
growth in our economy; Th
the Social and Family Policy Committee which focuses on
the development and implementation of our social justice Th
strategy to ensure the fair distribution of the proceeds an
of economic growth throughout the community; and Tb Cu
the Public Service Reform Committee which is concerned mc
with further improvements in management in the public es
sector. ha
Cabinet, of course, remains the supreme organ of the
decision making processes of the Government, and any major T
matters which might have their genesis in the committees ha
will in the end be determined by the Cabinet itself. me o f
But these new committees, like the Expenditure Review
Committee in relation to the Budget, have become the engine
rooms of our decision making processes. ur bi
They are the forums in which ministers most directly P1
concerned with'the policy area can collectively and in PC
detail consider the subject matter and develop policy
proposals or positions for consideration by the full
Cabinet. Through these committees, we are generating a much greater St
ability for ministers collectively to engage in policy el
development, which had been essentially the preserve of one
minister and most often one department. S $ 3
Moreover, the new policy development committees are
supported in their work by groups or task forces of c
officials who are interacting more closely with the r
collective policy development, role of the ministers. T0
3036
The new two-tier structure of Government has undoubtedly
facilitated this approach. Fewer departments need to be
drawn into any particular policy development exercise and
the barriers which used to exist between departments have
been substantially reduced perhaps because each department
now brings a broader area of responsibility and broader
perspectives to bear on any given matter.
A very good illustration of the benefits of this new
approach was contained in this year's. May Statement, in
which we unveiled a major program of structural reform,
substantial developments to advance our social justice
objectives, and significant returns from the Efficiency
Scrutiny program.
These measures had been largely developed through the
processes of the three policy development committees I
referred to earlier, and by a great deal of hard work on the
part of both the ministers on those committees and the
officials supporting them.
The new machinery has also, as I expected, further improved
our Budget processes.
This Government's period of office has been characterised by
an unprecedented period of sustained expenditure restraint.
The last three budgets have actually seen Commonwealth
outlays fall in real terms, and outlays as a share of GDP is
now the lowest since 1973-74. This fiscal achievement -so
essential to the Government's overall economic strategyhas
required five years of hard slog by Expenditure Review
Committee ministers.
The sustainability of this process of expenditure restraint
has required us to concentrate on improving financial
management especially through the progressive introduction
of program budgeting and on streamlining budget processes.
our innovations have proven successful. Rather than wait
until just before the August Budget to sift through all the
bids ministers may make for new spending, ERC is now
provided early in the year with a list of ministers' new
policy proposals. Sifting through those bids, ERC
Identifies a range of high priority or unavoidable proposals
which are then scrutinised more'closely prior to delivery of.
the Budget in August.
Streamlining the Budget process has also involved
eliminating the need for ERC ministers to decide on the
trivial detail of budget-making, in particular the minor
savings options and minor new policy proposals costing
$ 1-2 million or less. This desire on the-part of ERC to
extricate itself from the detail of budget-making
complements the trend towards letting ministers take greater
responsibility for their portfolios.
These twin goals have been pursued in the most recent Budget
period through the use of portfolio targets. 3037
Thus, in the run-up to the August Budget, ERC can now
concentrate on significant new policy proposals and wrap up
remaining Budget matters within portfolio expenditure
targets. Subject to their reporting to ERC on achievement
of those targets, portfolio ministers are now free to pursue
minor policy proposals and minor savings options without the
previous detailed involvement of ERC ministers.
Another important change I made last year was to replace the
former Public Service Board with a much smaller Public
Service Commission reflecting and enhancing our clear
preference for devolving responsibilities for personnel
management to portfolios instead of concentrating on
outdated central agency roles.
A part-time Management Advisory Board was established to
advise the Government on significant management issues and
to be a forum for considering major management activities
affecting the service as a whole.
As well as these changes, the Department of Finance has
progressively become less involved in detail and changed its
financial management controls to promote greater
responsibility for operating departments and greater
incentives for managers. The Department of the Prime
Minister and Cabinet is also now substantially less
interventionist, with greater concentration on its
fundamental role as a co-ordinating agency this reflects a
change both in concept and ' in the character of the chief
political office holder!
