Reform of Australian Government Administration
What needs to change in the public service: tell us what you think (27-29 October)
We are interested in your thoughts on how to make the public service more efficient and effective.
The discussion paper Reform of Australian Government Administration: Building the best public service in the world suggested a number of possible reform ideas including:
- a more structured approach to, and greater investment in, learning and development
- improving efficiency by reducing administrative red tape within agencies
- reduce the dispersion of wages and conditions among Australian public service agencies
- increasing the location of more functions outside of Canberra
- facilitating more collaborative and strategic policy advice by some form of cross-portfolio structures, for example, strategic policy hubs
- more widespread use of citizen satisfaction surveys
- a more co-ordinated approach to recruitment at certain entry points eg. Graduates
- improving current recruitment and selection processes.
Please don’t feed constrained to limiting your ideas to the above list – we want to know your top three ideas for things that need to change in the public service so it can operate better.
Question for discussion
What three things do you think most need to change in the public service so it can operate effectively in the 21st century?
1. Reduce the hassle of APS recruitment. If a department has a vacant position caused by someone moving on, then let the dept choose to firstly invite suitable applicants from within the dept. That is, If an APS 5 position becomes available, let the dept first try to fill that position by another APS 5 person who may be looking for a change. Then, if no-one wants it, advertise the position.
2. Let there be more of a level playing field. For example, there is generally not a lot of task/responsibility difference between an APS 6 and EL1 position, but the EL 1 generally has the option of submitting regular acountable timesheets. A 2-hr 'bonding' lunch is recorded as 2 hrs by the APS 6 and below, but is it necessarilyrecorded by the EL 1? More on the level playing field - remove the disparity between the salary increases granted to SES officers and the rest of the APS, and then the APS can move towards removing the disparity between the various departments with regard to terms and conditions of workplace entitlements.
3.Training and development - if the department states that it has allocated in its budget a traing/development amount equating to $1,500 per employee; then let each employee have access to that allocation. Put a stop to directing the training to a select handful of staff and then saying that the training budget has been depleted mid-year.
The discussion paper acknowledges that reform is required across the APS in a number of areas, however, it fails to reflect what I believe to be a widespread view that there needs to be some serious discussion about how we can change some of the worst features to evolve over the last decade or so. We shouldnt delude outselves that we are anywhere near the best public service in the world (page 10 of discussion paper.) For a start it is not a competition - we should strive to improve the APS because the Australian public deserve the best organisation we can be. In addition, if we improved the performance of the APS it would lead to better servicing of the government of the day (including frank and fearless advice rather than sycophancy) and the flow on of better policy and programs to constituencies.
1 - If there is to be effective policy development in the 21 st century, the policy development process will need to acknowledge and factor into the process the complexity of the Australian system of government which gives us at least 3 and perhaps 4 jurisdicitions. Developing policy without proper investigation and discussion with other jurisdictions results in many unintended consequences, delivers poor outcomes for the public and on occasion incurrs significant cost. The testing of new policy proposals across agencies, the ritual of seeking coordination comment does not often achieve the intended improvements or demonstrate that the APS is one entitiy. Often coordination comments relflect the rivalry between SES officers across agencies who are protecting their 'patch' or have a misguided loyalty to promoting the views of their Minister over another with no recognition of the merits of the policy proposed. An alternative approach is establish cross portfolio strategic policy groups, led by SES officers who know the content and have integrity who invite staff with expertise to be part of the group and involved in a rationale policy debate.
2 - Often non-SES officers undertake research, analyse data and prepare new policy ideas without the benefit of hearing (even second or third hand) about the issues discussed at meeting between SES officers and Ministerial staff - or the MInister herself. I have often been shocked by arguments advanced by SES officers about a particular policy issue which is based on either wrong assumptions or outdated data. Confidence in your opinions and seniority in a complex environment often leads to myth becoming a policy reality. A more respectful workplace environment would allow for ideas to be challenged and contested within the Branch or Group.
3 - New policy ideas emerge in haste from Ministers' offices when there is a policy vaccum. Putting new policy proposals together in a matter of hours or days is not good practice. Effective policy areas may have a number of policy initiatives in their back pockets, but this situation is increasingly rare, because the ideas are not discussed and there is limited dialogue between policy experts and senior managers. Recently, there are several examples of policy on the run being policy under-done. A small number of SES are happy to share information with non-SES staff because they dont see knowledge as power. In addition, these same people have time to talk to staff because they manage their own work load, concentrate on priority outcomes, rather than impressing their managers. Some SES behave like maniacs running from one issue to the next, and one meeting to the next. They opening blame Kevin Rudd or their Minister for their long working hours, when it is their inability to delegate effectively, recruit staff with appropriate skills, build the capability of their staff, recognise and respect others and not play favourites which causes much of the problem. Promotion into the SES needs to be re-examined.
