In my experience, the APS structure can throttle innovation, consultation and initiative in the sense that APS3/4 staff are encouraged to follow direction but rarely entrusted with sensitive operational information, freedom to pursue independent inquiries or opportunities to provide feedback on policies, procedures and operational performance. In this sense I agree that the classification structures "are too hierarchical, impede innovation and agile decision making." Partly this is around communication - staff at the APS3/4 level are often put on an information diet, whereby APS5/6 staff may be broadly aware of upcoming changes but that information isn't shared any further. Likewise, APS3/4 staff are rarely allowed to provide direct feedback to enabling teams, for example, and must instead first provide it to their line manager, which can stifle the process (if the line manager doesn't agree with the feedback then it never goes to the appropriate enabling team). This can make the barrier from APS4 to APS5 difficult to breach, as it requires demonstrating the ability to think and act independently, but opportunities to do just this are generally discouraged or treated with suspicion.

On a related note, this is reflected in the dip in the portion of staff at the APS 5 level. With relatively few APS 5 positions available, it's easier to transition from an APS 5 to an APS 6 than it is to transition from an APS 4 to and APS 5. This further exacerbates the hierarchical distinction between the 3/4 and 5/6 levels. If more APS 5 positions were available, then transition between these levels would be more permeable and less rigidly hierarchical. This could be facilitated by developing APS 5 roles for longstanding, highly knowledgeable, subject matter expert staff in operational roles that could permit them to still perform processing work without any leadership responsibilities. For example, a highly experienced APS 4 Debt Management Officer could be broadbanded to an APS 5 Specialist Debt Management Officer, who would perform much of the same processing work but be allowed higher delegation to raise, waive and write-off debts. This would not only allow the department or agency to retain their most experienced staff, but would also weaken the hierarchical divide (and potentially allow SES more access to subject matter experts).

The best way the APS classification structure can best support the attraction and development of technical and specialist skills is to make broadbanding universal across these areas.

It is difficult to streamline decision making as there's a lot of cultural momentum behind the current way of working. One way to chip at it is to flatten and minimise the delegation instruments, with the aim to remove everything that can be removed from them. This encourages leaders to view their staff as independent decision makers who can be entrusted to apply their own judgement - even at the expense of
occasional failure.

Lastly, I think there's an opportunity to re-evaluate the purpose of the APS 1 and APS 2 levels as they no longer seem to serve as entry-level roles and have atrophied to very niche or vestigial roles. Potentially, these should be replaced by or merged with the trainee/graduate levels and the APS 3 - APS 6 levels re-numerated or renamed.