Indigenous representation in the APS: more talk

I praise God for you sir: your reasons …have been sharp and sententious, pleasant without scurrility, witty without affection, audacious without impudency, learned without opinion, and strange without heresy.

                     Love’s Labour Lost, Act 5, Scene 1.

The Australian Public Service Commission last week released the Commonwealth Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Workforce Strategy 2020-2024 (link here). The core objectives of the Strategy are laid out in the text below (graphics removed):

Overall Commonwealth workforce representation targets

The Commonwealth aspires to achieve a stretch target of 3 per cent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employee representation for the Senior Executive Service by 2024, the final year of the Strategy.

To achieve the desired outcome, the Commonwealth should aim to invest in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representation at the APS 4 to APS 6 levels (or equivalent) to 5 per cent by the end of 2022, this will help build the pipeline; and representation of 5 per cent at the Executive Levels 1 and 2 by the end of 2024.

Initially this will be achieved through targeted recruitment with a longer term focus on developing employees within the public sector to enable promotion into the more senior roles.

Commonwealth stretch targets

Portfolio workforce representation targets

To support the Commonwealth in building the talent pipeline, each portfolio should aim to achieve a stretch target of 3 per cent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representation  at each classification level in their workforce by 2024, the final year of the Strategy.

The Mandarin reported on the release of the Strategy (link here) and quoted the Public Service Commissioner, Peter Woolcott as saying the plan would set the direction for all employers across the Commonwealth, and would ‘accelerate improvements in closing the gap in social and economic outcomes between Indigenous Australians and non-Indigenous Australians’ by building on the achievements of the previous Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employment strategy. Unfortunately, the new strategy provides no contextual data to assist in identifying and fleshing out the ‘achievements’ of the previous strategy.

About 15 months ago, I commented on the desultory progress in reflecting the demographic composition of First Nations within the APS, particularly at SES levels. My post, titled Indigenous Employment in the APS: a policy recommendation can be found here. I argued there that what was required was a Prime Ministerial commitment to doubling the Indigenous representation in the SES within four years. Such a commitment would send the required message to Departmental Secretaries who are the key decisionmakers on SES appointments.

The present strategy adopts a rather different approach, although it appears similar to the untrained eye. It has the backing of the Public Service Commissioner and the Minister for Indigenous Australians, but relies on something termed ‘stretch targets’. A target is not a commitment, and a stretch target is a target that we acknowledge up front will be extremely difficult to attain.

Of course, targets without resources and /or incentives are unlikely to be met. I see little in the way of extra resources for the APS to prioritise these targets over the multiple other challenges they face, nor do I see persuasive incentives in place pushing agencies to take the decisive action that will be required to meet these targets. Further, while the notion of a pipeline from EL1 and EL2 levels into the SES makes intuitive sense, the reality is that there is not enough time in a four year strategy for this to have anything more than a marginal impact on SES levels of representation.

My conclusion is that this new strategy is more about rhetoric more than reality. For comparison, look to New Zealand where agency heads have been given legislative requirements to support Maori leadership within the public service (see my earlier post on New Zealand public sector reform here).

It is also worth reminding ourselves that less than a year ago, the Government published the Thodey Review and its response. It landed with a resounding silence. My assessment of the implications of the Thodey Review for Indigenous Australians can be found here…it is salient that Thodey said very little specific regarding Indigenous representation within the SES, and the Government walked away from anything which appeared to challenge the status quo. As a result there is no cross reference in the recently released workforce strategy. More significantly, the underlying message to agencies and their leadership was that Indigenous issues are not the priority. In that sense, the current Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Workforce Strategy can be seen as entirely aligned with the status quo: all talk but little action.

Our public service, our future….or is it?

               …That we would do

We should do when we would…

Hamlet Act 4, scene 7

The release of the Thodey Review of the Australian Public Service, Our Public Service, Our Future, (link here) on a Friday 12 days before Christmas is not designed to attract sustained attention to the important issues dealt with. The Prime Minister’s media release (link here) indicates that ‘The Government agrees with the majority of the independent panel’s recommendations and I have asked the heads of the public service to take these forward’. The Government’s response, Delivering for All Australians, addresses each recommendation (link here).

This post presents a provisional reaction to the key recommendations of the Review that relate to Indigenous Australians and then comments on the Government’s formal response. For ease of reference, I have set out relevant extracts of the Review recommendations and the Government’s response at the end of this post.

While there is a temptation to focus solely on the Government’s response, it seems to me that it is important to give serious consideration to the Review itself. These types of documents potentially have long half-lives, and in the long term are potentially influential for good or bad.