The savings I foreshadowed could arise from these major
machinery changes will be achieved. But I repeat that they
were not the primary purpose of the changes. Indeed we
recognised at the time that there would be substantial costs
associated with the changes and substantial dislocation and
disturbance both for agencies and many individuals.
It was my expectation that adjustments would be necessary
over some two years to accommodate changes of this scale.
No certain assessment of the success of the changes would be
possible before them.
I can say, however, that although they are difficult to
quantify, significant benefits are already evident to me in
the areas of policy development and decision making
processes, and in the : area of delegation to, and incentives
for, managers.
I return now to the issue of the two level ministry and to
the associated issues: of accountability.
W038
I do not need to remind an audience such as this of the
relentless pressures on ministerial time in modern
Government. Among these pressures are:
responsibilities in relation to the minister's
electorate and constituents;
unavoidable party political duties inside the Parliament
and in the broader party organisation;
legislative and Parliamentary obligations;
overriding responsibility as a member of the Executive
Government, and associated responsibilities to Cabinet
and Cabinet Committees;.
and finally, responsibility, derived from the
Constitution, to administer his or her department.
The immensity of these competing pressures under the
Government of Malcolm Fraser prompted an investigation by
political scientist Patrick Weller and journalist Michelle
Grattan into the chilling question " Can ministers Cope?"
I do not pretend that ministers of my Government face no
problems in reconciling competing demands on their time.
But I do point out that the two tier ministerial structure
was designed to make, and I am convinced is making, it
easier for my ministers to do so.
in introducing these new arrangements we addressed head-on
the legal question which had bedevilled so much previous
consideration of the rational allocation of functions to
departments. The question whether section 64 of the Constitution
permitted more than one minister to administer a department
had long been the subject of learned consideration by the
lawyers. Most, including Sir Robert Garran, have been of
the opinion that it was possible the most notable
exception being a narrow interpretation in 1958 by Mr
Barwick, as he then was, as counsel. I am pleased to note
that there has been subsequent judicial endorsement of the
broad interpretation of section 64.
The positive view however has always been tempered by
caution because of the potential consequence of
disqualification of a member or senator if the negative view
were held to be correct. This was an important factor
leading to frequent, costly and inefficient machinery of
government changes. 39
9.
The revised arrangements we have put in place provide the
flexibility necessary to accommodate changing political
priorities and circumstances, including new ministerial
appointments, without the need. to change the machinery of
government with all the upheaval that entails. Indeed, one
of the virtues of the new machinery is that there is great
flexibility within portfolios in allocating responsibility
to ministers and re-drawing lines of operation for officials
flexibilities which also assist departments and ministers
to cope with changing pressure points.
Under the new system, non-Cabinet Ministers are undertaking
many functions on behalf of their portfolio ministers such
as Parliamentary duties, correspondence, day to day
administration of specific areas within the portfolio
enabling senior ministers to devote precious time to broad
strategic issues of Government. Not insignificantly,
non-Cabinet ministers are also enabled to focus much more
closely on the nitty gritty issues that are often vital to
the welfare of the individual clients of Government.
As I envisaged at the time, it has been necessary
occasionally to refine the arrangements. This will, no
doubt, continue to be necessary.
Overall, however, I believe the two level ministry
arrangements have worked remarkably well. As you would be
aware, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, has publicly
welcomed many aspects of these new arrangements, including
the two level ministerial structure, and I welcome his
support. For my part, I regard the new machinery as setting the basic
pattern of Australian Government administration for many
years ahead. Major changes of this kind are disruptive and,
while minor adjustments must be made where necessary, no
major changes at the departmental level should now be
necessary as far ahead as I can see.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
In the lead ' up to my visit last year to the Soviet Union, I
had drawn to my attention a comment of Lenin's. It was a
comment of great relevance to the reforms sought by
Mr Gorbachev, , and has been quoted approvingly by an
influential Soviet economist, close to Gorbachev, seeking to
condemn the rigidities and inefficiencies of the Soviet
system bequeathed by Brezhnev. Lenin's comment has
unexpected relevance today, less. because of his definition
of the problem than his articulation of the solution. If
you will forgive Lenin'. s unfortunately scatalogical
language, I will read it to you.
