Chapter 10: Whole of government

Abbreviations

A list of the abbreviations used in this report is available in the Glossary

Whole of government systems

For whole of government approaches to be successful they have to be supported by effective systems, particularly in the area of Budget and accountability frameworks and ICT.

Budget and accountability framework

Connecting Government identified Budget and accountability arrangements as an important enabler of whole of government work. Although resourcing and accountability are daily priorities for most peoplein the APS, they can present new challenges in a whole of government environment.

A specific achievement in relation to the whole of government Budget framework has been the development of a coordinated approach to developing Budget proposals for Indigenous affairs. In 2006, OIPC coordinated the second single Budget submission for Indigenous affairs across all Australian Government portfolios. As with the first single Budget submission in 2005, this reflected a collaborativeprocess, enabling Budget proposals to be considered across portfolios against identified strategic priorities. This process has illustrated how Budget frameworks can support whole of government initiatives, but the last two years’ experience also illustrates the complexities of, and the high-level of engagement required, to make these frameworks work in practice.

One area where MAC identified a need for improvement was in encouraging and facilitating the exchange of financial information between Australian Government agencies. Since the report, there has been progress in reviewing financial infrastructure to provide improved support for whole of government activities, and improving capability across the APS to transfer and exchange financial information.

In particular, to support government Budget processes and financial reporting, Finance has been implementing a Central Budget Management System (CBMS) progressively since July 2005, with full implementation expected in November 2006. The system provides increased functionality and flexibility, integration between modules, the provision of a single reporting framework, and secure desktop access for agencies through FedLink or broadband.

Despite these successes, there is more work to do in structuring supportive financial budgeting and accountability arrangements for whole of government work. At a very practical level, this is illustrated by the fact that only around half of EL and SES employees involved in inter-agency forums believed that participants in these forums pool resources when necessary.

At a more fundamental level, more work is needed on how to marry vertical and horizontal lines of accountability, and in particular, ensure that governance structures are sufficiently flexible to allow themto operate horizontally across traditional boundaries. Portfolio secretaries and agency heads have a specific role to play in leading by example in these areas, collaborating with each other, developing appropriate structures, and aligning Budget arrangements to reflect shared responsibility for outcomes.

Secretaries need to think carefully about the right governance arrangements at the start of any particularwhole of government exercise. There are a number of key challenges to be met, including how to articulate shared outcomes across portfolios that provide a clear framework for joint responsibility and accountability; how to appropriate funding for joined up initiatives; and how to set meaningful performance indicators and report on progress in a way that recognises vertical and horizontal responsibilities. The ICC initiative, in particular, has highlighted the complexities of marrying vertical and horizontal responsibilities on the ground and the importance of having sufficient delegated flexibility to tailor joined up packages locally (see box above).

Connecting Government found that the existing outcomes and outputs Budget framework does have the flexibility to provide appropriate Budget and accountability arrangements for whole of government projects. Nevertheless, in practice the implementation of these flexibilities can prove complex and thereare still perceptions among some agencies that the framework tends to hinder joint approaches. There would be value in greater guidance and clearer policies on financial accountability within the context of the whole of government initiative.

Technology enablement

Connecting Government also identified a need to improve agencies’ capability to transfer and exchange information, which requires improved interoperability between agencies’ information systems.

There have been significant moves at the broad level to support the use of ICT in a whole of government way, including through the development of ICT, and a range of ICT policies and cross-agency ICT governance bodies to ensure a coordinated and consistent approach across whole of government.

In June 2006, the Information Management Strategy Committee was replaced by the Secretaries’ Committee on Information and Communications Technology—a strategic, decision-making committee established to drive whole of government approaches relating to the use of ICT across government. The Secretaries’ Group is supported by the Business Process Transformation Committee which coordinates there design and reform of agency business processes. The Chief Information Officer’s Committee has also been refocused and is responsible for investigating and endorsing ICT issues and solutions to be applied at a whole of government level.

There have also been a range of practical ICT initiatives that have provided improved support to wholeof government activities.

In March 2006, the Government released the e-government strategy, Responsive Government: A New Service Agenda which outlines a vision for what can be achieved by 2010.⁴ The strategy, discussed in more detail in Chapter 11, has a strong focus on encouraging agencies to operate in a collaborative and connected manner.

AGIMO has developed the ICT Investment Framework to guide more targeted and efficient ICT investment by Australian Government agencies and departments. The framework aims to improve the Australian Government’s return on investment in ICT (by enhancing strategic planning, management and evaluation of ICT-enabled business change programmes and projects) and to better align ICT investment with agencies’ business and policy objectives and the overarching whole of government agenda.

The latest version of the Australian Government’s Information Interoperability Framework was released in April 2006. This framework provides the principles that underpin sound information management and establishes the concepts, practices and tools that will drive the successful sharing of information across government boundaries.

Despite these improvements at the broad level, there remains further work to be done in ensuring that information infrastructure supports whole of government, particularly in the area of implementation. A review of the implementation of Connecting Government conducted for MAC found that some agencies continue to identify problems with information management and infrastructure, including systems and IT incompatibility, as impediments when undertaking whole of government activities. There is some improvement in this area, with the majority of participants in multi-agency forums now agreeing that they are adequately supported by ICT infrastructure. Nevertheless, employees remain less positive about their level of ICT support than a range of other issues relevant to their participation in multi-agency forums. This is an area where both agencies and relevant whole of government forums need to continue to focus.

Whole of government in action—preparing for a possible influenza pandemic

Preparing for a possible influenza pandemic has been a major priority for all governments in Australia during 2005–06. A whole of government response has been developed to prevent or delay the entry of an influenza virus with pandemic potential into Australia, limit the spread of a virus if it enters Australia and, in the event a pandemic influenza virus spreads, respond in a rapid, cooperative and coordinated way to minimise social and economic disruption and maintain social functioning.

PM&C established a Pandemic Team in response to the identified need for a coordinated whole of Australian Government as well as a national approach to the issues which might face Australia in the event of an influenza pandemic.

The major challenge facing the team has been the scale, complexity and scope of the work, involving agencies across the Australian Government and interactions with states and territories, and the need to get both the national and Australian Government plan in place as quickly as possible. The wide- ranging nature of the issues which might be faced in the event of a pandemic has reinforced the need for enhanced communication and coordination within and across agencies. The team convened and supported a high-level Deputy Secretaries’ Inter-Departmental Committee on Influenza Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness, a COAG Working Group, and up to 12 other working groups at any one time in order to develop policy directions in a number of areas.

The work undertaken during 2005–06 resulted in the development of the National Action Plan for Human Influenza Pandemic and a Statement of Cooperation between Australian Governments on a human influenza pandemic endorsed by COAG on 14 July and the Commonwealth Government Action Plan endorsed by Cabinet. These plans will continue to be reviewed and updated in response to emerging developments.

AGIMO 2006, Responsive Government: A New Service Agenda, <http://www.agimo.gov.au>