First some contextual issues. My initial response is that the Report’s recommendations are well meaning, worthwhile, but ultimately underwhelming. While there are numerous references within Thodey’s report to the 1976 Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration (the ‘Coombs Royal Commission’), even a quick comparison of the two documents makes clear that the Coombs’ report was much more thorough, comprehensive, deeply argued and ultimately persuasive. This is even more particularly the case in relation to Indigenous policy issues.

The Thodey Report correctly concludes that implementation processes will be crucial if the Report is to have an impact. Yet in too many instances, it seems that the Review Panel have failed to understand the inherent complexity of what they are recommending, and thus left us with ‘feel good’ recommendations that if implemented, would ultimately fail.

The Government’s response in relation to the relevant recommendations discussed in this post is desultory and vague. While they claim to have endorsed a majority of the Review recommendations, it is clear that any recommendation for substantive change or that might threaten the status quo has been rejected or downplayed. This is consistent with the current playbook on virtually all policy: ramp up the rhetoric, create the appearance of some action somewhere (to avoid accusations of inaction), and continue business as usual. See below.

While virtually all activities of the Australian Public Service (APS) indirectly affect First Nations citizens, the Thodey Report’s chapter four is of most direct relevance to First Nations citizens. That chapter makes a strong case for stronger partnerships with ‘people [ie citizens generally] and communities… including [emphasis added] place based solutions and working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’. Thus, recommendation 8 does not mention Indigenous peoples. The core element in recommendation 8 is:

Secretaries Board to develop a Charter of Partnerships to promote an open APS and guide external engagement and collaboration.

The proposed Charter of Partnerships is designed ‘to set clear expectations – for Government, the APS, and the community – on how the APS will work with its external partners’. It is to be developed in collaboration with the APS’s partners, including Indigenous peoples (p.119). The Report then makes the point (correctly in my view) that partnerships rely on openness and transparency, and that this ‘will require real cultural change in the APS’ (p.120).

This is sensible and I support it. The overarching analytic framework is one of dealing with all communities and people, particularly disadvantaged citizens, and including Indigenous communities within this framework. A strong case can be made for such a framework (as opposed to a stand-alone Indigenous specific framework), although there is no discussion of the alternatives to the frame adopted by the Report. The ‘mainstream’ framework is just adopted.

The Report also recommends that the Government commission a review of privacy, FOI and record –keeping that accepts without question arguments from within the bureaucracy regarding the importance of protecting records of deliberative processes. The review panel fails to address at all the counter view that blanket protections of advice to government can also hide both poor quality advice from bureaucrats and allow governments to blame bureaucrats for decisions that are taken for political reasons. There is a case for a much more nuanced approach to this issue if we believe ‘open government’ and trust in government is important.

The Government response to recommendation 8, labelled misleadingly as ‘agreed in part’ is essentially to reject it, and maintain the status quo. In rejecting the proposed Charter of Partnerships framework, the suggestions for external involvement of the community (including First Nations interests) in developing the proposed Charter is ignored, as is the suggestion that an accountability framework be developed to ensure the Charter is implemented effectively. The suggestion of a review of the privacy and FOI legislation is just rejected outright.

The chapter then moves onto a discussion of ‘Solutions with communities’ where it argues for and recommends ‘that the APS develops, for Government consideration, a whole of government policy framework for place based investment’ (p.126). Again, this is a mainstream recommendation, targeted at disadvantaged communities generally and not just Indigenous communities. Of course, given the over-representation of Indigenous communities (especially in regional and remote areas) amongst the most deeply disadvantaged Australians, this discussion is highly relevant to First Australians.

While the review panel recognises that it would be ‘a considerable change to the status quo’, its level of analysis around the potential implementation challenges is quite shallow. It does suggest a progressive rollout, which begs the question, what about those communities that are not being included. It also tentatively proposes ‘shared accountability between ministers for placed base approaches’ (p126) which in my experience is a recipe for non-accountability and non-delivery. The review panel also correctly notes that:

If Australian Government and state and territory agencies work in isolation on place-based approaches, communities will continue to receive fragmented support and governments will continue to duplicate effort and resourcing [emphasis added].

Recommendation 9 recommends that the Government commit to establishing a place based investment framework to address intergenerational and multi-dimensional disadvantage. In my view, the recommendation is conceptually correct, but as framed in the Report (see full recommendation below) suffers from at least two fundamental flaws. First, a progressive roll out leaves inequity and deep disadvantage unaddressed in those communities that miss out.

