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. Reallocation of resources away from the executive. Ours is a very top heavy organisation, and it seems every year more and more resources are removed from the people who actually do the work as opposed to shuffling papers and having endless meetings and phone hook ups. At the end of the day we are PUBLIC SERVANTS and or job is to efficiently and competently serve the public. It seems a lot of changes are made merely so some EL can be seen to be justifying their own existence, when those who actually perform the work can see that the change is going to have a negative or negligable impact (such as the constant renaming of work areas and business lines).
2. Further decentralisation of offices. Our major cities are crumbling due to infrastructure spending lagging well behind population growth, hence the decentralisation to smaller regional sites would give staff the opportunity to relocate to a less hectic lifestyle while also providing economic stimulus to those areas. Although the ATO has small offices in towns like Port Macquarie, Bendigo, Grafton and Mackay, vacancies in these offices practically never occur and they generally only contain one business line. Why not expand the existing offices and create new ones in other regional areas, with the first choice of positions given to current staff who wish to relocate. It also seems that the majority of vacancies arise in Canberra - this is probably because no one actually wants to live there!!
3. Better communication between departments. Whilst the ATO was assisting the administration of Family Tax Benefit it was near impossible to get anyone at FAO if you needed assistance with something. We also had an awful lot of double handling due to FAO staff advising clients that the ATO would be delivering their payments when this was actually not the case (which was probably due to poor training being delivered to FAO staff).There should be an easy and quick process in place to gain information from other departments without going through huge amounts of red tape and painful procedures when we all hold the same personal information about clients in our systems.
1) In a recent speech on the future of the public service Terry Moran suggested that the APS would benefit from an injection of private sector experience, energy and thinking. As a relatively recent entrant to the APS I agree wholeheartedly that the service would benefit greatly from a more commercial focus to the work at hand. Any business which operated at the glacial pace of government in terms of responding to customer needs, adopting new ideas and making strategic decisions would be out of business within a financial year.
2) The culture of the public service needs to from clock-watching and 'can't do' to commitment and 'can-do'. Better use of performance management systems would go a long way to ensuring the best people are appropriately rewarded and retained. I agree with an earlier comment that the employee classification system is an outdated norm that does not serve the APS well in 2009 and will be a liability in the future.
3) The APS needs to be far more proactive in its provision of advice to Government. Frank and fearless and on a regular basis is the key. Much of the pressure that is crippling the APS currently is the result of senior executives not asking key questions of the MO to define expectations that will then be communicated to the troops as outcomes to be met. Without clarity at the senior-most levels of the APS about the destination how lower level staff ever decipher the direction and help us get there?
1. Save time, cost and effort across agencies by moving to an APS-wide arrangement for negotiation of certified agreements, at least covering salaries and basic conditions, while allowing agencies only to negotiate around the finer points of allowances which may be specific to that workforce. This will ensure greater equity and encourage more staff movement across agencies with consequent improvement in skills and refreshing of staffing profiles.
2. Reinforce the word "service" into the ethos of the APS, so that while we may see the value and relevance of contemporary business practices, we also understand that the core of our job is provision of services to the Australian community.
3. Mandate regular (yearly?) training for all staff on APS values and codes. These training sessions shouldn't need to be very long - perhaps an hour or two, but will ensure we are up-to-date with our commitments and expectations.
1 - Introduce APS wide agreements on pay and conditions to increase mobility within the public service as whole
2 - Get out of the cities - government departments should lead the push into regional centres to take the pressure off the major cities
3 - Create "one stop shops" for the public to use - staff them with staff from different agencies so that people can do whatever they have to do with government in one place rather than having to go all over town.
Short and sweet, thanks for the opportunity to comment.
I don’t think there is any principle of APS operation that needs to shift simply because it’s the 21st century. Only the mechanism or means of achieving an end - not the end itself i.e. the public good - will become more or less effective with time.
My opinion is the APS is crippled by the rational self-interested behaviour of its SES who, through no fault of their own, not only get away with but are rewarded for being:
· lazy – leaving politicians to drive policy and assuming only routine strategy positions;
· egocentric – taking 100% ownership of good ideas or extinguishing them if that’s not possible;
· risk adverse – paying explosive amounts to have a consultant swear by their preferred strategy; and
· anti-competitive – operating as a collegiate herd.
Of course they would be the last to admit any of these tendencies.