The three things that most need to change in the public service so it can operate effectively in the the 21st century are :
1. Developing, implementing and measuriing effective policy over time needs to be rewarded within the public service. Public servants that develop new policy are valued and rewarded, however implementation of policy (and can adapt and change it to improve its effectiveness) is less valued. There is little real evaluation of the effectiveness of policy. Very good policy is often developed by SES however we expect it to be implemented by APS 4-6's in quite difficult and complex situations eg aboriginal policy, health, climate change. There needs to be a recognition that effective implementation of policy requires - good policy development, translation of the policy into program and finally good implementation (which involves feedback loops to adapt as needed) - all require intelligence and capability that should be valued recognised and rewarded.
2. Public servants and economists need to spend some time in the real world. Canberra public service is dominated by macro economic theory - that doesn't often correlate or understand how business in particular operate at the firm or financial level. Spending time with constituents we are developing policy and programs for would help us to develop better policy and programs. Stakeholders have valuable insights, however too often consultation is seen as a means to an end.
3. Our objective as the Australian government public service should be to use the resources available to us (hard earned taxpayer funds) to improve the quality of life of all Australians and to make our contribution to improving the quality of life of those less fortunate than us overseas. Too often government departments see themselves as representing the consituent interests of their department eg farmers, industry - rather than working out what is best for Australia. A whole of Australian government objectives should be established and led from the top - with departments and ministers making their contribution through their own department and portfolio interests.
Appreciate the opportunity to comment!
1. APS should have the same wages and conditions for the same level. There is a huge amount of difference between agencies
2 The government should data match between agencies ATO to Centrelink to Child Support to Medicare etc This would reduce the incidence of fraud and reduce workload and rework for each agency.
3 In my particular agency I feel we are over managed. There are team leaders, managers, deputy managers, schedulers, attendance managers, trainers etc and these are the ones who get to be doing the fun stuff. The ones who can leave their desk and pass aound the icecreams or serve the food on "special days" , maybe make a poster, judge the fancy dress etc while the minions are on the phones doing the work.
1. Investing the projected share of Age Pension as soon as their Birth is registered. This fund to be used by the citizen for life events such as education, health , home buying, unemployment and age care. Instead of getting $20,000 per year for average of 20 years. Invest those funds up front, to be accessed when individual needs those funds. We know most people will be unemployed at least once in their life. They could access their own funds invested for them at birth during these times. Of course some people will run out of funds because of their "disability setbacks or inadequacies". As a society will still be able to support these people. This scheme would save millions although the up front costs would be enormous.
2. Paperless offices. Online and onsite digital applications. Automated processing.
3. Reduce information overload. Where ever possible implement the "honor" system just like for individual tax returns. Audit randomly and save on having to process every application (collecting forms and documents) for everything.
While we have a federal Department of Health and Ageing to oversee all the state Health departments, there is no equivalent Federal agency that takes full responsibility for prisons around the country, and no Federal government strategy overseeing the transition of people in and out of prison. Prisons are managed by state/territory agencies which operate under different legislations, and provide conflicting standards of treatment in each state or territory. The huge costs of incarceration could be reduced, if we had national oversight of prisons and justice processes.
The current patchwork of prison administrative structures in Australian need to be updated as is happening overseas, for example in the UK and Singapore.
1. There needs to be a Federal agency to oversee state Justice and Correctives agencies, to create and enforce national standards and to enact a national strategy to reduce recidivism. Such an agency needs to standardise diversionary programs in Australia to significantly reduce re-offending. At present most programs are funded as trials and are small projects which cannot assist on a large scale. Such a federally-enforced approach would ensure that young people at risk, and mentally ill people are diverted into community programs and away from prison. In some states (eg Victoria) they get greater opportunities to participate in diversionary activities and receive welfare support, while those in other states transit early into prison, and become chronic reoffenders. For example, at present, NSW has a juvenile incarceration rate more than four times that of Victoria's.
2. DEEWR needs to standardise education requirements for prisoners and become a partner, to extend training and education into every prison in Australia. At present there is no incentive for illiterate prisoners to undertake illiteracy programs in prisons, and access to learning in prison varies according to the local culture and practise of the prison. DEEWR entry into state prisons as trainers and educators would help transform prisons as is happening in the UK and Singapore. There, governments are creating partnerships with government and non-government organisations to move prisoners from targeted training within prisons to identified jobs in the community. In Singapore prisons have an arrangement with their country’s government transport authority to get jobs in the railway system for ex-prisoners. In Singapore if an offender comes out of prison on a minor offence and goes five years without re-offending, their record is wiped. In some European countries, inmates have to learn how to read and write before they can be released, even if they have served their sentence.
3. In 1992, Australian Health Ministers implemented a National Mental Health Policy that increased the emphasis on community-based care, decreased reliance on stand-alone psychiatric hospitals, and ‘mainstreamed’ acute beds into general hospitals. The number of public and private psychiatric hospital beds in Australia fell from 30 000 in the early 1960s to 8000 today. While it is good that some of the institutions of the past have been closed, prison is not a preferred place of treatment for those former psychiatric inmates who now spend large parts of their lives exiting and entering prison. We have signed the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This Convention has clauses about the rights of disabled people in prison. If we had a federal agency in charge of prisons, it could have oversight of the treatment of mentally ill, intellectually disabled and other medically challenged prisoners to both divert them into community options (as was proposed in 1992) and to ensure we are meeting our obligations under the Convention, not by just a few special programs, but in enforced standards for all prisoners in all prisons around the country.