Second, it fails to acknowledge or analyse the fundamental budget management reality that place-based approaches are fundamentally at odds with portfolio-based appropriations. Ever since ATSIC and its regional councils, the Department of Finance has resisted all approaches to move to pooled place-based appropriations. The problem is exacerbated when state and local government jurisdictions are brought into the equation (as they must if it is to work).

I am a supporter of place-based approaches. In my experience, they can be implemented and made to work by engaged and energetic bureaucratic entrepreneurs operating with ministerial support. But eventually, either the bureaucratic entrepreneur or the Minister changes and the place based arrangements default to the status quo ante. The Review should have – but hasn’t - engaged with these issues which require legislative or institutional buttressing if they are going to work. In short, the odds of this recommendation being implemented (despite its inherent merits) are very low. Of course, there should be more emphasis on local engagement and community involvement, but governments must be careful not to raise expectations beyond what they can deliver and sustain.

The Government response to recommendation 9 is again labelled ‘agreed in part’ whereas the substantive response is to ignore the Review recommendation and indicate that the hard working Secretaries Board will tweak current approaches and undertake a ‘cross-portfolio analysis on lessons learned and success factors for place-based approaches, including opportunities to expand this work.’ There is no time frame for this work to be undertaken, and no guarantee that it will be published.

Having made the case for stronger more robust partnership framework, and a place based investment framework, only then does the review panel address Indigenous Australians.

‘Solutions with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ (p.129)

This section builds on the previous sections on the proposed Charter of Partnerships and a framework for place-based investment. The text and analysis is carefully crafted to hit the key issues of concern to the majority of Indigenous citizens, and on a first read, the review panel appear to have made a strong case for substantive partnership with Indigenous Australians. An aspiration I share.

However on closer reading, the text is subtly qualified and caveated such as to undermine the likelihood that real change will ensue. Let me start with the core elements of Recommendation 10 that is titled Work in genuine partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. I have added the underlining for emphasis:

• Government and APS to recognise the importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples making decisions on matters affecting their lives and communities, and support their full participation in the social and economic life of Australia.

• National Indigenous Australians Agency and PM&C to lead the APS’s application of the framework for place-based investment and the Charter of Partnerships in working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, including to:

promote joint decision-making with communities on design and implementation of policies and services

 adopt flexible funding arrangements that cater for different opportunities and needs across communities, and

delegate authority for investment decisions to regionally-based APS employees.

The first paragraph is easy to support, but almost impossible to disprove in terms of its implementation. It involves no substantive policy change, and is arguably (at least formally) existing government policy. A cynic might say it is motherhood.

The second paragraph recommends the adoption (or actually the promotion) of joint decision making, commonly referred to as ‘co-design’. However, either deliberately or by oversight, it is framed solely as one part of place-based frameworks, rather than in terms of joint decision-making in relation to national level policies and programs. I support greater use of co-design at all levels of the policy making process, however there are limits to its application, and these require a process of open discussion if they are to be accepted by the community. There are also complex issues related to the operation and interaction of mainstream programs with Indigenous communities that again require open discussion and explanation if Indigenous expectations are not to be raised and then dashed. The review in my view could have done better in elaborating these potential complexities and risks.

The recommendation regarding flexible funding arrangements is quite vague, but to the extent it refers to pooled funding, it suffers from the flaws identified above in relation to place based investment frameworks. The Minister has made funding decisions in Indigenous affairs (particularly in the Indigenous Advancement Strategy) in secret for the past five years, with extremely limited delegations to officials. The ANAO has been very critical (link here). The recommendation for greater delegation thus seems unlikely to be accepted, at least in the short term, though I would love to be proved wrong on this.

The review also discussed the merits of strengthening parliamentary oversight, including the possibility that Indigenous community representatives might participate in some way. The review panel’s recommendation was merely that the Parliament consider establishing a Senate or Joint Committee on Indigenous Affairs to oversee Australian Government expenditure and policies relevant to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Nevertheless, the fact that this issue has been raised in the review points to an emerging view that the current oversight arrangements are not working as effectively as they might. This is a complex issue that required more nuanced discussion that space permits here, but is an issue that I predict will continue to gain profile and salience.

Finally, there is a significant fudge by the review panel in this chapter, and perhaps elsewhere, which derives from its propensity to talk as if the APS makes most decisions and sets directions, something that is just not the case. Thus for example, the panel states:

The ANZSOG First Peoples Team labelled the relationship between the APS and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as ‘fraught and lacking in trust’. This is a damning assessment of years of focus on gaps and problems, not on strengths and assets. Too often, this approach has seen the APS do things to, not with, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, and substantially fail to improve social and economic outcomes [emphasis added; footnote deleted].