Whether or not my APS synopsis is accepted, as with most organisations it is the leadership accountability mechanisms (applied to the SES in the case of the APS) that provide the greatest leverage for productivity gains. Similarly it is with the leaders of organisations that the need to be responsive to change first and foremost resides. Unfortunately the APS has also evolved into the kind of beast best adapted to resist the significant reforms it needs (even visibility thereof), because the leaders (like nature) have shaped the organism to their requirements, and the APS works near optimally for the SES without effective accountability mechanisms i.e. the way it is.
Reframing the question then - at the heart of the issue is - what can be done to improve the alignment between rational SES self-interested behaviour and the public good?
My personal opinion is that there are ample policy, strategy and implementation enhancements in the minds of APS staff to improve the productivity of the APS and public good outcomes 100 fold. Those ideas are not surfacing or able to surface however and that belief reinforces my certainty that the right question to address, if the APS is to become effective, is the latter.
Asking the right question is the only general pointer I can offer the enquiry without entering into policy and process details that would cause complications. And whatever else follows it should be noted APS Personnel Performance Reviews are not the answer and are not working at SES level.
I don’t have expectations anything good will come from this enquiry. I know (a) that the SES are well entrenched and encouraged to use run-of-the-mill stick-and-carrot strategies that demand a lot to set up and even more to administer to simply spend more and camouflage commission like salaries; and (b) a plethora of good framework policies exist that would run themselves given half a chance but that would work against SES self interests by tying them to the relentless task, competition and effort of chasing real productivity gains.
I would like to see the following three things in a reformed APS:
1. Decentralisation of SES. There are too many SES in Canberra. While I can understand the need for the Secretary to be based in Canberra, I do not understand why all Deputy Secretaries and generally speaking most FASs need to be based in Canberra. I would strongly support a more decentralised model, particularly for larger agencies and agencies who have a strong regional presence, to have SES spread across the operations of the agency. Larger agencies could have Deputy Secretaries based in any capital city to provide better national and international coverage of the agency's leadership and operations. Technology supports this. It would also improve attraction for high performing inidividuals who would like to contibute to the APS but prefer living elsewhere for personal/family and lifestyle reasons.
2. Parity in the responsibility between Canberra and Regional based APS staff. It appears to be generally accepted that regional staff work at a faster pace than their Canberra based counterpart. While this is generally in part a function of the work, it also seems to be a cultural phenomenon. While I think this phenomenon exists beyond my agency, in my agency it is generally accepted that if you transfer to a regional office, you are required to take a demotion and if you transfer to Canberra, you can work at one, and sometimes, two levels above what you were working in the Regions.
3. Term rotations applied to all APS and SES levels. There are pros and cons for mobility and retention, however, often you in the APS you get the extremes, rather than a balance; people in job for too long who become stale in their skill set and resistent to change or people who move on too quickly before they cement their skill base or deliver appropriate and effective outcomes. If term rotation with the possibility of extension were implemented throughout the APS and at all level, then perhaps a better organisational outcome could be achieved in terms of balanced mobility, staff and career development and continuous improvement.
1. Reinvigorate the public service through ongoing opportunities for movement, transfer, promotion to make best use of those good staff we have and to provide all staff with the opportunity to find their best fit. A public service with no recruitment or promotional opportunity (eg. current budget situation) prevents us from attracting new blood and high perfomers. At the same time, people within the public service hit a ceiling which becomes non-productive and leads to reduced productivity and loss of those valued staff. At the same time, those who dont perform need to be effectively managed (which at the moment is just too hard and in practice, rarely happens).
2. Focus on front line staff. There has been a diminishing number of front line staff evident over the past years with more staff being allocated towards support, administrative, strategic and other behind the scenes roles. The face of the public service is diminishing to the point where coverage cannot be achieved but the number of 'administrators' is continually bolstered. I cannot but visualise the poor sole little public service representative being sent out to deal with the public with a huge behind the scenes support crew, strategists and administrators eagerly waiting by the phone to hear how he/she got on (so they can report on it)
3. Reduce administration and duplication in general. Specifically, reduce or eliminate unnecessary planning, budgeting etc much of which most will privately acknowledge is nonsensical "but we just have to do it". Why? Each year, we are required to compile detailed plans, budgets etc in relation to matters which are actually beyond anybodies control and have very little or no basis for calculating or estimating. I understand that we must plan but where it is known that something is simply a fiction, why do we persist with this?