040
" in our country everything is swamped in a foul
bureaucratic morass of ' departments'. Great authority,
intelligence, and strength are needed for the day-to-day
struggle against this. Departments are shit; decrees
are shit. Seeking out people and entrusting the work to
them that is all that matters."
And in many ways, seeking out people and entrusting the work
to them is alf that matters to reformers of the public
service, and indeed of the private sector, in Australia
today. In our pursuit of greater efficiency and effectiveness in
the public service, we have followed a consistent set of
principles. With rather less brevity than Lenin, let me
outline the principles underpinning our reforms. They have
been aimed at:
clarifying the lines of accountability at all levels of
government, including through greater delegation of
responsibility to line managers;
retaining and where possible enhancing the professional
character of the public service and its ability to serve
the elected government of the day;
pursuing greater equity in public administration
including in the delivery of services; and
providing maximum scope for our greatest resource, our
people in the workforce, through greater individual
initiative, innovation and job satisfaction.
Let me now discuss how these principles have been advanced.
As to the first, accountability is a pervasive principle,
that at one end of the spectrum ensures voters can endorse
or reject a government in the ballot box, and that at the
other gives force to the claim of a pensioner seeking
assistance over the counter of a Social Security office.
It has been in pursuit of this principle that we have:
redefined, in legislation, the relative responsibilities
of ministers and departmental secretaries for the
administration of departments;
enhanced ministerial responsibility through the new
two-level ministry system;
introduced a range of measures designed to reduce
central agency controls and put responsibility more
clearly in portfolios and complementary measures to
reduce central controls within portfolios; and
improved budget processes and financial controls. .3041
Within these differing levels of accountability, one layer
seems particularly problematical: the accountability of the
executive to the Parliament. IS
The Parliament, through Question Time, Parliamentary
Committees, and detailed scrutiny of legislation, provides I
the means by which Government is called to account during G.
its term of office. It has been my Government's desire,
particularly through its budgetary reforms and the manner in
which financial information is made available to the P
Parliament, to do all it can to make the processes ofh
Government as transparent and amenable to Parliamentary TI
scrutinf as possible. ii
Given-this subtle and multifaceted process of 0
accountability, it is depressing that, at least in some t
quarters, the whole concept of accountability gets reduced i
to a barren quest for ministerial resignations. Opposition t
parties today and, I suppose, of earlier periods seem to ft
believe they are engaged in a game of cricket. They are too p
eager to cry LBW, and tend to do so for all the wrong d.
reasons.
The true measure of ministerial accountability, here and in TV
Britain, has never been the tally of ministerial b
resignations. Even in the slower and simpler formativeeI
period of our system of Government, the strict theory that i
ministers were fully accountable for every act or omission bE.
of their departmental officers was, simply, far-fetched. In
today's environment the traditional hypothesis just cannot TI
be reconciled with political and administrative realities. i
The relationship between ministers and officials is far more fr
complex than the hypothesis, with its all-too-neat dichotomy pr
between policy and administration, permits. h;
Clearly there are many areas where the detailed development a
of policy proposals is, within a broad framework ofI
ministerial direction, entrusted to officials; similarly, b
there are many matters of administration in which ministers s
take a close interest. M
in other words, ministers must, of course, continue to be i
answerable to the Parliament and to take any necessary p
corrective action. But the truth is that there is no
requirement for them to resign except where a significantDe
act or omission was theirs, or was taken at their personal Gc
direction, or was a matter about which they obviously should P
have known, and done something. s
ministerial responsibility of c ourse is but one strand in Th
the web of accountability that pervades our whole political fc
and administrative structure. It is-a principle to wbiich,
as all our public service reforms show, we attach very great On
importance. It is not, let me stress, in any way th
contradictory to the second principle we have pursued: re
maintaining and enhancing a highly professional public m
service. m
3042
12.