This sort of analysis by explicitly focussing on the APS implicitly assumes that governments and ministers are not responsible for policy decisions and directions, and the design and funding levels of programs, and in particular, for setting constraints and parameters that public servants must apply (either formally or informally). The complexity of this relationship and the propensity of politicians to play politics is a core reason for the majority of the trust issues that exist between Indigenous citizens and government. It is of concern that the review panel have not addressed this issue head on here (and I suspect anywhere in their report). The resort to denigrating a ‘focus on gaps and problems’ misconstrues the concerns of Indigenous peoples about deficit discourse. Again, I think the Australian public deserved better from the high-level review team. Instead, there appears to have been resort to ideological fudging dressed up as support for Indigenous culture.

The Government response to recommendation 10 is again ‘agreed in part’ and seeks to deflect the review panel recommendation in three ways. First, by asserting in the first two sentences that the Government is already working with First Nations peoples; second by referring to the recent partnership agreement between the National Coalition of Indigenous Peaks and COAG which is focussed on refreshing the Closing the Gap framework, and third by claiming that:

The Government is committed to improving local and regional decision-making and considering options for a national Voice, and has commenced a process to co-design models and options for this.

Each of these three claims are factually true, but open to question in terms of the parameters that are implicitly or explicitly placed around the various processes. While each of the three claims is positive on its face, it is the quality of the substantive interactions that will determines its ultimate impact. The absence of any commitment to underlying transparency in relation to these processes (for an example see the link here) and much else that the Government is doing in the Indigenous policy domain, facilitates the potential ‘management’ of each of these processes in ways which do not allow for real partnership relationships to emerge. For example, how does the selection and appointment by government of representatives on a committee to develop the national voice (link here) amount to ‘co-design’?

Moreover, the Government’s decision to not proceed with an accountable Charter of Partnerships framework, nor a commitment to a place based investment framework, removes the foundation that the review panel’s recommendation 10 was built on. The bland assertions by the Government along the line that everything is fine and we are already doing working in partnership must be taken with a grain of salt. Moreover, it must be remembered that while the Closing the Gap refresh and National Voice issues are important, there is much else occurring in the Indigenous policy domain. Where are the co-design processes in these areas?

Finally in relation to recommendation 10, and perhaps predictably, the Government response made clear that they see no need to change or strengthen current parliamentary oversight of Indigenous policy and programs.

This response by government, and indeed the totality of its response to recommendations 8, 9 and 10,  is arguably emblematic of a deep-seated issue in Indigenous affairs. Across Indigenous Australia, there is a widespread view that governments no longer retain their former legitimacy and that their policy and program activities writ large are misdirected at best and punitive at worst. Perhaps cognisant of this widespread lack of trust and legitimacy, the review panel made a relatively low key effort to argue for greater engagement and partnership between government and Indigenous communities. The Government’s response has essentially been to say “nothing to see here, all’s good, no action required’. While I suspect that the Government has never been open to an alternative view, in my view the Thodey led review panel did the nation and Indigenous Australians a disservice by not articulating in more detail and more clearly the issues that confront the APS is developing and implementing policies and programs that impact Indigenous Australians.

Forty three years ago, the Coombs Royal Commission stated:

The realities of power mean that ultimate decisions about them [Indigenous citizens] and the allocation of resources to them will finally be made, in present circumstances, by white decision makers. The Commission is satisfied, however, that unless these decision makers act in accordance with procedures which give Aboriginals a substantive and conscious participation in the processes of decision and, within broad limits, in the decisions themselves, programs will continue to fall short of their objectives, and resistance, hostility and a rejection of responsibility will continue to mark Aboriginal attitudes (para 10.5.6; p.337).

It is time that policy analysts, royal commissioners, evaluators and members of review teams with remits focussed on improving policy and program outcomes related to Indigenous Australians ceased merely reiterating that place based and co-design approaches (to use current terminology) are required, and began to examine why it is that Governments across the political spectrum have been and continue to be so resistant to implementing these policy approaches. Might it be that Coombs was on the money in pointing to ‘the realities of power’?

################################################

Set out below are recommendations 8, 9 and 10 of the Review

Recommendation 8

Harness external perspectives and capability by working openly and meaningfully with people, communities and organisations, under an accountable Charter of Partnerships.

• Secretaries Board to develop a Charter of Partnerships to promote an open APS and guide external engagement and collaboration.

• All agencies to embed Charter expectations into individual and agency head performance management and corporate planning and reporting.