Get rid of the efficiency dividend. It makes no sense. You can improve efficiency a little, but you can't improve it indefinitely. You reach a point where you can't deliver the services any more efficiently, you can only cut the level of service. No service will ever be delivered for free (or even for less than it was delivered for today), and it is unreasonable to tie notions of performance to that expectation.
Think about it this way. When I buy a loaf of bread for $3, it is no bigger or smaller than last year's $2.80 loaf of bread. It just cost more to make, and the market will bear the increase because they're also making more. So why does the government expect to receive more taxes (via the inflated earnings of the taxpayer) and yet pay the same amount or less to deliver the same services? How does that make sense? How do they expect to participate in and benefit from the economy and yet act outside its rules? More importantly, how on earth do they expect to get and keep good staff in an environment of such unrealistic expectations?
We need to be more like a business in terms of our personal accountability and our understanding of the costs of doing business, but equally we must acknowledge that we are not a business. At the moment we're trying to be like a business in all the wrong ways, and missing the right ones.
1. APS wide pay and conditions, but amalgamated with the ability to accept input from the APS members that the current CA system offers, rather than the old system of legislated policy change driven by other interests. A great deal of time is wasted in fighting differential and inequitable application of CA provisions that are open to interpretation. Write a standard set applicable without favour to all employeees. The APS values and code of conduct need to be strengthened, not streamlined and left open to further interpretation. Come down hard on the bullying now rife in the APS, the Howard years encouraged such practices in the name of efficiency. The only people to benefit from the APS culture changes in recent years are the sociopaths and psychopaths ruthless enough to exploit.
2. Bring back the separation of APS and politicians, revive the capacity for the APS to give frank and fearless advice. The APS supports Australia and Australians, not just politicians and their parties.
This of course requires politicians to take responsibility for their political positions contrary to such advice and removes the temptation to bully public servants into providing advice that is politically expedient.
3. Cut red tape in processes within the APS and that the APS applies to the community. Its a miracle anything is acheived. The need for a accountability and transparency to the community has been overtaken by increasingly convoluted processes that add nothing but inefficiency.
I had been a proud public servant for a long time. I have to admit the APS is no longer my employer of choice. Many of the things that made it enjoyable and attractive in the past have been eroded. Many of the benefits that might have made it worth putting up with the increasing crap over recent years have been demolished. Life as a check out chick is looking awfully good in comparison.
1. Turnover of staff in the APS. Don't know if it’s been quantified in the APS and by agency, but it is something that I think needs to be addressed. While I agree with the comments above ("require more rotation of APS Staff, particularly at senior levels (eg EL2/SES), between portfolios") at what point does the turnover become counter-productive?
When staff leave a section, the recruitment process can take months to fill the position. High levels of turnover leads to a loss of corporate knowledge, increased expenses for training new staff, and can lead to a drop in morale. Further, our Department's external stakeholders (non-government organizations, State agencies) have expressed concerns with dealing with a different officer every few months. What confidence can we give these stakeholders and the general public that we are able approach things in a cohesive and consistent manner if we continue to have such high turnover?
2. High turnover could be related to many of the APS jobs being located in the ACT. What percentage of staff exit surveys indicate that they are happy with their current role in the APS, but are leaving to move interstate (where there are less APS jobs)? ie people move to Canberra to join the APS, stay for 18 months, and then move on. I note that this could be addressed by the dot point above - "increasing the location of more functions outside of Canberra".
One thing that is required is a simple, non-threatening means by which breaches of the APS Code of Conduct can be notified. The Public Service Commissioner's Directions 1999 and Regulations focus on investigation procedures and do not provide any information of to whom or how such a notification can be made.
eg:
- a colleague spends substantial work hours on a private business enterprise (eg phone calls, popping out) and the conduct seems to be tolerated by management
- a supervisor frequently comes to work under the influence of alchohol and behaves irrationally
- someone up the chain of command is a bully but widely feared and respected for his/her abilities
It is unreasonable to expect an APS employee who becomes aware of such conduct to make a formal complaint, and thus to become embroiled in the matter, potentially to his or her own detriment. Moreover there is no obvious procedure available to notify of such breaches outside the officer's own line of command (obviously potentially problematic). Neither the Merit Protection Commissioner nor Public Service Commissioner has a 'hotline' or other accessible notification proceedure, cf many other countries and even some Australian states.
