One week on: How the APS hierarchy and reclassification debate is going

article-body

A 61-page document reviewing the shape and operation of the Australian Public Service dropped last week, with some recommendations for urgent change. Here’s the status of the debate so far.

Last month the Secretaries Board met to discuss how the federal bureaucracy will approach the recently published Hierarchy and Classification Review. 

The Mandarin has confirmed minister for the public service Senator Katy Gallagher has been subsequently briefed on the independent review findings. 

A spokesperson from the APSC said commissioner Peter Woolcott would now lead any work arising from the review. Wider consultations on the hierarchy reform recommendation will commence in November. 

“The public service minister has been briefed appropriately. Information on next steps is available on the APSC website, alongside a form for those who wish to register interest in future consultation opportunities,” the spokesperson said.

Three broad areas for reform were considered by the board, with a decision to proceed on cultural and capability changes in the APS and the third option of what will likely be expensive and complex structural reform to be left on the back burner for now. 

“The priority for the year ahead is culture, capability and supporting agencies to adjust their structures flexibly over time, in line with updated guidance on optimal management structures (OMS),” the commission spokesperson added. 

“That OMS guidance provides advice to agencies on structure, including things like the span of control and management layers, and implementing it alongside the work on culture and capability will go a long way to deliver the aims of the review.”

Among the report’s eight calls for change, recommendations 1, 2, 3 and 5 go directly to the issue of APS structural reform. These include: 

• Simplifying the Public Service Classification Rules 2000 from 13 to 8 classifications, with secretaries retaining the flexibility to structure their organisations to optimise business needs.
• Referring to roles by descriptive job titles rather than numerical classifications.
• Enabling progression for people within classifications through fair and transparent assessment driven by proficiency, skills development and workforce planning.
• That the Secretaries Board implements spans of control for senior management roles generally within the range of 8-10 direct reports, consistent with contemporary organisational design.

Former APS boss Andrew Podger has taken a critical view of the recommendations concerning structural change, arguing those issues go beyond the review’s scope.

But review chair and former secretary Dr Heather Smith argues that a more comprehensive consultation with the bureaucracy later this year, pressing ahead with structural reform in the APS, will be critical to realising a fit-for-purpose workforce. 

“The independent review is thinking about the next 20 years, and also coming off the base where there’s been no change for 30 years,” Smith said.

“If you’re an APS that that is configured to anticipate, advise and deliver in a way that’s timely and responsive, and the ways of working have changed, it’s very different from previous hierarchical view — people want to be involved in the design of their organisation, and to get the most out of it.”

The report was commissioned by the APSC following the 2019 Thodey Review, with terms of reference including: a review and report on the current APS classification framework; recommendations for a clear, effective and efficient structure that is fit for the future; as well as a review and update of a framework for the OMS guidance produced in 2014. The review’s scope of work also included examining hierarchy and classification structures from grades APS1‐6, EL1‐2, and SES 1‐3, with particular attention on future‐state and potential for new structures.

“The proposal for classification reform deserves to be looked at further in the future, but now is not the time,” the commission spokesperson said.

“Our focus right now is delivering the commitments we’ve made in response to the review, and on the government’s broader APS reform agenda.”

---

:

Review chair: Time to finish the three-year long conversation on APS reform