Home > Contents > Chapter 1 - The Secretary's Overview

The Secretary's Overview

In many ways, as our Annual Report indicates, 2001-02 was a year of considerable achievement for the Department of Education, Science and Training and its predecessor organisations, the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs and the Department of Industry, Science and Resources.

It was a year of records. More than 362 000 New Apprentices were in training, more than two and a half times the number in 1995. Australia now has the fourth largest coverage of workforce trainees in the world. There were more than 726 000 students undertaking higher education and universities achieved a revenue of more than $10.2 billion. The number of overseas students rose to more than 240 000, greater than ever before. Commonwealth funding support for schools rose significantly, with almost $6 billion going to government and non-government schools.

It was a year of successful implementation. A suite of fresh initiatives – including myfuture.edu.au, the Career and Transitions Scheme and the Partnership Outreach Education Model – were introduced to help young people make successful transitions from school to further education, training or work. Similarly a range of strategies were put in place to support Backing Australia’s Ability. These included the establishment of new Major National Research Facilities, the launch of an Innovation Access Programme, the implementation of a National Innovation Awareness Programme and commencement of a new selection round for Cooperative Research Centres. In higher education the Postgraduate Education Loans Scheme was introduced, providing interest free loans with deferred income contingent repayments for full fee paying students undertaking postgraduate coursework. Early estimates indicate a 20 per cent increase in enrolments in 2002 over 2001.

It was a year of partnership. Commonwealth, State and Territory public services were able to work together effectively in a number of important areas. The Le@rning Federation, for instance, was a joint initiative to develop innovative on-line curriculum materials for schools. The Commonwealth’s $159m Quality Teacher Programme also involved ongoing collaboration with all State and Territory governments and non-government education sectors in providing targeted professional development to renew teachers’ knowledge and skills.

It was a year of significant international activity. After many years of negotiation, Australia and the European Union agreed to participate in a Pilot Project on Cooperation in Higher Education, an important first step in the development of a formal bilateral agreement. In science, among many other activities, an Australia-China Special Fund for Scientific and Technological Cooperation and an Australia-Korea Pilot Industrial Technology Cooperation Fund were established. The department also managed Australia’s participation in the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment. Australia’s 15 year olds performed creditably: out of 30 participating countries only one outperformed them in reading and mathematical literacy and only two countries did better in scientific literacy.

It was a year of major new policy initiatives. The launch by Minister Nelson of the Higher Education Review in April, commitment to the development of national research priorities, examination of the incentive structure for employers taking on New Apprentices and continued participation in whole of government work on welfare reform represent just a few of the areas in which the department contributed to the development of public policy options for consideration by government.

It was a year of preparing for the future. Development of the first National Report to Parliament on Indigenous Education and Training, to be tabled in Parliament in November 2002, is one important instance. Establishment of a major review of teaching and teacher education, with an interim report due by December 2002, is another. A Review of Australian Education International (AEI) was concluded, placing the Government in a position to plan for the further development of the education export industry, a sector now worth $4.25 billion annually. By December 2002 this activity, involving a coordinated effort across Commonwealth agencies, will be well underway. There were many other examples.

But it was also a year of disappointment. In a year of achievements there were inevitably set-backs in which considerable departmental effort came to nought. There have been areas in which progress has been frustratingly slow. The Commonwealth and States have been examining the development of Educational Standards for the Disability Discrimination Act for almost seven years. Still they are not finalised. Minister Nelson took the lead at the Ministerial Council in pushing for completion of the task. While the legal and financial issues are indeed complex, it is hoped that jurisdictional cooperation will allow implementation of the Standards in the next year.

We have also been challenged in the past year by how to address the sale of fake university degrees and deal with unauthorised ‘degree mills’ and other bodies operating outside our quality assurance framework. These issues are not new, but advances in technology make it easier for such bodies to operate and make it harder to ensure the integrity and quality of Australian higher education. The Commonwealth Government takes the protection of our education industry and the standing of Australian qualifications seriously, and is examining options to further strengthen our quality assurance framework. This includes a more coordinated effort by State and Commonwealth government agencies to pursue illegal operators, provide better advice to the public, and strengthen legislative arrangements. We hope to achieve significant outcomes in these areas in the next year.