If you want to restore a 'professional' APS, because in many respects it is not at present, some critical organisational processes must change.
Agency recruitment does not work, particularly at the EL1-SES1 levels. Official fiefdoms and lip service to recruitment rules have destroyed the professional service in practice. Service wide recruitment at these levels will go some way toward rectifying the damage caused by existing failed practices.
As many have said before, lack of mobility across the APS restricts career options and deprives the service of flexibility in allocation of personnel and skills. It makes it more difficult for personnel to expand knowledge/skills base and more likely for them to simply leave the service to get the experience they need.
Bring back a truly central APS serving body, with the clout it needs to knock this service back into shape. It seriously needs it.
3 things requiring chnage:
1. Managing under performance - the culture of the APS needs to move towards one that more actively manages and resolves performance issues. Left unchecked, staff performance issues erode agency morale and generally impact staff perceptions of the acceptable level of performance.
2. Regular reviews of resource requirements - within agencies, more rigourous reviews of resource requirements (particularly FTE) would ensure the benefits of productivity gains are more readily realised. Furthermore, where requirements have changed permanently due to external or systemic factors, resources could be reallocated to other priority work.
3. Cross-APS rotations and talent pool - structured processes to rotate staff through agencies that meet both agency and staff development needs could have signfiicant benefit for the APS. Such a process would strengthen the ties between agencies and spread thinking and expertise. A cross-APS talent pool could be formed to enhance the service's ability to rapidly address emerging issues and priorities.
1. If we are really one APS reintroduce consistent pay and conditions across the whole public service.
2. Uniformity in IT systems and software, to strealine costs and training. I would like to see one Records Management system used across all agencies.
3. Get in and tackle the bullying.
1) This has been a common theme from respondents but the way current and future staff are treated needs to improve, especially in the following areas:
A) Recruitment – time between applying and finalisation needs to be shortened. Selection criteria needs to reflect the job better, I applied for a job that I had acted in and from that experience I still didn’t have the skills required in the selection criteria which gave a whole different spin on the requirements of the job.
B) Flexible Working arrangements – all departments I have worked for claimed they were a flexible workplace but in practice there were very few staff working flexible hours and those that are/were working part time were expected to do a full time staff members work in their part time hours. Also I have found management not very willing to allow EL staff to work part time despite it being possible to do the job part time or job share, It really depends on the supervisor most who do not like part time staff.
C) Training – I have been in the APS since 2003 and in that time I have had no technical training, yes I have done training – department wide training in areas like fraud and privacy but no IT training and when I request training I get told there in no budget.
D) Pay & Conditions– there is a wide gap between department and agencies in not only the Pay scales, but also in other entitlements especially in areas of personal leave (if all types of leave are rolled into one, pool of carers leave, 18 or 20 days paid leave), hours worked, Christmas shutdown (or lack of), paid and unpaid maternity leave (12 or 14 weeks paid, a total of 12 months or 24 months), requests for part time hours dependent on age of child (up to 2 years, up to 5 years or when child starts schools), parental leave for other parents.
E) Stop finding someone to blame if things go wrong. Accept that it may be due to a combination of factors rather then just one person. There seems to be a culture of butt covering and finding someone else to blame when things go wrong.
2) Stop the stupid stuff around the end/beginning of financial years where a lot of time is wasted in writing and rewriting budgets based on what departments need/request versus what they are allocated. And then what priorities/programs will be continued or stopped. A lot of time is wasted in budget meetings and then also in staff hours working on projects that are then canned because there isn’t the budget but it is ¾ complete.
3) Stop fighting between departments about what can/can’t be delivered in joint projects rather then saying this can’t be done, look at improving processes for the benefit of Australians not how little the current process can be changed and thus how little work your agency needs to do.
1. Remove policy sections in Departments which weakly replicate the Treasury policy function. While some policy areas in Departments perform a substantive policy function, others exist only to provide input at meetings with Treasury, comment on Treasury proposals and discussion papers, support Treasury in consultations, and where possible attempt to exert policy influence. But Treasury always makes the policy decisions.
2. Remove performance agreements for APS level 1-6 staff. There may be agreement at the beginning of the cycle. At end of year review time, a minor incident can be amplified and used to negate a whole year's output. Blockers to performance are never considered, eg unrealistic demands, lack of team support, medical issues, workplace issues, family issues. Performance agreements tend not to assist with development and are susceptible to manipulation.