Some critics of the changes made to appointment and tenure
provisions for departmental secretaries argued they would
lead to polit~ cisation. Four years later, no-one could
reasonably claim that the portfolio secretaries serving my
Government are other than highly professional career public
servants who have also served previous governments in senior
positions. The public service remains, at all levels, a
highly professional institution.
The third principle I referred to, which draws out the
importance of equity in public sector management and
employment, has also been advanced. In terms of government
outputs, this is reflected in the advances we have made
towards our social justice objectives. In terms of staffing
it is best reflected in the legislative advances in 1984 and
the new machinery to follow those changes through and to
foster a management culture in the public service which pays
proper regard to the merit principle, to industrial
democracy and to equal employment opportunity.
These developments tend to be seen as soft optional extras.
This is short-sighted; there are substantial management
benefits in all of these measures. I regard the continuing
efforts the Government is making to foster EEO as especially
important in seeking to harness for the public sector the
best available human resources in our multicultural society.
The final principle, enhancing scope for initiative,
innovation and job satisfaction, does not lend itself so
readily to assessment. Much of our effort has gone into
providing a framework within which managers at all levels
have clearer lines of responsibility and a greater degree of
autonomy. I recognise we have more to do on these qualitative issues
but we have been necessarily living through a period of
stringency and adjustment; and it takes time for a new
management culture and environment to be established. I
should say, however, that there have been many examples of
innovative policy development and innovative changes in
program management.
Despite the apparent size and sometimes impersonal face of
Government there is, I believe, tremendous scope in the
public service for individual initiative and sense of
satisfaction arising from contribution to the public good.
The changes we have made should, over time, lead to greater
scope for such innovation and, I believe, greater potential
for job satisfaction.
one of the management challenges we face is to ensure that
this is the case. Another is how to achieve greater
recgniti! on for the substantial contribution to this nation
mad bthse In the public sector employment. 3 443
Public Servants have come a long way since Kafka gave
bureaucracy a bad name or since Tom Collins gave a F
particularly Australian twist to the characterisation. Tom PC
Collins, of course, was the pseudonym adopted by Joseph U
Furphy in his classic of the Australian bush " Such is Life". S
At the outset of Chapter I the recently unemployed Collins rdo
writes of his days in the public service: ti ti,
" One generally feels a sort-of diffidence in introducing r
one's self; but I may remark that I was at that time a Ut
Government official, of the ninth class; paid rather i
, according to my grade than my merit, and not by any b
means in proportion to the loafing I had to do." a
That was a laconic way of putting Lord Samuel's dictum:
that a public service will find a difficulty for every
solution. S
It's unfortunate that such stereotypes persist in the public b
mind. I repeat what I said at the outset that I consider
my Government to be very well served by the Federal public
service. And I take considerable pride in the fact that the
reforms my Government has made to the public service have It
served further to increase its efficiency and c
professionalism. f it
As you are well aware, over recent years I have been
stressing over and over again to the business community, to
the union movement, to our primary producers, and to workers
throughout Australia, the overwhelming need for adaptability
and readiness to accept change if we are to prosper as a
nation. Similar adaptability and readiness to embrace change is
absolutely imperative in our public institutions if they are
to provide the framework within which our visions of an
economically prosperous and socially just Australia are to
be realised.
AS we approach the end of this century and the centenary of
the establishment of the Commonwealth, in which Garran
played such a large par t, I am confident that our measures
to create a management environment and culture which
emphasises the ability to promote and adapt to change, will
be seen as among our most significant achievements.
For those who question the directions we are taking, let me
refer you to some remarks of Garran about the Constitutional
debates of the 1890s:
" Looking back over these debates, one is struck by the
vanity of human fears and precautions ( T) hose fifty
of the elect of Australia spent months discussing
dangers and difficulties, most of which the experience
of half a century has shown to be imaginary. on the
other hand, many of the troubles that, as it turned out,
have beset the Constitution since its establishment are
matters that never occurred to them."
3044
14.
For reasons that are obvious enough, I say nothing at this
point about Constitutional reform and the difficulties
thereof.