• All agencies to draw on diverse and rich community and partner insights in advice to Government, including in Cabinet and budget processes.

• Government to commission a review of privacy, FOI and record-keeping arrangements to ensure that they are fit for the digital age, by: ِ supporting greater transparency and disclosure, simpler administration and faster decisions, while protecting personal data and other information, and ِ exempting material prepared to inform deliberative processes of government from release under FOI.

Implementation guidance

• Establish a cross-agency team to develop the Charter in collaboration with APS partners, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

• Ensure the Charter:

 ِ highlights the value of better external engagement

 ِ guides the APS to work openly and respectfully with partners on policies and programs before and after government decisions

 ِ reflects the importance of seeking diverse external views, and

 ِ sets reciprocal expectations for APS partners — including engaging with honesty and pragmatism.

• Measure APS adherence through partner feedback, annual reports, capability reviews and individual and agency head performance management.

• Consider amending the Public Service Act 1999 to require the APS to develop a Charter of Partnerships

Recommendation 9

Use place-based approaches to address intergenerational and multi-dimensional disadvantage.

• Government to develop a framework for place-based investment, based on:

ِ joint decision-making with communities and other levels of government on designing and implementing policies and services

 ِ flexibility, including through funding arrangements, to cater for the different needs and opportunities in particular communities

ِ use of data to support decision-making and measure progress, and

 ِ clear accountability for outcomes, including shared ministerial accountability where appropriate.

• Government to pilot approach in communities with entrenched disadvantage or complex needs and strong community leadership.

• Agencies to appoint regionally-based SES as APS Community Partners to work with local communities and other jurisdictions, with delegated authority for investment decisions where appropriate.

• Secretaries Board to ensure APS makes place-based data available to help understand local needs and opportunities and measure progress.

Implementation guidance

• Build on existing collaborations with communities, governments and other partners in finding tailored solutions to achieve local priorities.

• Include an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander community in initial pilot areas.

• Adapt framework in light of results of the trials.

• Consider pooling discretionary grants funding from across portfolios to allocate to community-led initiatives to achieve jointly-agreed objectives.

Recommendation 10

Work in genuine partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

• Government and APS to recognise the importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples making decisions on matters affecting their lives and communities, and support their full participation in the social and economic life of Australia.

• National Indigenous Australians Agency and PM&C to lead the APS’s application of the framework for place-based investment and the Charter of Partnerships in working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, including to:

ِ promote joint decision-making with communities on design and implementation of policies and services ِ adopt flexible funding arrangements that cater for different opportunities and needs across communities, and

 ِ delegate authority for investment decisions to regionally-based APS employees.

• APSC and relevant agencies to work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees, the Indigenous SES Network and Secretaries Board to improve recruitment and development of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the APS.

• Secretaries Board to ensure cultural competency training remains a core part of APS professional development.

• Parliament to consider establishing a Senate or Joint Committee on Indigenous Affairs to oversee Australian Government expenditure and policies relevant to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Implementation guidance

• Secretaries Board to ensure the APS works in effective partnerships with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, including responding to and supporting future changes in Indigenous Affairs.

• Improve recruitment pathways and develop Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people for EL and SES levels.

• Provide cultural competency training for all APS employees. All SES officers to complete training by end-2020.

Government Response to recommendations 8, 9 and 10

Recommendation 8: Harness external perspectives and capability by working openly and meaningfully with people, communities and organisations, under an accountable Charter of Partnerships

Agreed in part.

The Government expects the APS to better understand the needs and expectations of all Australians, and to work effectively with them. This is an integral part of good policy, implementation and service-delivery. Rather than agree a new framework like the proposed Charter of Partnerships, the APS will apply the recently-agreed APS Framework for Engagement and Participation to support genuine collaboration with Australians in designing better services and finding solutions to policy problems. Application of this Framework will be monitored through individual and agency-level performance processes. Building on existing tools, the Board will pursue two new initiatives to better understand the needs of Australians – an APS-wide survey of business (to be trialled in 2020 for Government consideration before being rolled-out), and an APS-wide analysis of complaints hotspots. Agencies will use these data and insights to inform its advice to Government. The Government notes the proposal for a new wide-ranging review of privacy, FOI and record-keeping arrangements. The Government’s principal focus is to ensure that agencies effectively implement current requirements, addressing practical problems where required. Any further reform to these arrangements would be considered separately to the Government’s response to the APS Review.

Recommendation 9: Use place-based approaches to address intergenerational and multi-dimensional disadvantage

Agreed in part.