3. Selection committees need to consider all the evidence submitted by candidates in a standard way, rather than in the current arbitrary manner. For example, Selection Committees are variable in the weight they give to referee reports. Favourable referee reports are downgraded where the interview performance is not as favourable so that a low rating can be given. Other Committees use favourable referee reports as evidence of good work performance and boost the candidate's rating. The former approach arises where the Selection Committee focus unduly on candidates selling ability at interview. The focus on how well candidates answer questions during interview and how well they sell themselves, discriminates against candidates of certain ethnic backgrounds who are socialised to not operate in this way, and candidates who communicate better in writing than in face to face situations. A final point is that referee reports from Section Managers should not be mandatory, as where unfavourable, such reports introduce an external bias into the process. A selection process should be a controlled process and free of all bias.
There needs to be a simple, non-threatening process for notifying breaches of the APS code of conduct
Eg:
- a colleague is spending substantial work hours on a private business enterprise;
- a supervisor frequently comes to work under the influence of alchohol, and is abusive or irrational
- someone up the chain of command is an unbalanced genius, widely respected/feared for his/her technical or other expertise but prone to abusive or irrational conduct
It is unreasonable to expect an APS officer who becomes aware of such conduct to make a formal complaint and thus enmesh him/herself in ongoing proceedings/investigations that will almost certainly be detrimental to his/her career and wellbeing. What is required is a
Leadership across the APS. Working together. Encouraging a learning organisation.
Consistency across the APS in use of language and rights for everyone, Do not allow the use of technology to take away the rights we fought for so long. I want the choice of not having to give my birthdate... online forms do not allow that at times and the document is not a secure document and goes toa variety of people. We won this right before and i am not happy to give it up! The language used is also under threat. We had a bible for language use which was non-sexist. Do not allow the conservative element to erode this please.
Meeting with the Minister for feedback sessions annually. Why are they so isolated? They are our bosses and should be part of the vison clarification team. They should hear our feedback without the barrier of a Secretary.
My experience in the public service so far has been that there is lots of information out there on economics, but not all that much information based around the sciences. Often decisions seem to be based mainly on economics, and when people in the public service look for scientific information, they rely on information from industry and from popular public perceptions rather than on scientific information. This is partly because truly objective and scientific information is often hard to come by (and often due to little funding it may not exist), but also because I think it seems easier to source this information from industry or the public, which unfortunately can result in information that can be biased (for example, in the favour of an industry) or poorly researched. With widening awareness of climate change, water resources, energy resources, and waste management, I think that accessibility to objective information on these aspects of society needs to be improved. We need to approach decision making with a balanced view, not one just based on economics, but also the sciences and social research.
On a completely different note, I would like to mention again a topic brought up earlier on recruitment and job advertising. Watching friends and family working hard to apply for jobs in the public service, only to find out later that the job has already basically been given to someone, is disheartening for them and a waste of time. Being unemployed and looking for work is often a full time job in itself, and having these people waste their time on an application for a job that is already gone seems pointless. I am all for a competitive recruitment process, but something should be done to make it more clear to those outside the public service how they are supposed to apply, and also so that they apply for jobs that they have a chance of getting.
I also support things such as flexible working and opportunities to work from home occasionally instead of driving in to work every day.... it gives people a chance to spend more time around their families, and at the very least, it might reduce the traffic on our roads a little.
1) Have some real, substantial departmental re-structuring that reflects a "whole of government" aproach - not an ephemeral one. This should involve the amalgmation of some departments and programes into 'super-departments' that reflect their work. In line with would be to diminish the "triibalism" apparent in government agencies.
Unfortunately the K Rudd government has failed this test early in th piece by not instituting a Department of Homweland Security or similar arrangement by not amalgamating Customs, Quarantine, the AFP and DIMIA (Immigration). All are essentially border agencies or border related in their work. Also the Government has split the portfolios of Climate Change with Environment despite the obvious linkages. I believe this was done to not detract from the profiles of Penny Wong and Peter Garrett. The problem therefore is asmuch political as administrative and technical. To make certain Ministers or up and comers not look bad or out of their depth.