In Australia we have a social inclusion strategy that does little for the most socially excluded, the homeless, dysfunctional and disadvantaged who end up living their lives in and out of prison.
My top 3:
1. Staff need to own any change. Change from the top without buy-in from staff is not successful. Staff need to know why the change is happening. Any change needs to be preceded by talking to staff. Too often changes are imposed, resulting in low staff morale, and loss of talented staff.
2. Support network for early career managers - it is a giant leap from EL1 to EL2. I felt completely overwhelmed when 'acting' as a Director for a few months - and needed some training and someone who I could call on to ask questions ( a mentor or a fellow new manager). Dealing with the people management issues was tough without support.
3. Need for a linking point between agencies - I like the idea of strategic policy hubs, especially if they can be a 'virtual' point of discussion between agencies. Cost savings would result from less duplication and from the building of work already going on in another department.
1. Learning & Development.
Increase L&D functions over the APS and appoint capable and educated people to manage them. HIghly qualified, educated and talented staff bring new ideas, greater professionalism and objectivity and every L&D function needs to be operated by highly experienced people. Currently, our agency has a non-qualified manager in the L&D role and this manager cannot write curriculum, author E-Learning, run leadership programs, consult professionally with education providers or negotiate content. Why then is this person in the role? Is it because the agency does not value learning? Or is it because the manager appointed someone in his own 'likeness,' that is non-qualified? I know the answer lies in both. Prime Minister Rudd please help us to get the L&D functions sorted in the APS and managed by educated, qualified and highly experienced people with degrees and certificates in varying areas. IN summary, we must change this culture of low achievement, or we will never survive.
2. Improve selection and recruitment processes.
Increase the educational qualifications, skills and experience needed in the APS and ensure we are prepared to handle the 21st century. Staff who have the theoretical background can apply the models, principles and skills to assist the government of the day and the Australian people for the next century. Non-qualified people are relying upon their limited knowledge and will not prepare the future for us. Currently, our agency employs the sisters, brothers, fathers, mothers, daughters, sons, uncles and aunts of whole families. Why is that? Is it because they are all so capable? Or is it because the ACT APS has run out of capable people and only one's familes are left to emply? I know the answer does not lie in capabilities but more because there are not enough good applicants, and those applying have references from family members. Prime Minister Rudd please implement mandatory qualifications as an entry point at level 5 upwards in the APS, as the leaders at APS 6 and above must have academic qualifications to lead us into the future. In summary, we must change this culture of jobs for the [boys]family or friends, and appoint on merit alone.
3. Increase the locations of the APS agencies.
The APS needs highly capable and qualified people to lead us but the ACT is almost 'dry.' Give our country the best chance in the future and place agencies outside of Canberra so we can tap the talent of some of Australia's brightest and best. This may also reduce nepotism and increase professionalism, as commented on by Brave and Canberra Person above. I love Australia and I want what is best for my country, and so this may mean that those at the APS top should step down if they do not have academic qualifications in specialist areas. Let us let those with proven trach records of achievement, demonstrated expertise and high level ability run the agencies that this country depends upon.
4. Ageism
Unfortunately, ageism is alive and well in the APS. In particular, older women experience it every day from younger women and older and younger men. Could we introduce greater penalties for this level of discrimination? As afterall -some of our top agencies are led by very capable women, and we know that one older educated woman can do the work of two younger uneducated people in half the time. What do other APS staff think?
Thanks for the opportunity to provide comments. In brief:
1. ** The APS needs to adopt a more private sector approach to its operations.**
- Where I have worked as a very busy lawyer in the APS, I would often spend up to an hour at a time photocopying, collating and binding documents, while the legal work stacked up on my desk. When we suggested to senior managers that one or two APS3's would increase our productivity the response was (literally, and from an SES Band 2): 'I'm not employing someone else so that you can get out of your filing responsibilities!'. Where's the economy in that? Private law firms have worked out that true efficiency comes from the professional staff spending all their time doing professional work (that's what they're paid a premium to do), and not being distracted by clerical tasks. But this doesn't just apply to the lawyers in the APS - there are far too many other systems and administrative tasks required of policy officers which could be done by dedicated staff who know what they're doing with those systems.
- Even in the current climate, managers aren't hungry enough to make savings where there is obvious fat to be cut without any sacrifices. (I'm thinking of a number of occasions where I have made suggestions which have fallen on deaf ears. Another example is an interstate industry consultative forum I attended recently which was hosted (by another Division within my Department) at a Sofitel ballroom with opulent catering - and my cross-Divisional colleagues all stayed in the hotel overnight at $245 a pop- "but we negotiated a really good rate...")