We now look forward to the year ahead.

It is clear that change is in the air. A range of new policy and programme initiatives are actively under consideration, and for the department that is an exciting prospect. But there is an ever-present danger, given the energetic plethora of activity taking place in the department, that the mountain summit will get hidden behind a swirling fog of new acronyms. Significant activity needs to sight its purpose.

It is vital that the department’s vision not get lost. In broad terms, of course, our goals necessarily reflect the policy direction set by our Minister. But their particular expression needs to capture the perspective of the people who together bear responsibility for their implementation. Extensive discussions within the department during the year captured strong and consistent views of that purpose.

It was, staff decided, to provide ‘a better future for all Australians through learning, science and innovation.’ To deliver that requires a lifelong learning environment in which individuals can acquire skills for work and life through a network of high quality, supportive learning environments with clear pathways between them. To promote Australia’s continued economic growth and social development requires a strong science, research and innovation capacity. In a world in which ideas are far more mobile than people, Australia’s success as a global player will depend upon successful international engagement in science, education and training. These goals, articulated by those who are involved in so many different ways in delivering them, will provide the foundation of our Corporate Plan early next year.

It is our people – new graduates and trainees as much as experienced ‘old timers’ – who make the department what it is. They need the facilities and infrastructure support to do their work efficiently, the training to build their skills, the opportunity to recognise and celebrate their achievements and the investment in the ‘social capital’ which maintains effective networks of trust within the workplace. Collectively they need to lead the organisation to provide the highest level of service to the government of the day.

The Administrative Arrangements Order of November 2001, which brought together most of the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs with some of the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, provided a golden opportunity to examine the culture of both organisations and consider how something better could be built. It was a chance that the department willingly took hold of when I replaced Mr Steve Sedgwick as Secretary in January 2002. A series of significant initiatives have been undertaken. Some might even be ‘courageous’. It’s too early to evaluate how effectively they are working. However the early indicators are positive.

We decided to create a modified matrix structure for the new department to meet the challenges we faced and to break down the functional silos that too often bedevil corporate organisations. We created four ‘vertical’ groups to deal with schools, vocational education and training, higher education and science; three ‘horizontal’ cross-portfolio groups to focus on Indigenous issues, research and international activities across the functional demarcations; and two ‘enabling’ groups to provide the all-important corporate support upon which an organisation depends.

Reflecting the department’s continuing emphasis on collaboration, both internal and external, a number of cross-functional teams were established to focus on future policy directions (e.g. lifelong learning, science and innovation). Some teams are intended to be in existence only until the end of a project (e.g. to develop national research priorities); others will be continuing (e.g. to further educational application of information and communications technology).

In addition to these teams, a number of cross-departmental committees and boards were established to ensure that the department takes a strategic, holistic approach to budgeting, audit, information and communications technology investment, people management, and research and evaluation. Equally important we embarked on a Strategic Review of Programme Delivery with the intention of simplifying and streamlining our business processes and rules. The aim is to enable the department to strip away unnecessary administrative red-tape and reduce process. Too much of what we presently do in administering programmes is driven by risk aversion. Our aim, beginning with the delivery of the department’s Indigenous programmes, is to manage the risk and focus on outcomes while maintaining appropriate accountability standards. To this end we intend progressively to examine our procurement practices, programme administration and service delivery arrangements with the intention of reducing organisational ‘noise’ and freeing up resources.

Central to organisational renewal is the need for individuals and groups to appreciate that the whole is greater than its disparate parts. Collegiality of purpose is essential. One of the department’s constant challenges is to get mutual recognition of the complementary importance of policy and legislation development on the one hand and programme delivery on the other. The important demands of Government and Parliament can seem a universe away to the public servant delivering services in Kununurra, Nhulunbuy and Thursday Island. Conversely the pressures involved in delivering services on the ground are often not fully appreciated in Mort St, Canberra.