Given the flow-on effects and interrelatedness of groups of government agencies fewer but larger departments are an option worth exploring. Otherwise we have duplication of work as well as lack of continuity. Ant other departmental name changes are just window dressin
2) Get rid of the politics. At the moment government agencies are ministerial playthings and photo opportunities for Ministers and senior bureaucrats. Anytime something goes pear shaped the Minister runs a mile and trots out the senior bureaucrat to front the media. The department should be just able to get on with its job. Political wind changes (witness asylum seekers) threaten the work goverment agencies do. What might be in vogue one day is poison the next - I have seen this with facilitation versus enforcement and back again over the years. All politically influenced and motivated. The leads to assumptions about our work and second guessing what is the right or appriate course of action even where this conflicts with the letter of the law. Departments are too beholden to ministerial whim and not enough to public service. At the end of the day politicians come and go but true public service requires stability and respect which only impartiality can provide.
3) Government agencies need to be properly resourced. Particularly at the lower levels. At the service delivery end. At the moment they are threadbare and operate in a state of crisis day in day out. Skills need to match work and this need to be properly audited to ensure its enaction. At the moment staff are just used and abused with heavy workloads and poor training. Individual departments are hopeless at looking after their "human resources" and are more often than not vindictive in their handling of legitimate staff issues. In an area of supposed skill shortages and an ageing workforce retention of experienced and skilled staff will figure more crucially in the future of government and its activities. IT systems need to be rectified in every sens of that word with thorough training for all staff. Proper facilitators and trainers need to be instituted as a matter of urgency - not mates who are mates getting looked after with sinecures in HR. Too many senior appointments will just lead to "Yes Minister" situations - people afraid of giving frank and fearless advice to government particularly as their salaries are set by Parliament not a CA or AWA. Rewards need to match results. They don't at present.
This will be a thorny issue for governments always keen to trim the budget but you can't expect proper service from an understaffed and underresourced agency.
Just a few thoughts. There are numerous other ways of instituting better whole of government or just better government but these are the main 3 as I see them. There should not just be change for change's sake.
1. Whole of Government focus
In order to be more effective and efficient, the public service needs to stop reinventing the wheel and implement sharing of knowledge, skills, experience, systems, etc. By communicating across the sector we will learn more, and be a more cohesive service geared towards helping each other and discourage a silo mentality of defending turf.
2. Decentralise out of Canberra
Making everything based in Canberra is unnecessary, makes costs high, makes recruitment and retention of talented people harder, and means government is isolated from the real world. This will also ensure that developments and community views/situations/impacts are more visible, and will also produce a greater government presence that encourages mutual understanding. This will also help recruitment!
3. Make Entry Into the Public Service easier
There are so many barriers to entering the public service that prevents us getting the talent we need. So many people want a secure public servant job, yet we can't seem to find people we need. Firstly, by refusing to advertise outside of APSjobs we are losing out. Secondly, by refusing to accept the transfer of entitlements such as sick leave from other jurisdictions this can deter a lot of people, particularly those with a lot of public sector knowledge. By being top heavy and refusing to provide a career path for junior staff we prevent people becoming part of the public service ethos and therefore lose the chance to utilise highly educated, trained or experienced people who stay in the same job type or even want a career change - we also prevent development of senior staff in managing people and situations that can help them learn. We also end up costing ourselves a lot more as we have to then make a lot more effort and pay people more when we need people further up the chain.
The single most significant internal management issue facing the APS into the telecommunications environment of the 21st Century is IT resource management. IT Departments deserve to be better managed. As a service department, IT facilitates the key function of Government - communication - internally and externally.
The effectiveness of Government communications are so often undermined by poor IT management and ill-conceived IT policies. IT policy seems to be often based on mediocre risk assessment thinking that results in the inhibition or prohibition current online, mobile and convergence technologies. Even getting a laptop that works or a video flash file up on a website is too often too difficult. All that this results in is another opportunity is lost, another creative idea gets shelved, another bureaucratic excuse is proferred as to why 'such-and-such' was not done. Actually, it is demoralising.
I am not advocating fancy technology so much as a greater investment in quality thinking in which 'end use' is not compromised by IT logistics that set up more problems than solutions and dictate the parameters of government communication.
In order to be responsive, flexible and to demonstrate transparency to the public, Government departments must embrace communicativeness as a value, internally and externally, and begin to accomodate these current and new media and technologies as important means of fulfilling our role - not after thoughts. To do less simply serves to demonstrate public sector inefficiency, inflexibility and, at times, bureaucratic opacity.
1 If the Public Service is to attract people with innovative ideas, the culture (and performance pay) need to reflect a tolerance for risk and an acceptance that new ideas won't always work.
