Suchergebnisse

For 40 years public sector reformers have lamented the lack of 'leadership skills' in career bureaucracies. They have brought successive waves of change aimed at making the public service more efficient, agile and responsive. An extensive scholarly literature acknowledges the problematic nature of 'leadership' in a public sector context — the difficulties inherent to a model premised on responsibility and accountability being shared by elected and career officials. But these insights seem lost on politicians, whose efforts to exert greater control over career officials have brought a range of unintended consequences, mainly because management reforms do not recognise the primacy of politics, nor the stewardship obligations of public sector leaders. In this article, I argue that ambiguities in the roles, responsibilities and relationships between ministers and senior officials must be addressed as a prerequisite for reform. A reimagined partnership between elected and unelected officials is essential to improve policy capacity.

Over the past 8 years, debates about Australia's public service have evolved from being focused mainly on skills and capacities to being now increasingly concerned about the operating environment for career officials, their ability to fulfil their stewardship obligations, and to practice their 'craft'. In this article, I track those changes and ask what is the craft of public administration? How should we understand it? Are concerns it is imperilled or has been lost valid or overblown? I draw on the observations of current and former senior officials, and the findings of recent Capability Reviews. My primary focus is on the Australian Public Service, because here is where the debate has been most public and direct. I note that the focus of concern has shifted from public servants towards ministers, who have been largely absent from public sector reform initiatives of the past 40 years.

In October 2006, state premiers and territory chief ministers gathered in Melbourne for the first meeting of the Council for the Australian Federation (CAF). This little‐heralded event marked the beginning of the first formalised structure for state and territory only collaboration since Federation. This article describes the genesis and creation of this new structural response to ongoing state concerns about the trend to an increasingly centralised pattern of Commonwealth‐state relations. It identifies the intended functions of the Council, which include: acting as a mechanism for coordinating approaches to negotiations with the Commonwealth; operating as a clearing house for policy ideas in Australia and internationally; harmonising regulatory frameworks; and developing improvements to service delivery in areas of state responsibility. Informed by interviews with key players involved with its establishment and documentary sources, this article assesses CAF's performance during its first 18 months of operation. It explores the hopes and aspirations of key CAF stakeholders, and some of the issues that have confronted the fledgling organisation. Personnel changes among the cohort of state and territory leaders, and the election of a federal Labor government in November 2007 have altered the dynamics of CAF. The article argues that CAF's emergence is an attempt by sub‐national governments to develop new capacity and leverage to address the asymmetries that characterise contemporary Australian federalism. However, there are questions about CAF's future, particularly about state and territory governments' capacity to pursue collaborative agendas given the pace and scope of Kevin Rudd's 'new federalism' reforms and the demands it is placing on their policy and administrative systems.