- There is a performance culture which permits officers to underperform without fear of dismisal or other retribution. The dismissal procedures are too hard for managers to take action under, and the slacker officers know it - to the detriment of his or her colleagues.
The following are the few suitable strategies to increase productivity and make people accontable and responsible:
1.A very high salary close to one hundred thousand for all APS levels and shrink the gap by few hundred dollars between level 1 to level5.
2. Higher levels are responsible for making every one happy so that maximum productivity can be achieved from each individual. If any filthy politics in the group initiating harassment or bullying then sack the higher people or punish them as they are not doing any productive work but are unable to manage the workforce.
3.Promotion should be time bound ie after every three years next promotion is due until maximum scale is reached.
4.School passed outs officers should be pushed to join Universities otherwise stop their promotions.
5.Corrupt Officials should be sacked immediately.
6.EVERY THREE YEARS TRANSFER TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS WITH PROMOTIONS.
7. Tea and Coffee should be given to the staff.
8. Motivational rewards from top to lower cadres.
9.Aged employees should be given one day extra off in the middle of a week and deduct just half day pay for this. This will increase productivity,employment,respect to older people and retirement age. Older people will not feel tired and would stick to the job for longer.
10. aged employee over 50 years of age should be made departmental heads if and only if they are qualified.
11.Each extra qualification should carry extra increment to enhance the eagerness to become more qualified.
12.Rotates the head after each month so that they can not play dirty politics.
13.No overtime for any one and with high salary every one is required to add extra 50 hours per year as and when required.
14.50% off to all APS Officers in travel and travel bonuses should be given to all APS employee both domestic and Internationally so that their families will travel and spend many times more than the concession given to them in travels. It will grow economy..
15.No shift penalties but one off extra bonus per year to shift employees.
16.Choice of an employee to nominate one member of his/her family to be given a job after older employee dies or get retired according to kids qualifications.
17.Annual leave can be taken in advance for up to three years leave accrued.
18.Less taxes to all APS employees.
19.Time offs up to two years for older employee with or without pay.
20.Right training according to qualifications of people. e.g. people holding degree or post graduate qualifications in economics should be retrained in the same field.
I wanted to say that the (ACS) Australian Customs Service and Border Protection has just had a review conducted by an independant company called Yellow Edge. This was a review on a mere single aspect of our work, that being our Rotations Policy.
This review and its findings and recomendations were due by the end of september 2009.
I have not seen or heard anything eventuate from this.
Our current Rotations Policy clearly isnt working, as there are people still working at Sydney International Airport since they begun their career or lack of it since their year of comencement 2000.
At the moment our Rotations policy is frozen and has been for quite sometime now.
On commencement of employment we were told that we would be rotated on an 18 month cycle.
I beleive that if the Reform of Australian Government Administration could get a hold of this report from Yellow Edge which has not been made public many to Customs Officers you will see that it will hold many suggestions, conclusions and possible solutions, to this single issue. But with ramifications and solutions encompassing many different scenarios that could help the Public Service become a better place to work in.
Its time for Government to impliment and act on these proposals as they intended, not come up with the typical excuses like budget restraints and Operational requirements.
How long until these changes take effect?
Only time will tell, in the meantime the Public Service Employees suffer.
With nearly 600 contributions by 4pm today (Thursday 29) and presumably more to come this evening, this forum topic has clearly excited the interest of public servants.
While some themes emerged early and have continued throughout, others have only emerged in this last day, leaving little time for proper reflection and further comment.
I would again strongly encourage the RAGA team to keep this forum open, at least until the end of the weekend. If this is done I would also hope that all public servants would be notified directly tomorrow that it is still open, and that they are actively encouraged to engage in this important discussion about the future of the APS.
I would like to say that ACS, Australian Customs Service and Border Protection. Has just cunducted an independant examination on a mere single aspect of our job.
This Aspect is our rotations policy, the company doing the review was Yellow Edge. The findings of this company have not been made public to us and they have not yet been implemented in anyway. Our rotations policy has been frozen for quite sometime now I have personally been at the International Terminal for 9 years and 5 months.
I think that Government Agencies should listen to the recomendations made by independant organisations such as Yellow Edge and act on them.
I think that if the Reform of Australian Government Administration can get a hold of these recomendations made by Yellow Edge they would see many points that need addressing. Possibly not only in the ACS but other Government Agencies, These points, conclusions and possible resolutions would be made in a proffessional manner.
1. Functional De-duplication
Certain functions that are common to all government portfolios should be amalgamated into a single department or at least a single resource pool common to all departments. Duplication of the same function in every department breeds inefficiency because each department means each carries an overhead and none (or at least very few) have the critical mass of knowledgeable staff they need for ongoing proficiency. A couple of examples of areas that could benefit would be HR functions and IT outsourcing/contract negotiation functions. For HR an additional benefits might be facilitation of staff movement between departments to where they are needed most. For IT an additional benefit may be more standardization across departments or ability to investigate and coordinate pilots of new technology.