2 Change the culture that joining the public service is a 'job for life'.
So often people are recognised as being under-performers informally, and they get moved around groups in an agency. If we get tough and go through with real performance management, then it is motivating for the people who ARE performing well. Particurlary coming from the private sector, my reaction is incredulity that there are people very well paid for not doing their jobs. That can be a disincentive for others and reduces morale.
3 Alter the Recruitment process to be quicker and where you don't need to supply your referee details in the initial application, only after an interview.
There is very little chance of people in their private sector wanting to tell their superiors (usually the person who would be a referee) that they are applying for a new job, particurlarly when the process is likely to take at up to 4 months before an interview stage. If you want to broaden the people interested in the public service, reduce the barriers to the lengthy process.
This proposal creates opportunities for large cost savings for government, the community and individuals.
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.
The things I'd like to see changed are:
1. Less use of contractors and consultants. Why not use permanent APS staff or at the very least, non-ongoing staff instead? Anything which is not Business As Usual...we'll get the consultants to do it! Restructure...get the consultants in! Then when there is a restructure, it's never the SES who get downsized!! The Government could save billions by cutting down on consultants. Contractors should only be used as a last resort, permanent staff should be doing the work instead so that the knowledge and experience is retained within the agency.
2. Adherence to the efficient, effective and ethical use of Commonwealth resources. How much money is spent unnecessarily on travel and entertainment in particular, especially in some CAC agencies who do not appear to be accountable for what they spend? Some of these agencies act as if they are private companies, treating public money as if it were their own. There should be far more accountability to taxpayers. This partly stems from appointing CEOs and managers who come from industry and blatantly disregard public service ethics and values.
How much money is wasted by each agency having it's own IT systems, own Certified Agreement etc. If the Public Service were the 'one APS' as is advertised, it woud be much more efficient with hopefully happier and more focused staff. Job mobility would be easier and staff would not be constantly moving to higher paying agencies just for the money.
3. Recruitment policy. Applicants are required to spend an inordinate amount of time writing responses to selection criteria without, in some cases, even obtaining a response or acknowledgement from the agency involved, never mind an interview! Even getting to the interview stage does not guarantee being advised as to whether you have been successful in obtaining the position. This is just downright rude and who would want to work for an employer like this in the first place? How difficult is it in this day and age to send an email to applicants?
The selection process is flawed anyway as responding to selection criteria can be outsourced! What guarantee is there that the applicant has in fact completed the responses themselves? At interview stage, it's the people who are super confident, often loud and love talking about themselves that do well. They're not necessarily the best person for the job.
The selection process also takes far too long. Who's going to wait for three months or more before being offered a position? If they're good at their job they will more than likely have been offered and taken a position elsewhere.
1. The APS is ONE SERVICE. stop the 'empire builders' and start behaving like one service. We need equal pay and conditions across all the agencies. The should be one Dept that buys stationery, looks after building contracts and purchases all major items (software included). If one department was responsible for the software being 'used' by the different departments, then maybe a single dept that got sold some very good software but that is totally unsuitable to the range of uses staff are required to use it for wouldn't happen. A professional tender process would have ensured the software could do all the bits and pieces it was expected to do - or at least be compatible with another system that does what the first software can't cope with.
2 transparency of recruitment. Bring back the centralised agency that dealt with advertising outside the public service and could be used as an arbiter when recruitment processes break down within an agency.
3. stop politicians from changing dept names just because they used to be in opposition. Dept names should only be changed for serious reasons.
My experience in the public service so far has been that there is lots of information out there on economics, but not all that much information based around the sciences. Often decisions seem to be based mainly on economics, and when people in the public service look for scientific information, they rely on information from industry and from popular public perceptions rather than on scientific information. This is partly because truly objective and scientific information is often hard to come by (and often due to little funding it may not exist), but also because I think it seems easier to source this information from industry or the public, which unfortunately can result in information that can be biased (for example, in the favour of an industry) or poorly researched. With widening awareness of climate change, water resources, energy resources, and waste management, I think that accessibility to objective information on these aspects of society needs to be improved. We need to approach decision making with a balanced view, not one just based on economics, but also the sciences and social research.