The Government is already pursuing place-based approaches in a number of regions, including in responding to natural disasters (e.g. through the National Drought and North Queensland Flood Response and Recovery Agency) and other initiatives like regional and city deals in places like the Barkly Region, Darwin, Townsville, Western Sydney, Geelong, Launceston, Hobart and Adelaide. Rather than develop a new framework, the Secretaries Board will first undertake cross-portfolio analysis on lessons learned and success factors for place-based approaches, including opportunities to expand this work. As part of this analysis, the Board will consider how regionally-based Senior Executive Service (SES) can better work with local communities and other jurisdictions. The Board will also consider how to best use different data sources in place-based work.

Recommendation 10: APS to work in genuine partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples

Agreed in part.

The Government and the APS are committed to improving the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. The new National Indigenous Australians Agency is working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities around Australia, and with other portfolios and state and territory governments, to ensure Government policies, programs and services address the needs of different communities. The Government is committed to improving local and regional decision-making and considering options for a national Voice, and has commenced a process to co-design models and options for this. The Council of Australian Governments and the National Coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peak Organisations have agreed to a formal Partnership Agreement to finalise the Closing the Gap Refresh and provide a forum for ongoing engagement throughout implementation of the new agenda. The Government notes the recommendation that Parliament consider establishing an additional parliamentary committee on Indigenous Affairs. The establishment of parliamentary committees is a matter for the Parliament. The Government considers that the current arrangements are appropriate.

New Zealand Public Sector reform: Crown- Māori relations

The New Zealand Government has announced its intention to overhaul the public service legislation. Stephen Easton has a good summary in The Mandarin (link here). The reforms involve five broad reforms: a unified public service, employment and workforce changes, leadership, organisational structures, and strengthening the Crown-Maori relationship. This post deals with this last change: the proposal for a standalone provision in the new public service legislation addressing Maori-Crown relations.

The State Services Minister, Chris Hipkins has released five Cabinet Papers (with minor redactions) which outlie the details of the proposals and some of the options that have not been adopted. The new legislation is yet to be drafted and is expected to be introduced and enacted alter in the year.

In a speech announcing the reform proposals (link here), Minister Hipkins stated:

The Act will include a stand-alone clause that is clear about the expectations of the public service in relation to Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi. In other words, the Act will recognise the responsibility of the Public Service – including Crown Agents – to support the Crown to fulfil its responsibilities under the Treaty.

This will also mean chief executives have a collective responsibility to develop cultural competence and capability, for supporting Māori leadership within the public service and ensuring the public service engages with and has strong relationships with Māori

The Cabinet Paper dealing with the Crown- Māori relations (link here) is worth reading in full. The substantive recommendations were as follows:

5. agree that the stand-alone clause in the new Public Service Act include Option 2 as described in recommendation 4….

8. agree that, subject to agreement to recommendations 5, the stand-alone clause also clarifies expectations that the New Zealand Public Service is to:

8.1 promote engagement, participation and partnership with Māori including proactive informed and collaborative approaches that are mutually beneficial and strengthen the relationship;

8.2 deliver services and results that are responsive to, accessible to, and work for Māori and whanau to improve results;

8.3 have a workforce that reflects and understands the communities it serves, is valued for its cultural competence, and empowers Māori to succeed as Māori in the public service;

8.4 promote a leadership and culture that encourages cultural competence to delivers with and for Māori and develops and supports Māori in senior leadership and decision-making roles.

9. agree that the Public Service Act include responsibilities on the Public Service Commissioner and chief executives in relation to:

9.1 responsibility for developing the cultural competence and capability of the public service;

9.2 supporting Māori leadership within the public service;

9.3 ensuring the public service has strong relationships with Māori, is responsive to the needs and aspirations of Māori and advances opportunities to work with Māori.

10. agree that there is an expectation on the Public Service Commissioner to hold public service chief executives accountable for enabling the Crown to fulfil its responsibilities to the Māori/Crown relationship and Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi

Commentary

As I am not an expert in New Zealand public policy, I don’t propose to adopt a robustly critical stance in relation to these proposals. On their face, they appear both sensible and well considered. A comprehensive consultation process outlined in detail in the Cabinet Paper underpins them.

The obvious point to make however is that the reform proposals demonstrate just how far Australia lags New Zealand in addressing relations with First Nations. We have no treaty or treaties, and appear intent on stalling any substantive constitutional reform. In contrast to New Zealand, we appear pathologically resistant to the benefits of open and transparent policy making across the board, but particularly in relation to first Nations Policy matters.