2. Assimilation of non-federal functions
Some State functions would better be performed at the federal level than a State or even Local government level. Australia is one country after all, not a swag of fiefdoms. Functions like revenue collection whether its income tax, import duty, stamp duty or even rates would more efficiently be done by a one stop shop like the ATO. Meaning people would only have to deal with one body. Also, why not have a federal motor registry with branches in each state ? We already have it for Trucks, why not normal people ? Many people live and work on different sides of state borders and are inconvenienced by the current arrangement - not to mention the lack of standardization of process and rules. We effectively already do this for Federal, State and local government elections and should extend this practice.
3. Stop the Microsoft worship
Remember the add "No one ever got fired for buying IBM" ? The same paradigm has shifted to Microsoft in government circles - strangely initiated by the desire not to be locked in to a single vendor monopoly. There is an alternative to shelling out a fortune for legacy desktop computing (and it should not be first pick for enterprise solutions either - especially off the shelf solutions that were developed for 60 users and are erroneously expected to scale for 3000 users). Most computer users just want something that can reliably run their applications and isn't constantly being attacked by malware or performing odd things that we didn't know it was doing and don't know how to stop. From perhaps shaky beginnings, though no more so than windows had, Linux offers a very good alternative Desktop these days and has the potential to significantly reduce the billions of dollars that Microsoft software is adding to our trade deficit each year. According to a recent survey I read, 70% of respondents even believed that Linux was more secure than windows. The major problem that most people cite for not using Linux is that they cant point their finger at someone when something goes wrong or they don't know who to get support from. This problem is not difficult to solve, and doesn't stop the same people from using and trusting commercial business to the internet (which again, nobody owns). Maybe they just don't realize the internet is open too ? If you buy a bad deal from an ISP, you simply go to another - the same is true with Linux and distribution vendors. The bonus is you can source your support locally or support it yourself - the last option is just not there with Microsoft. Some departments so shamelessly support Microsoft they preclude support for any other competition - for example the ATO and "e-tax". They probably aren't even aware that they already use Linux every day anyway - for example on their trusted communications equipment or most of the Web servers they access.
1. Restore a full accountability structure that includes the ministers and their non-apes advisors.
2. Put in place a platform-independent, fully-relational and SGML-based ICT solution for all agencies and departments
3. Replace the ATO & ALL of the associated legislation (both state & federal) with an automated "Tobin Tax" system (like F.I.D. and B.A.D.) with no deductions nor exemptions and the following rates:
0.1% - Australian Nationals (i.e. citizens with no other affiliations)
0.33% - Australian owned (51% or more) business, corporations and organisations
0.42% - Foreigners and Dual Citizens
0.51% - Foreign owned business, corporations and organisations
We must have a much more confident and experienced group of managers and supervisors. They must know how to be assertive in the appropriate way at the right time. Too many agree to what ever the employee wants without assessing the operational needs and the reasonableness of the request.
Management 101 must happend as a matter of course.
"were is your time sheet" ,"were is your leave form" " were have you been"
If this level of accountability is not present we are surrendering control and anything becomes possible. Management must be in chaege of the payroll and labour costs. This is not always the case.
1. Yes please, strategic policy hubs like The Crawford School at the ANU should be utilised to educate and assist public servants in understanding public sector economics, governance and administration before they attempt to design effective public policy. A Masters by course-work in Public Administration/Policy should be mandatory for application to the SES.
2. All Graduates need to be protected and mentored especially in those Departments/Agencies where education is viewed as an unnecessary and privileged vice.
3. Cut red tape by making better use of service vouchers and direct payments to those who are able and willing to act in their own best interest and purchase the services they need directly.
We need to ensure agencies have the grunt to deat with bad behaviour and underperformance. The APS right from the start has failed to ensure this capacity is available in all areas. Why? One because we concentrated on the IR issues and were fearful of unions. HR was about getting bums on seats and keeping the unions happy. That meant the behaviour and performance fell into the too hard space especially with the unhelpful 1922 Act. The myths that you can't be sacked continue and the you can get away with anything.
Ensure consistency and accountability for bad behaviour and underperformance. We should promise and deliver employees a good place to work. In this way we raise the moral, standing and professionalism of the service. This approach in my experience is strongly supported by managers and employees when they see it demonstrated.
3 things:
1. Better recruitment and staff management processes: poor performing public servants are often mismanaged or inadvertently supported by promotion or redistribution to other areas to avoid managing their poor performance. This is detrimental to staff morale, supports a poor work ethic, is not efficient for any organisation and costs taxpayers to support people who are not contributing to the overall goals of the public service. Suggest better induction of managers to manage poor performance and relaxing of conditions to deal with poor performers effectively. Suggest analysing different agencies to assess effective ways of managing this issue.