On a completely different note, I would like to mention again a topic brought up earlier on recruitment and job advertising. Watching friends and family working hard to apply for jobs in the public service, only to find out later that the job has already basically been given to someone, is disheartening for them and a waste of time. Being unemployed and looking for work is often a full time job in itself, and having these people waste their time on an application for a job that is already gone seems pointless. I am all for a competitive recruitment process, but something should be done to make it more clear to those outside the public service how they are supposed to apply, and also so that they apply for jobs that they have a chance of getting.
I also support things such as flexible working and opportunities to work from home occasionally instead of driving in to work every day.... it gives people a chance to spend more time around their families, and at the very least, it might reduce the traffic on our roads a little.
RECRUITMENT:
This seems to be quite a theme! The stated outcome is around getting the right person for the job - however the processes often either don't support this, or are easily subverted. The whole process needs to be reviewed in every aspect.
Length: Currently, the process takes an awfully long time. It's not unusual to never hear back from the hiring area, even internally.
Objectivity: No one really seems to monitor the integrity of the process or the panel. Recruitment is geared towards those with the ability to talk the talk at interview. Referee reports can be quite intimidating for referees in the private sector who are suddenly writing almost a full selection criteria on behalf of the applicant. Panels really need to have objective members and the process needs to be more consistent.
Consistency: It's not unusual to apply for 2 jobs at the same level at the same agency, and having been through two vastly different processes, be rates unsuitable for one and highly suitable for another when the selection criteria were identical. Some areas refuse to promote internal applicants to certain levels.
Strategy: While I appreciate that applicants need to demonstrate job specific knowledge, little thought seem to be given to their ability to perform in general at the level they are promoted to - e.g. in 5 years time, the department has a restructure and the person no longer has that job, or seemingly any transferable skills. Either another position is created, where they can sit and apply for other jobs, or all of a sudden they are publicly targeted as an underperformer.
Acting: If a position is genuinely vacant, run a fair recruitment process up front to avoid long term higher duties.
APS wide, the recruitment policies need to be made transparent, streamlined, consistent, objective and enforceable. Real opportunities need to be provided and meaningful feedback and development offered to candidates.
RESTRUCTURING and CHANGE:
Can we please stop already with change for the sake of change. Centralise, decentralise, centralise, decentralise. Get a new boss, have a new restructure, whether it's a new PM or a new CEO. Then of course there's the whole efficiency saga. Did anyone stop to check whether we were actually inefficient before our budget was slashed??
LEARNING and DEVELOPMENT
Learning and development opportunities are not always given out fairly or equally. At the same time – where is the career progression? What development do I undertake when I can't see where I'm going? It’s really very unclear. Development is usually undertaken in order to go forwards or up, but it’s hard to get the motivation to develop when there is so little faith in the recruitment processes or rewards. L&D, recruitment and performance assessment / rewards should be reviewed, improved and aligned so that they complement and support each other and give us something to aspire to and work towards.
1. Put the public service in the firing line in relation to reduction of greenhouse gases. If we are to get serious about reducing greenhouse gases then the public service must be seen as a shining example of what to do. The good part about this is that it will pay for itself by reducing energy costs. In our "wonderful" 4.5 star building lights in meeting rooms are left blazing away, recyclable waste goes to landfill, auto lights in work areas stay on for 1/2 an hour after the last person has left. We can do better but we need to be directed, not encouraged, to do so.
2. The digitised world offers opportunities to deliver work to any place at any time. The public service can benefit greatly from this technology, not only working from home but also in setting up teams in regional centres, where people want to live rather than where they have to live. If we leverage this capability we will also go a long way to addressing the challenges in my point 1.
3. If we want a PS that works as one then we need to find ways to get people to work as one. Sharing is not the first thing we think of. We think "what reasons are there not to release this information" rather than what reasons there are to share. I have seen two many colleagues reprimanded for sharing or proposing to share info with other Commonwealth agencies (I've seen them reprimanded for doing the same within an agency!). One way to encourage sharing could be to require any public servant aspiring to the EL1 or 2 level to have had experience in another Commonwealth agency or to have come from another agency. It won't require management other than noting that any promotion without an applicant meeting this criteria is open to appeal.
Centralise wages and conditions for the APS - the amount of time that is wasted with each agency negotiating an agreement with their staff is unbelievable.
Abolish all performance pay - it creates competition between people which leads to witholding of information and more inefficiencies as people reinvent the wheel because others refuse to cooperate and collaborate.
Introduce genuine frank and fearless advice rather than the highly politicised advice given so politicians are told what they want to hear. Bring back the Westminster system.