Defence

Feature

Connecting capabilities

Organisational boundaries—even within Defence—can present challenges in achieving outcomes at work. So what about the challenges for Defence in working cooperatively with other government agencies? Harry Baxter looks at one of 'the new essentials' in implementing the Government's directions.

'Defence, the Australian Customs Service and the Australian Federal Police, working together, provide Australia with the highest level of border protection.'
Defence Update 2005.
Photo by PO Damian Pawlenko

It's a fact that many of Defence's successful operational efforts, particularly in recent times with humanitarian and peacekeeping efforts, have been shared endeavours with other government agencies at state and federal levels.

Our capability to work with other Australian government agencies, often tested through our extensive program of military exercises (a good example being Exercise Mercury in late 2005), is also reflected in a significant range of behind-the-scenes activity that is, perhaps, not so widely publicised.

Of course, a wide range of Defence's administrative endeavours, the centrepiece of which is perhaps the annual budget process, also require a huge investment of time and energy in consultation and coordination with officials from other government agencies.

Peter Shergold, the head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, recently described the new focus on working collaboratively in this way: 'Connected government, horizontal structures and seamless service delivery sound like the latest mantras of slick management consultants.'

'In fact they are concepts that are central to good governance. That was made apparent as we witnessed, from afar, the bureaucratic ineptitude that slowed the American response to Hurricane Katrina. Joined-up government is important,' Dr Shergold said.

This view of the importance of working collaboratively, and of its increasing prominence, is shared by Shane Carmody, the Deputy Secretary Intelligence and Security in Defence. Mr Carmody is in no doubt of what he describes as a 'huge leap' in whole-of-government thinking, coordination and working over the past four or five years.

'It certainly happens much more, and it's more effective now,' he says.

'A really good example is obviously the relief effort after the Indian Ocean tsunami that involved a range of agencies, in the one room at the one time over Christmas, to coordinate the immediate support. What we also saw—and the decision on the Partnership for Reconstruction and Development with the Indonesian Government is a good example—was some high-powered thinking to combine both policy and practical support.

'It really was a huge success and, I think, won enormous credibility for Australia with the Indonesian Government.'

Mr Carmody also cited counter-terrorism efforts and domestic security initiatives, including support for Australian cities hosting the Olympic and Commonwealth Games, as further positive examples.

'Defence has always been involved in counter-terrorism efforts, but perhaps traditionally only seen for our role in the application of force. What we have now is a situation where we are seen as an organisation that has a strong policy view, and that has strategic and policy weight.

'To have that influence, to be able to provide our considered policy view, helps Defence to be seen as more than just a force of last resort. It also provides whole-of-government visibility and justification for our broader budget and acquisition programs.

'To be able to contribute to national objectives—and not just in warfighting—helps other agencies and government to better understand what underpins Defence's capability, why we cost a lot of money, and the risks inherent in many things we do.'

Working collaboratively with other agencies is often represented through Defence officials participating in interdepartmental committees or specially convened taskforces. These activities typically involve more senior Defence personnel. At lower levels, Defence personnel might be involved in working groups or review teams alongside officers from other agencies.

In looking at challenges for Defence personnel, Mr Carmody stresses the balance of representing a Defence view, on the one hand, while not 'going beyond the limits of the brief' on the other.

'The biggest challenge I see is that we have such a can-do culture in Defence that sometimes we are too eager to do,' he says. 'People need to be wise, they need to know what they can commit to and what they can't (and not to be afraid to say so).'

These challenges include attention to the finer details of good record-keeping, and of keeping Defence leaders and Minister(s) well informed. At the heart of the issue lies the ability to represent Defence effectively, balanced with the ability to work together with other agencies to achieve the best, collegiate outcome.

More Information

A range of documents and other information are available, including:

• a 2004 report by the Australian Public Service (APS) Management Advisory Committee (MAC), which comprises APS departmental secretaries, entitled Connecting Government
• guidance for all agencies from the Public Service Commission entitled Working together: Principles and practices to guide the Australian Public Service
• Defence's own guidance, available on the Intranet, entitled Defence involvement on Inter-Departmental Committees
• a website at http://www.connected.gov.au
• more recent guidance from the Public Service Commission entitled Supporting Ministers, Upholding the Values.

[ top of page ]

Leading the way

Lynne Tacy is the Deputy Public Service Commissioner, and chairs a working group set up to monitor the progress of individual Australian Public Service (APS) agencies in implementing the Connecting Government initiative. We asked her about the role, and its challenges.

Defence Magazine: What has been your own experience in whole-of-government work in your career in the APS to date?

Over my career I have been involved in a range of whole-of-government activities. These have involved pursuing workplace relations changes and resourcing arrangements through Commonwealth–State fora and negotiations. I have also chaired and participated in a range of IDCs [Internal Departmental Committees] and taskforces. Currently, I am involved in much of the work done through the Management Advisory Committee. Chaired by Peter Shergold and comprising Portfolio Secretaries and key agency heads, this committee looks at key challenges and issues faced across the APS.

You recently chaired a Deputy Secretaries Group that reported on the Implementation of Connecting Government initiatives across the Public Service. What were the key findings of the report?

Significant progress has been made in implementing the findings of the 2004 Management Advisory Committee's report entitled Connecting Government. This progress includes:

• improving capability across the APS to transfer and exchange information
• reviewing and rationalising public service–wide governance arrangements and financial and ICT [Information and Communications Technology] infrastructure to provide support to whole-of-government activities
• developing skills and cultures that are supportive of whole-of-government endeavours
• setting up the Connected Government website www.connected.gov.au.

While progress has been good, there is a need for continued effort in some areas, such as promoting cultural change, building capability and structuring supportive financial budgeting and accountability arrangements. It is also important that the shared outcomes and objectives of whole-of-government endeavours, set upfront, are sufficiently clear and specific.

Do you think that whole-of-government endeavours are too often underrated, or written off as 'just another round of meetings'?

Whole-of-government endeavours certainly do involve more interaction and more meetings. It's not just a 'gab fest' though, but very strategic and deliberate interaction driven by the pursuit of shared outcomes and objectives. Moreover, the need for effective whole-of-government approaches continues to grow. The range and impact of endeavours under way is striking—for example, across security, natural resource management, indigenous services, and the environment, health, biosecurity, service delivery and social policy fronts.

The Commission's most recent State of the Service Report identifies that continuing improvement is needed in whole-of-government capability across the Public Service. Are you confident that the APS can meet these future challenges?

While improvement is needed to develop whole-of-government capabilities, there is evidence that progress is being made. There has been a continuing focus on integrating the whole-of-government agenda into management and leadership capability development, network events and orientation programs at both service-wide and agency level.

At the service-wide level, the commission has been facilitating a Connected Government series for SES [Senior Executive Service] employees across the APS. The series has received an overwhelmingly positive response, creating demand for additional sessions. This shows that employees are interested in developing their own capabilities in this area.

The State of the Service Report 2004–2005 also indicated that 38 per cent of agencies have changed their training objectives to focus on improving whole-of-government capabilities. Continued efforts will place the APS in a position to meet future challenges around delivering meaningful outcomes through whole-of-government approaches.

[ top of page ]