2. Freedom to operate creatively and collaboratively: administrative tape, silos in reporting, and limited movement on issues step by step after each step is approved by the Executive, is cumbersome slow moving and inefficient, particularly when issues are bottlenecked at the top. More trust within middle management to manage issues and move forward without needing constant approval from Executive would help alleviate some of the bottlenecks. Also suggest more opportunities for cross sectoral work. The SA govt model which identifies the goals and allows agencies to work collectively to achieve goals promotes a more forward thinking model of operation, rather than having separate agencies assigned to manage a particular goal. This is in recognition that many sectors such as health, education, and environment have significant interaction and are affected by many other sectors. In order to make a bigger impact, goals should be set at the top and managed cross sectorally within clusters or teams across agencies. Taskforce models also work effectively.
3. Transparent strategic plans for all organisations which allows for input by all staff members: the process for which strategic plans are developed and finalised is inconsistent across organisations and allows no input from the bulk of staff members within an agency or department. Suggest implementing mechanisms for gathering feedback within an organisation and facilitating broad discussion to incorporate feedback to feed into a strategic or business plan. Again standard processes for development of a strategic plan should be across the public service. Suggest an independent agency work with agencies or departments to develop plans that align better with broader goals within the public service. This is relevant to Point 2 above where sectors should be working together collaboratively towards a common goal.
1. If we want innovation and efficiency we have to spend more and be less conservative with our IT infrastructure. Many departments are hamstrung by their choice of a low cost one size fits all IT solution. While it makes sense for the main business processing areas to have a one-size solution, areas that do R&D, Marketing, HR and other business support functions could really fly with a different IT solution.
2. Some departments are chosing high rent, jazzy CBD locations, justifying for better access to employment market and clients. Truth is that the APS can't compete in thos employment market so ends up paying more for mediocre workforces. Much better to locate near centre where profesionals have settled for a lifestyle choice and access a better quality and lower cost employment market (eg between Sydney and Newcastle, Wolongongong, Sunshine coast in Qld, Geelong and Bendigo in Vic etc).
3. Need a structured development program for APS leaders that mandates placements in a certain number of departments. Big Department like Tax and Defence are too inbred.
My threepence worth:
1. Facilitate more collaborative strategic policy advice by ensuring program experience informs policy output and extend this to cross-portfolio structures at middle management EL1 and EL2 level. Be real about this and eliminate intimidation of staff who offer up ideas for innovation and improvement.
2. Attach a section / branch / division in each level of bureaucracy dedicated to policy and program innovation in a meaningful way with SES performance agreements to reflect this when they adopt a role as an innovation champion - and allow a rotation of staff through this to allow good ideas and practise to perculate quickly to the top.
3. Adopt new work communication practices to suit new technologies in this new digital world so that content and technical officers and management are working together in more horizontal structures to deliver outcomes that are relevant to users, the public and future audiences. This could include staff sending material as HTML files, working effectively across web communication areas and techs considering content implications. Looking in and outside the APS, to NSW PS and VIC PS, shows and demonstrates some extraordinary efficiencies when these processes have been implemented, see especially NSW Justice, Vic Roads, Vic P&C, Culture Vic - all led from top down without any loss of transparency and accountability - in fact, probably an improvement in these areas.
1. To make the public service more effective in future, we need to focus and act according to the public service act in conjunction with a type of workplace that is free from discrimination, harassment and bullying. Enforce proper disciplinary procedures on staff who commit breaches of the relevant act/s.
2. To ensure staff are properly trained in their job, and incentives for further quality training to improve their capabilities.
3. To ensure that public service staff act professionally, adequately protected, their privacy maintained in the course of duties, properly recognised and renumerated for their services.
canberraperson of 29/10 has summarised things nicely. Recruitment, lack of a whole of government approach and a tendency for clunky, overgoverned processes are the 3 top things to address.
Recruitment - too often those that know how to play the selection process game get promoted instead of those with the credentials and track record. More robust examination of achievements and (often overlooked) emotional intelligence is needed. More effort on the part of decision makers to find out from managers what the applicant is really like.
Whole of government - my department lacks a network with other federal departments. We need a network we can work through. As a researcher I find it is easier to engage the private sector than someone in government able and willing to help.
Overgoverned - some of our best leaders are bogged down with processes, reporting and email. We tout innovation, but any ideas get killed off by the chain of command and committees.
1. Consideration should be given to removing performance pay from senior management. Since it's introduction there has been a noticeable reduction in the willingness of senior managers to give frank and fearless advice to the government. Even when a Minister requests something that is clearly nonsensical, and many staff can see that, there is an unwillingness to tell the Minister or his staff that the proposal does not make sense. Ministers and their staff cannot be expected to be experts on legislation and policy that they have newly come to be responsible for. They should be able to rely on the expertese of public servants who have worked with the policy for many years. They should be willing to listen to that expertese. But it depends on public servants being willing to give clear and fearless advice and that does not seem to be the case any more. If the removal of perforamce pay meant we no longer attracted senior managers who are motivated by bonusses, perhaps that would be a good thing. Let's stop pretending that we are like a business.