It will be interesting to compare the New Zealand proposals with the recommendations and outcomes of the current review of the APS. My prediction is that the APS review is unlikely to lead to a specific legislative provision relating to relations between the APS and First Nations. Such a legislative provision would not be a panacea, but would make clear that public servants have an obligation to serve the public in all its diversity.

Indigenous Employment within the APS: a policy recommendation

 A recent seminar at the ANU on Indigenous employment in the APS by ANU researchers Dr Julie Lahn and Samantha Faulkner managed to shock me. In particular, it mentioned (almost in passing) data on the level of Indigenous representation in the senior levels of the public service, generally known as the Senior Executive Service or SES.

The seminar reported on the findings of a report (link here) commissioned by the Australian Public Service Commission on ‘enablers and barriers which act to support or impede career progression of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees to senior levels in the Australian Public Service (APS)’.

In laying out the context within which these issues play out, the report presented a snapshot of the relevant data:

The 2018 State of the Service report indicates that representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across the APS has improved in recent years and currently sits at 3.3% (Australian Public Service Commission 2018, p. 58). This is a significant achievement in terms of having met the Commonwealth Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Employment Strategy 2015-2018 target of 3% representation.

Despite this achievement, employment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people within the APS is concentrated at the lower levels. The majority are employed at APS6 and below and the largest proportion (27%) are at APS4 level.

In contrast, employment at senior executive levels is very small, just 1%. Over a ten year period, representation at the Senior Executive Service levels has remained disappointingly small while Executive Level employment has declined.

The proportion of Indigenous APS members mirrors the proportion of the Australian population who identified as Indigenous in the 2016 Census. Recently published analysis by Nick Biddle and Danielle Venn provide some broader context for these figures:

For both men and women, the public sector accounts for a considerable share of employment, either through direct employment in government at Commonwealth, state or local level or in industries where public sector employment is high, such as education, healthcare and public safety. In 2016, just over 20% of Indigenous employment was in the public sector, compared with 15% of non-Indigenous employment. 

The majority of Indigenous employment in the public sector was with state/territory governments. Indigenous women were more likely than Indigenous men to be employed by Commonwealth or state/territory governments, but Indigenous men had higher employment rates in local government than Indigenous women. 

[Biddle & Venn 2018 ‘Recent Trends in Indigenous Employment’ Journal of Australian Political Economy vol 82, summer 18/19,  link here].

In other words, public sector employment is comparatively more important to Indigenous citizens than private sector employment. However, it needs to be remembered that Indigenous employment is much lower than for mainstream citizens, with less than 45% of Indigenous citizens aged 15+ being employed in 2016 (See Biddle & Venn: Figure 2).

The Lahn & Faulkner report sourced their data on SES employment from a submission to the APS Review from the APS Indigenous Steering Committee. This submission is available at the Review’s submissions page (link here).

That submission provided more detailed data on SES employment in the APS:

At the SES level, the discrepancy is larger, with 25 Indigenous SES officers compared to 2,326 non-Indigenous SES officers (1%).  Furthermore, this discrepancy has continued over the last ten years…

The submission also provides data that makes clear that the proportion of Indigenous SES officers has barely moved over the past decade. Moreover, when we consider the data from different perspectives, the magnitude of the issue becomes apparent. There are just over 150,000 Commonwealth public servants (see the appendix to the Lahn & Faulkner report). Of these, just over 5000, or 3.3% are Indigenous. However, of the 5000 Indigenous public servants, only 25, or 0.5%, are Indigenous SES officers.

The Lahn & Faulkner report to the APS was based on interviews with around 50 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff across the APS, and includes a series of recommendations for policymakers, Indigenous employees and non-Indigenous employees, all of which make intuitive sense.

The Indigenous Steering Committee submission to the APS Review also included a small number of tentative recommendations. I encourage readers to check out both sets of recommendations.

However, my reaction as a former policymaker to both these sets of recommendations was sceptical. Not because they do not have merit, they do. But because they are too fine grained, too detailed, and too amorphous to ensure that policymakers at political and bureaucratic levels focus on them. As a result, notwithstanding their merits, they are unlikely in my view to be implemented and thus are unlikely to be the lever that will make a substantive difference in terms of making the APS an Indigenous friendly environment, and perhaps more importantly, in facilitating policies more attuned to substantive partnerships with First Nations.

Shortly after attending the ANU seminar, the APS Review released their Interim Report titled ‘Priorities for Change’ (link here). I was thus quite interested to see what was proposed in relation to Indigenous employment in the APS, and in particular if they had any ideas for greater Indigenous employment at SES levels.