But I do make ~ the point that change is a constant. The last
decade in particular has seen so many of the certitudes of
the past brought into question, modified or despatched to
the dustbins of history. These winds of change have been no
respecter of ideological boundaries. In differing degrees
they have blasted China, the Soviet Union and the West and
in differing degrees the public service has been affected
by, in some cases indeed is central to, how these changes
are worked out in the society in question.
In the Soviet Union, for example, the success or otherwise
of the historically momentous changes enunciated by
Secretary-General Gorbachev will be determined by his
capacity both to overcome the opposition of so much of the
bureaucracy to those changes, and then to harness a leaner
public service as a positive element in the processes of
change. In Australia, where the challenge of change is a compelling
constant for all of us, I believe we are singularly
fortunate in having an Australian Public Service which has,
in my judgement, both the character and capacity to enable
it fully to meet that responsibility. 304
I. ST
APPENDIX WE of Ml U.
AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF THE POLICY POSITIONS DEVELOPED
IN OPPOSITION AS REFLECTED IN THE DOCUMENT " LABOR AND A
THE QUALITY OF GOVERNMENT", MY GOVERNMENT MOVED QUICKLY o
IN 1983 TO SET UP THE TASK FORCE CHAIRED BY MR DAWKINS, D)
THEN MINISTER FOR FINANCE AND MINISTER ASSISTING ME FOR I
PUBLIC SERVICE MATTERS. A WIDE-RANGING DISCUSSION Al
PAPER WAS PUBLISHED IN DECEMBER 1983. THE RESULTANT I'
LEGISLATION, THE PUBLIC SERVICE REFORM ACT 1984, WAS M
PASSED IN JUNE 1984. T)
THE ACT MADE IT QUITE CLEAR THAT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF S.
DEPARTMENTAL SECRETARIES FOR ' THE GENERAL WORKING, AND P
FOR ALL THE BUSINESS' OF THEIR DEPARTMENTS WAS p)
SUBORDINATE TO THE FUNDAMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY OF RI
MINISTERS, DERIVED FROM THE CONSITUTION, TO ADMINISTER 01
DEPARTMENTS. IT ALSO PROVIDED FOR MORE FLEXIBLE P.,
APPOINTMENT AND TENURE PROVISIONS FOR SECRETARIES. A A]
WE ESTABLISHED THE SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE IN PLACE OF LI
THE FORMER SECOND DIVISION, AGAIN WITH MORE FLEXIBLE
APPOINTMENT AND TENURE PROVISIONS. ALL SES VACANCIES
WERE OPENED UP TO PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC SERVICE.
FAR GREATER EMPHASIS WAS PLACED ON MOBILITY AND
MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS. THE PUBLIC SERVICE
BOARD, AND LATER THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, WERE
GIVEN IMPORTANT ROLES IN ENSURING THE INTEGRITY OF SES
3046
STAFFING DECISIONS.
. NDIX I WE MOVED TO ESTABLISH SEPARATE LEGISLATION, THE MEMBERS
OF PARLIAMENT ( STAFF) ACT, FOR THE EMPLOYMENT OF
MINISTERIAL CONSULTANTS AND MINISTERIAL AND ELECTORATE
STAFF, TO FACILITATE APPOINTMENT OF PEOPLE NOT DRAWN
FROM THE PUBLIC SERVICE, WHILE REMOVING ANY POSSIBLE
CHARGES OF POLITICISATION. THE ACT ALSO PROVIDES AN
UMBRELLA FOR CAREER PUBLIC SERVANTS TO GAIN EXPERIENCE
IN A MINISTER'S OFFICE.
OPED
, D A SIGNIFICANT START WAS MADE IN WHAT WAS TO BE AN
KLY ONGOING PROCESS OF DEVOLUTION FROM CENTRAL AGENCIES TO
NS, DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT. FROM 1 JULY 1984, SECRETARIES
FOR WERE GIVEN THE ABILITY TO CREATE AND ABOLISH POSITIONS
AND TO RECLASSIFY THEM. WE ALSO BEGAN THE PROCESS OF
IT INTEGRATING STAFF NUMBERS AND FINANCIAL CONTROLS
MOVING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FORMER FROM THE BOARD TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE.
OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES WERE ALSO MADE IN PERSONNEL
ND POLICIES. THE MERIT PRINCIPLE AND ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
PROVISIONS WERE INCLUDED IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACT.
REQUIREMENTS WERE INTRODUCED FOR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
ER OPPORTUNITY PROGRAMS AND INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY PLANS.
PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT WAS INTRODUCED FOR PERMANENT STAFF.
A NEW GRIEVANCE AND APPEALS BODY THE MERIT PROTECTION
AND REVIEW AGENCY WAS ESTABLISHED UNDER ITS OWN
OF LEGISLATION.
: S
ES 3047
RUNNING PARALLEL TO THESE CHANGES WERE OUR REFORMS TO
THE BUDGET AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PROCESSES, THE MOST
IMPORTANT OF WHICH HAS BEEN THE PROGRESSIVE INTRODUCTION
OF PROGRAM BUDGETING. FOR THE FIRST TIME THIS HAS
ENABLED MINISTERS AND THE PARLIAMENT TO BE GIVEN
RELIABLE COSTINGS OF GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES, PROGRAM BY
PROGRAM, RATHER THAN THE PREVIOUS UNHELPFUL BREAKDOWN BY
TYPE OF EXPENDITURE, SUCH AS TRAVEL, TELEPHONES,
STATIONERY. SUCH INFORMATION IS VITAL FOR TWO REASONS. FIRST, IT
GIVES INDIVIDUAL MANAGERS A FAR GREATER SENSE OF
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF PROGRAM FUNDS.
SECONDLY, IT ENABLES MINISTERS TO TAKE FAR MORE INFORMED
DECISIONS ON THE COMPETING PRIORITIES OF VARIOUS
POLICIES hND PROGRIMS. IN THE PRRSKNT FISCM, t. I NTR.
PROGRAM BUDGE~ TING HAS ASSISTEHD IN THE CONTINUING AND
RIGOROUS SEARCH FOR OFFSETS AND TRADE-OFFS.
AT THE SAME TIME WE ADOPTED A POLICY OF RELEASING
FORWARD ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE AND, CONTRARY TO LONG
HELD VIEWS IN SOME QUARTERS, THIS HAS NOT HAD THE DIRE
ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES PREDICTED.
IN 1986 A DRAMATIC TURN-AROUND IN OUR TERMS OF TRADE
CREATED ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MADE THE PROCESSES
OF REFORM ON THE GOVERNMENT'S AGENDlA MUCH MORE IMPORTANT
AND URGENT. THERE NEEDED TO BE A FUNDAMENTAL
RESTRUCTURING IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR OF THE ECONOMY TO
ENABLE US TO COMPETE INTERNATIONALLY AND ENABLE
CONTINUED DOMESTIC GROWTH. IT WAS NECESSARY TO ASK THE
PRIVATE SECTOR TO MAKE SACRIFICES IN THIS AU3USTMENT
PROCESS AND TO FIND MEANS OF FURTHER INCREASING ITS
EFFICIENCY.
104 8
WE COULD HARDLY DO SO WITHOUT CONSIDERING WHAT
ADJUSTMENTS SHOULD BE MADE IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR TO
ASSIST, THE PROCESS OF CHANGE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, AND
INDEED WITHOUT SEEKING TO SET AN EXAMPLE BY ACCELERATING
THE DRIVE FOR GREATER EFFICIENCY IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR.
THAT IS THE BACKGROUND TO THE PUBLIC SECTOR DECISIONS
ANNOUNCED BY ME IN THE PARLIAMENT ON 25 SEPEMBER 1986.
AN EFFICIENCY DIVIDEND WAS REQUIRED FROM DEPARTMENTS AND
AGENCIES FOR THE THREE FINANCIAL YEARS BEGINNING IN
1987-88, INITIALLY SET AT 1% OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
AND SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED TO 1.25%.
