The Department of Human Services (DHS) occupies a unique space. It is chiefly concerned with issues affecting service delivery and improving the connection between policy and service delivery so that we get better outcomes. The core department is tiny – around 75 permanent staff. But small does not mean insignificant, as we are working with six agencies that employ 37,400 staff in 850 locations around Australia delivering over $90billion of government services and transfer payments. We are also working on some significant proposals including a Health and Social Services Smartcard, and on the implementation of key elements of the government’s agenda, including Welfare to Work.

Human Service agencies have to deliver on two key programs:

The six agencies are:

It would be a mistake to imagine that Human Services is a monolith – a mega department. Decisions are not taken by one individual or one board or one executive. DHS seeks to influence the agencies and the policy departments. A unique feature of DHS is that it does not have financial responsibility for the great bulk of the operating or program expenditure of the agencies under its umbrella.

The Minister sets the directions for each organisation and, in my case he has set out a series of objectives for 2006 against which he will assess both my and the department’s performance.

In relation to Centrelink and Medicare Australia, which are separate entities under the Financial Management Act, the Minister has exchanged letters with the CEO of Medicare Australia and the CEO of Centrelink that set out the Minister’s expectations and, in return, how the CEOs propose to meet those expectations. This exchange of letters is in accordance with the Uhrig reforms which are now moving through the Australian Government.

Health Services Australia and Australian Hearing are bodies under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act where the two separate Boards have financial responsibility.

DHS as a legal entity does include two divisions which are separately and publicly identified given their strong and separate stakeholder interests: CRS Australia and the Child Support Agency. Those two agencies do not have a great deal in common and it would be a mistake to treat them as homogenous parts of a department like any other.

The lines of reporting from the CEOs to the Minister are through the CEO of DHS, consistent with the Prime Minister's statement that:

This gives me considerable responsibility, although not control, in that four CEOs and two Boards have financial responsibility in their own right.

Our citizens and customers have distinct and diverse needs across the 6 agencies. It would be a mistake to imagine that the service offer has to be the same or should be the same. The legislation and policies, set by the policy departments, that drives our agencies and the programs they deliver, are not the same.

The idea of a mega department has been rejected. As an economist I know that mega organisations with diverse client bases can be plagued with poor service and poor management because size doesn’t mean quality. There is nothing in the Prime Minister’s announcement which is about watering down the purpose for which each of the agencies were created.

Knowing that project managers, team leaders and even executives do not control all elements necessary to successfully achieve their agendas, I will use examples to illustrate how DHS has driven reforms in ways that are more about influence and outcomes and less about dictates and control.