The report is necessarily very high level, and addresses a range of crucial issues for the future of the nation. I do not propose to summarise or even critique the report more generally, (but see recent reporting in the Mandarin link here) and note that a report such as this will inevitably have little opportunity to deal with Indigenous policy and employment issues in any detail. Nevertheless, it seems useful to summarise what the Review Committee has to say on Indigenous issues.

At page 17 under the heading of partnerships, they note:

Nowhere is the importance of genuine partnerships truer than in supporting the aspirations of, and pursuing outcomes with, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Now is the time for the APS to reconceptualise how it works with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

On page 37, a graphic on diversity mentions the key data on Indigenous employment along with that of other specific groups, under a heading that states: ‘The APS struggles to attract and retain diverse employees, particularly at SES levels’. 

On page 49, at the conclusion of a section on Developing stronger internal and external partnerships, the Review included a text box which made a number of points regarding Indigenous issues. I encourage readers to read the whole text. Key paragraphs included:

The panel’s emphasis on the importance of relationships recognises that the APS cannot meet its purpose of serving all Australians unless it works openly and with integrity with partners across the community. Nowhere is this truer than in supporting the outcomes and aspirations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples….

…If pursued, the priorities for change outlined in this report provide an opportunity for the APS to work profoundly differently with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Creating a genuine partnership would be fundamentally transformative.

Such a partnership needs to operate at different levels. Locally, it will often mean working collectively on community-led or place-based initiatives. This will require the APS to work with much greater humility and to focus on building the strength and impact of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations.

Nationally, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples must be able to participate meaningfully in matters affecting them. The panel believes this simple proposition should be a guiding principle for the APS. Achieving it will require supporting mechanisms and institutions that provide for national participation and representation…

…It is also critical that the APS supports and develops its Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees, including fostering the development of senior leaders across the service.

These comments are well directed and are intuitively appealing. Again, what they lack is any guarantee or mechanism that will ensure they are implemented. Given this is an interim report, it is incumbent on potential sceptics or critics to wait for the final report. Nevertheless, there appears to be little appreciation that changing the deeply embedded culture of stasis and implicit exclusion will be a major challenge for the APS even if its leadership is fully committed to implementing the new approaches being hinted at by the Review.

Which brings me back to the question I asked myself as I sat in the seminar at the ANU and sought to come to terms with the data on under-representation of Indigenous citizens in the APS, and in particular, what this meant for the capability of the APS to deliver effective policy and programs for Indigenous Australians:

What is the single policy change that might make a difference to Indigenous outcomes and APS employment levels over the medium term?

The answer I came up with is based on my view that it should be a policy change that is easy to implement, that is relatively visible and not easily ignored, and should have ongoing impacts that flow to a broad range of circumstances. My answer is also influenced by the fact that increasingly, it is mainstream policies and programs which impact, for good or bad, on Indigenous citizens, and thus there is a need for mainstream agencies to be sensitised to the issues facing Indigenous Australians.

Accordingly, if I were an incoming Minister for Indigenous Affairs, I would seek an undertaking from the Prime Minister for a commitment to double the number of Indigenous SES officers to 50 within four years, and to double it again to 100 within ten years.

Moreover, such a target should be met by appointments across the breadth of the APS. If the authorising environment at political levels encourages greater Indigenous SES representation, the senior levels of the bureaucracy would do all they could to find ways to meet the commitment. If we had two or three Indigenous SES officers in each of Health, Home Affairs, Finance, Treasury, and so on, they would begin to establish an inclusive environment and context that would encourage the promotion and retention of more junior officers. 

Similarly, more Indigenous friendly working environments would organically and informally encourage and facilitate the sorts of recommendations made in the Lahn/Faulkner report and the submission to the review by the APS Indigenous Steering Committee. These recommendations go to ensuring that the APS retains talented Indigenous entrants and gives them every opportunity to pursue a career to the very top of the APS.

Finally, for those interested in reading more about Indigenous employment in the public sector, the publications listed on this page will be helpful.

Addendum 1 April 2019

I have just seen PMC's Communique Number 10 (link here), which reports on the deliberations of the Secretaries Equality and Diversity Council, and includes a section on Indigenous employment. The bureaucratic formulations are tried and tested, but hardly engender confidence that the Equality and Diversity Council is infused with a reforming zeal:

"The Council will explore further retention and development strategies as part of the next Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Strategy....noted the value of the Strategy as a catalyst for change....agreed ....to the APSC exploring opportunities..."

It is worth reading the document inits entirety.

Disclosure: In my ‘day job’, I am a Visiting Fellow at CAEPR.