AN EFFICIENCY SCRUTINY UNIT WAS ESTABLISHED UNDER THE
LEADERSHIP OF AN EXPERIENCED BUSINESSMAN, MR DAVID
BLOCK. A LARGE NUMBER OF SCRUTINIES OF ADMINISTRATIVE
APPROACHES AND PRACTICES WAS CONDUCTED UNDER THE
UMBRELLA OF THE UNIT. THEY WERE CARRIED OUT BY
DEPARTMENTAL STAFF SPECIALLY SELECTED AND TRAINED FOR
THE PURPOSE. 25% OF THE SAVINGS ACHIEVED ( SOME
$ 100 MILLION IN A FULL YEAR) WAS ALLOWED TO BE RETAINED
BY THE DEPARTMENTS AS AN INCENTIVE, AND THAT INCENTIVE
REMAINS IN PLACE WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR FURTHER
SCRUTINIES RESTING CLEARLY WITH DEPARTMENTS.
OTHER INCENTIVES FOR IMPROVED MANAGEMENT WERE ALSO PUT
IN PLACE.
FOR EXAMPLE, THERE WAS PROVISION FOR GREATER FLEXIBILITY
IN FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, IN PARTICULAR BY PERMITTING
SOME CARRY-OVER OF FUNDS FROM ONE FINANCIAL YEAR TO THE
NEXT AND BY PROVIDING GREATER FREEDOM TO MOVE FUNDS
BETWEEN SALARIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES VOTES. : 304 9
a V'
THERE WERE, AS WELL, MAJOR CHANGES TO THE ARRANGEMENTS
FOR THE REDEPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE
STAFF, AND MANY CHANGES STREAMLINING PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT, INCLUDING FURTHER DEVOLUTION TO DEPARTMENTS.
I ALSO FORESHADOWED, ON 25 SEPTEMBER 1986, THE EXTENSIVE
RESTRUCTURING OF PUBLIC SERVICE JOB CLASSIFICATIONS
DESIGNED TO REMOVE OBSOLETE DISTINCTIONS, TO REDUCE THE
OVERALL NUMBER OF PERSONNEL TRANSACTIONS, AND THROUGH
MULTI-. SKILLING TO PROVIDE GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN THE USE
OF PERSONNEL. THESE CHANGES ARE NOW BEING IMPLEMENTED
FOLLOWING CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION COMMISSION
APPROVAL AS PART OF THE SECOND TIER WAGE ROUND IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S WAGES POLICY.
AS WELL AS THE SUBSTANTIAL REFORMS IN THE PUBLIC
SERVICE, WE HAVE GIVEN CLOSE ATTENTION TO STATUTORY
AUTHORITIES. IN JANUARY 1986, OUR POLICY STATEMENT
" REFORM OF COMMONWEALTH PRIMARY INDUSTRY STATUTORY
MARKETING AUTHORITIES" WAS ISSUED AND SUBSEQUENTLY
LEGISLATION HAS BEEN PASSED ENABLING THESE AUTHORITIES
TO ADOPT A MORE FLEXIBLE COMMERCIAL APPROACH TO THE
MARKETING OF RURAL PRODUCTS.
A POLICY INFORMATION PAPER, " POLICY GUIDELINES FOR
COMMONWEALTH STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND GOVERNMENT
BUSINESS ENTERPRISES", WAS TABLED BY MY COLLEAGUE, PETER
WALSH, IN OCTOBER 1987 AND SINCE THEN EXTENSIVE WORK HAS
BEEN DONE, ESPECIALLY IN THE TRANSPORT AND
COMMUNICATIONS PORTFOLIO, ON THE RESHAPING OF GOVERNMENT
BUSINESS ENTERPRISES TO ENABLE THEM TO OPERATE MORE
COMPETITIVELY, TO BE FREED OF MANY BUREAUCRATIC
CONTROLS, AND SO THAT THEY MAY BE HELD MORE ACCOUNTABLE
FOR THEIR PERFORMANCE.
3050
vi
DETAILS OF THE CHANGES MADE IN RELATION TO THESE
BUSINESS ENTERPRISES WERE CONTAINED IN THE MAY STATEMENT
THIS YEAR, AND FURTHER WORK IS PROCEEDING IN RELATION TO
OTHER BUSINESS ENTERPRISES AND STATUTORY AUTHORITIES. 3051