2. The cumulative effect of the efficiency dividend is cripling some aspects of public sector administration, forcing public servants to take short cuts and not provide the standard of work to the Minister or the standard of service to the client that is expected. Efficieny dividends should be payabale only when there is a significant reform or innovation that can be expected to produce noticeable extra efficiency. The only way to continually do things in less time is to drop the standard or cut out processes. That is fine if the cuts are deliberate - and all processes should be subject to regular review to cull out redundant steps - but cuts that are made by individuals trying to meet unrealistic timeframes and resource cuts and are not endorsed can be dangerous.
3. I would like to endorse the above comments about breaches of Code of Conduct. People who breach the Code of Conduct - whether in respect of wasting their time, unexplained absences etc, or through their bullying or rude behaviour - have an impact on their team, eg by having to carry them in terms of workload or deal with their repeated rude behaviour. Managers show no willingness to take such people on. Colleagues do not feel it is their right/role. The only time I have tried to deal with someone who was making ongoing breaches (who I was supervising), there were severe and ongoing repurcussions for me and, although I was eventually vindicated, the process to resolve the situation was lengthy, distressing, cost a lot of time and was damaging to my health. I simply would not take that approach again because it was too costly for me. There MUST be a better mechanism for people to report genuine breaches without such a huge personal cost. If not we must continue to wear the impact on the workplace - in terms of lost productivity and impact on morale - of persons operating clearly outside the Code, without any consequences for themselves.
1. APS wide pay and conditions. One agreement covering the whole APS would save individual agencies and departments negotiating their own agreements. This would save a massive amount of time and money and would also encourage greater movement of staff between agencies.
2. APS wide performance system - goes hand in hand with point 1. Ensures all levels and departments are held accountable to the same performance outcomes and principles, including behaviour and deliverables.
3. Mandate some form of public contact experience requirement for APS staff. Too often staff in "Canberra" are too far removed from the realities of the public they administer policy and make decisions about. Whilst pie in the sky thinking should be encouraged, a 6 or 12 months customer service requirement should be built into all levels of the APS.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
1. The most significant issue in the APS is the declining technical competence that is obvious in the teams that I manage.
There are several reasons for this observed trend.
The main one is the absolutely dreadful state of what is often called Learning and Development (by comparison with private sector training and development programs) in the APS.
In most federal departments that I have knowledge of (3 in all) there are very few skilled curriculum developers. In the ATO there are actually fewer than a handful and DIAC L+D features few skilled and qualified educators managing their L+D programs. Centrelink is better but needs more.
The programs produced by poorly skilled curriculum developers and assessors results in the experience that the operatives undergo as neither positive nor productive. Most of the APS programs are in fact strongly didactic and use the basic, traditional deductive approach - teach the rule, apply the rule and assess. Unfortunately, while this approach has a place it is not even delivered well in the APS in my experience over 10 years here.
In addition, most of the APS L+D internally developed programs are rarely usability tested prior to delivery, resulting in quite unsophisticated products often riddled with errors and out-of-date material.
Another focus of the L+D communities is the emphasis on 'counting' rather than producing and delivering the sort of the quality learning experiences staff are seeking. For example, the ATO has it resources focussed on setting up an LMS system while ignoring the quality of the programs that the participants will engage with.
The model of having a team “universal trainers’ each of whom can deliver any program in the Department Curriculum has never worked well. And it continues to fail. We have staff coming back from these sessions continually saying that they could have read the materials themselves, (rather than have the trainer read it out) with the same or better learning outcome.
The Outcomes approach is also significantly ignored by the APS L+D community. There is no focus on the REAL learning outcomes for the staff and certainly no emphasis on them achieving learning outcomes that enable them to perform their role better (and happier).
As a result, our people are becoming overtaken by the changes and advances in the technical aspects of our work in the APS by not receiving skilling and development that will keep them up to date with the technical aspects of their jobs.
If this review is going to do anything, it need to start with the education and development areas of the APS as a high priority. There are plenty of good people who are skilled educators who can provide capable assistance and a drop of excitement and passion to get the task completed.
End.
1. Address administrative inconsistencies between agencies, eg, collective agreements, security clearance processes, IT systems, before even thinking about shared services. Shared services are more likely to work across agencies of similar sizes and purpose, than within portfolios where agencies can vary enormously in size, structure and purpose. The additional cost of managing shared services could outweigh any benefits.
2. Recognise that small agencies with well defined objectives can be more efficient than large agencies. This is because small agencies have flatter management structures, are more flexible, responsive and less bureaucratic than large agencies. Small agencies are less process driven and more driven by results. Poor performance in a small agency is harder to hide than in a large agency. The example given by another contributor of how long it took for a parking voucher to be repaid would not occur in a small agency, which would deal with it in a few minutes through petty cash.
3. Introduce a 3-6 month probationary period for staff promoted across agencies. As many contributors have noted some staff can perform much better in interview than in practice. Interagency referee reports are unreliable as the referee has a conflict if he/she wishes to offload a poor performer. If action taken during the probationary period does not result in satisfactory performance then the person would revert to their previous level. This would greatly encourage managers to take staff from other agencies and would reduce the number of people promoted beyond their capability (an issue many contributors have raised).