With this in mind, in April 2002 we restructured the relationship between National Office and State and District Offices. The new approach will enable State and District Offices to become a more integrated part of a two-way process, providing advice on how our programmes – and the policies which give rise to them – can be improved. Central to this was the establishment of a National Programme Management Board. The Board will provide a mechanism for regular feedback from our people working in the field. It will be a more effective channel of communication on ways to improve our programmes and their delivery, and to consider issues raised on behalf of key stakeholders, whether they are schools, TAFEs or New Apprenticeships Centres; teachers, parents or community representatives.

The department also upgraded its financial, human resources and network operating systems during the year. That has meant that we are now better able to deliver our business outcomes. We are continuing to position ourselves as a leader in the delivery of services on-line, with two of our e-business systems winning prestigious awards during the year: the PRISMS system which confirms enrolments of overseas students, and the TYIMS system supporting the New Apprenticeships Programme.

We also completed a major enhancement of PROMISe, the department’s Procurement Management System and a leading edge e-business system in the Commonwealth. The department’s integrated finance and human resource information management system, SAPfihre, was upgraded in close consultation with users. The largely seamless transition involved minimal disruption to the delivery of departmental business.

Organisational change cannot simply rely on restructures, new systems of work and the application of productivity-enhancing technologies. Far more profound, it requires cultural transformation. To that end, the department has identified six organisational capabilities that it will strengthen by providing staff with the learning and training support to help them develop the skills to collaborate, understand, anticipate, create, influence and implement.

A Leadership Protocol has been introduced for senior staff. It is a formal agreement between myself and senior executives establishing the conduct against which their performance will be judged. It emphasises that behaviours displayed at the workplace play a crucial influence in sustaining good organisational health. Senior Executives, for example, are assessed against their success in leading with integrity, acting collaboratively, encouraging creativity and fostering a fair and rewarding workplace. For middle managers an elite development programme, the Leadership Imperative For Tomorrow has been introduced which focuses on the personal qualities required to work with others in a harmonious and productive manner. An effective performance management framework, which links individuals to group and corporate performance, is being bedded down.

Processes of organisational change have a tendency to look inward. For the department’s future that would be disastrous. For that reason the department has committed itself to being ‘Open for Business’ with its many stakeholders. We have agreed on a charter for our relationship with stakeholders against which we will report. I have already written to our stakeholders indicating the standards to which we are committed. They will be surveyed periodically to assess the extent to which we are meeting our aspirations. Why do I set such high value on openness in our dealings with external stakeholders?

DEST wants to deliver Government programmes as effectively as possible. It aims to ensure that Australians understand the policy directions of Government, their intent and how services can be accessed. It takes pride in achieving results.

To fulfil these roles it is imperative to build a strong, ongoing relationship with those organisations outside government which have a significant stake in the policy decisions that are made and the manner in which programmes are implemented. Although DEST has a professional staff who possess high levels of technical expertise, extensive experience and strong administrative skills it cannot afford to be viewed as inward looking, secretive or believing it has all the answers. Worse still, it must not be perceived as difficult to engage and reluctant to offer advice. If we are not seen to be open we cannot do our business effectively.

For DEST to function well requires us to have an unambiguous relationship with key external stakeholders: with relevant advocacy bodies, professional associations and community groups as well as with organisations that deliver government programmes under contract.

In writing to stakeholders I emphasised that in order to develop and maintain strong relationships with those who have interests in education, science and training issues:

This is DEST’s commitment. It represents the expectations that you should have of your dealings with us. With your assistance we will regularly review the state of the relationship to see how we can do things better.

Will any of this really make a difference to how well the department operates? I firmly believe so. More importantly, I have informed our stakeholders that I will report on their views in next year’s Annual Report. It should make interesting reading.

return to top