1. HR/ recruitment needs to change significantly so that recruitment is not just merit based (in a meaningful, and not just pseudo-scientific/ using the right HR keywords manner). While there is obviously value in corporate knowledge and lengthy service with an organisation, there is clearly a lot of 'deadwood' and laziness in the public service. Coming from the private sector with solid university qualifications I have been stunned at:
a) how difficult it has been to break into the public service. I applied for many positions I'm sure I would have been more than qualified and capable which I was not even interviewed for. I have also had a ridulous situation this year, where my work was considered 'execellent' by my supervisor and director, yet when I applied to be promoted to that (acting) level permanently a HR person ruled me out even from being interviewed for the position on the basis that I didn't use enough HR jargon in my application.
b) how lazy, uninspired and set in their old ways some public servants are in their work. Each team I have worked in has had at least one underperforming (often just lazy - ie. working at 30% capacity) team member that really makes the public service live up to the lazy stereotype. I do value the work-life balance but it seems many who work for a length of time in the pubic service completely take for granted the execellent conditions and pay as normal (which anyone who has worked in the private sector knows they are not).
c) how impossible it is for a manager to promote a hard working, capable individual. My recent experience demonstrated how ridiculous the situation is where there can seem no point in a manager grooming and training an employee if they have almost no control over recruitment and promotion processes.
d) subject relevant knowledge is often not valued and staff are often not given the relevant subject knowledge to do their job more effectively, For example, most staff currently working on Indigenous 'Closing the Gap' initiatives have little knowledge of Indigenous issues. At times this has caused unnecessary embarrasment with stakeholders.
2. It is disappointing how 'siloed' the PS is. In my Department (Health) there is very little interchange between different divisions of the Dept, to the point where most staff have almost no knowledge of how the Australian health system all fits together. For example, those working on programs tend to have very little knowledge of the PBS or MBS.
Even more so, most staff have little or no idea of what is going on in other Depts. I feel this is a real failing, and I myself try to keep across relevant developments in other areas of government that is relevant to my work, but this is essentially all driven by me. Inter-agency briefing seems only to happen at a very very high level in the bureaucracy and not filter down.
3. Some efficiencies could be made in how public servants actually work in terms of processes. For example, to pay a simple invoice, I need to generate several different codes (many of which I have to bother someone to generate for me). It seems rather wasteful given there is an accounts area the invoice ends up in anyway. Coming from the private sector, where I could simply hand the invoice to the accounts person, I don't really understand why I can't do that here - allowing for checking the funds are there and the invoice is legitimate I think the accounts folk should really handle the rest.
Various other processes, like ministerials are also very clunky and old fashioned in how we need to triple handle original documents. Surely technology could be improved for these processes.
Restore the independence of agency heads to provide frank advice to Government without fear by replacing short-term contracts with ongoing appointment or promotion after merit selection by a committee of current agency heads.
Reverse the politicisation of the APS by clarifying the role of senior public servants as distinct from ministerial staff to eliminate the second guessing of the political implications and decisions designed to protect a Minister from potential political embarrassment to with-hold information or policy prescriptions that may otherwise be in the best interests of citizens.
Breakdown the elitism of the SES which has led to the under-utilisation and pigeon holing of highly capable and experienced staff who have made life style decisions not to pursue further promotion,
1) After perusing the comments left by colleagues and peers a continuing theme is that the "yes Minister" attitudes of senior APS staff needs to wind back somewhat. The pressure that the "yes" people create is bordering on the rediculous and an APS wide meltdown appears immenent (what is the unplanned leave quantum like across the APS?). In that, I mean that initiatives and new measures are never given either, the appropriate length of time needed to scope and implement business, let alone allocation of the "actual" resources required for each task.
2) Executive time in lieu for junior executives produces nothing but bonuses for senior executives - this is no productivity incentive. TOIL needs a policy and a mandate and can no longer be only discretional and guided.
3) The APS needs to return to the days of the "Frank and Fearless" and not solely be based on career progression and the much wanted tag of being helpful in the eyes of Parliamentarians. New measures and intiatives struggle because the real detail and issues are not identified due to the rushed nature of most business. What is generally achieved these days, is the APS is more becoming a beast not of an altruistic intent but a beast delivering the whims of a politic to get one over on the other guys. Ask the public?
To return to being the employer of choice, one which lives by the motto of a tangible "work life balane", the APS needs to return to the model which once had time to research, pilot and measure new policy initiatives. An APS which can openly inform the Nations representative democratic members that policies will not work as first conceived, will be an APS that is in touch with the communities of Australia. Proactive not reactive. I am a proud APS employee, thankful for the development and opportunities provided. I am proud of the work we achieve and proud of our leaders but how long can it last at this "just get it on the ground" pace?
Thank you for the opportunity to input.