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?
Firstly, we need to ensure that how we manage people within the APS is built on trust. We keep saying that we have a mature professional workforce, but the way we manage people says the complete opposite.
Secondly, we need to empower people to enage in open and unstructured dialogue and to question 'sacred cows'.
Lastly we need to simplify, if not demystify, the many processes used to manage people and work so that people within the APS can innovate and deliver.
In short, we have to get rid of the thick walls that constrain us. Or at least thin them down so that they are more permeable.
At present some key corporate functions are the primary the primary carriers of a powerful sub-culture of mistrust, disempowerment and over-engineering that permeates many agencies. Human resource, organisational development and employee communications functions are the primary carriers of this dysfunctional sub-culture.
This unfortunate situation exists because these functions or areas have not kept up with the times, their leaders have been working in the area for too long and, most notably, because a paternalistic and controlling approach maintains their position of influence.
One of the keys to reform is the reform of these corporate functions in the first place. In their current form they do not serve us well at all and, in my considered view, will constantly frustrate innovation, reform and, indeed, the entire Gov 2.0 agenda due to the influence of the sub culture they perpetuate and there emphasis on controlling people and shaping agendas.
Steve Davies
I agree with Paul Burdon (29/10 08:28) yes follow the UK’s method of “simple English” - where legislation cannot be enacted if it cannot be understood by the average 11 year old. I so often find myself explaining ambiguous rules and regulations that I only just understand myself. This leads to a confused and frustrated general public!!!
I also support what others are saying about managing under performance. I came from the Private Sector to the Public Service and I am flabbergasted at what people can get away with. It is frustrating to the good staff to have to sit back and watch other's who get paid the same (or more) do what ever they like and not suffer any consequences.
As for my third suggestion (I’m sure there are people who will disagree) but please can there be some dress standards bought into the public service no matter if you are dealing with the general public or not? Maybe encouraging some pride in people’s appearance might also encourage some pride and professionalism in the work place.
1) Reduce the recruitmenat process time. Recruitment currently takes around three months from start to finish. In this time we are missing out on some of the better applicants.
One suggestion for actively reducing this time frame is to change the culture of referees reports. If staff were issued with a referees report at the time they leave a position this saves time on tracking down busy referees and asking for written reports. The requirement for the provision of individually tailored referee reports for every position is an impost on busy referees. Surely it would be more efficient if generic referees reports were provided once only, at the time a staff member leaves a job.
2) Equalise condiitions and wages across the service. Tthe disparity between agencies is creating a shop around type approach to APS career paths. Why would you work for less when you can be paid $20,000 more for the same job in another Department? This shift in APS staff is a false economy and wastes funds in retraining and unneccessary recruitment to replace staff that leave to higher paid positions but were other wise happy with their jobs.
3) Balance between expectations and available resourcing. Certainly some activities could be impoved, streamlined and made more effective. I agree that we can reform and change to a more efficient mode of delivery. However, there is point at which functions and service delivery suffer greatly yet more efficiency dividends are still required. There must be some balance or we will never achieve our goals
The language below is a colourful for a reason—public servants, especially senior ones, rarely say what they mean. We need some plain speaking before we can possibly improve the APS.
My suggestions are:
1. Terry Moran, and every member of the SES, should read Don Watson’s “Death Sentence: The Decay of Public language” and then we would never have to read drivel like this excerpt from the discussion document: “In terms of service delivery, there needs to be a much stronger citizen centred focus.”
2. Let’s burn the Integrated Leadership System on a raging hot fire. Instead of the ILS, we should reward people who have the bedrock of technical knowledge or experience required to “shapes strategic thinking”. We should also reward those who are afflicted by nausea when they read sentences like this one from the ILS book: “As with the leadership component, the managerial component requires capabilities from all five capability clusters”.
3. Last, we should burn PM&C, and any other organisation that publishes gobbledegook like the dreadful discussion paper at http://dpmc.gov.au/consultation/aga_reform/discussion_paper.cfm. Do we really aspire to language like this: “At this point in our history we should ask ourselves whether these are the right concepts to embed in a fresh aspiration for the APS.”?
To achieve flow between the private and public sectors as articulated by the Prime Minister, one needs to consider the financial barriers to support this. Our superannuation policies as public servants are a considerable component of our remuneration package and they do not support movement out of the service.
There is very little comparability between agencies on roles and responsibilities (or remuneration for the same levels). People often seek movement to escape the management of one agency in the hope that another pasture is greener. In an effort for efficiency roles are constantly expanding and you can choose to skim the surface or be swamped under the pressure - either way the result is poor outcomes.
Access to part-time arrangements are inconsistently available, particularly at more senior levels (ELs and above). It is usually only granted on return from maternity leave - this does not support intra or inter agency moves. There are VERY RARELY jobs advertised part-time or designed as part time. Part timers are usually trying to do a full time job in their time allocated. There is no training structure to support working effectively as part time workers or how to manage part time staff effectively. In a world where we need to encourage participation (including older Australians not just returning mothers), we really need to boost our part-time capacity.
1. Stop trying to run agencies as if they are profit motivated businessess. They are not, so stop pretending thay are - The work processes that emerge from this thinking do not fit with the principles of the PS Act or the overarching objectives of the Public Service. Stop comparing ourselves with the private sector and stop recruiting SES from the private sector who treat the public as shareholders - It can never work. Accept who we are and accept our fundemental differences from the private sector. Uphold Transperancy, merit and intergity and accept this will come at a cost of some efficiency and accept that it is worth this cost. Stop implicity or explicity threatening public services with private outsourcing. Agree on and publish a core set of functions that should, in the public interest, never be operated by the private sector and thereby potentially compromised by vested financial interests and accept the possible financial expence of doing so. Celebrate and protect the public service for its unique place outside the market economy.
2.Use innovation, use private sector management philosophies and work practices but only where they do not compromise the intergity of the public service- where they do, dismiss them, count the cost of dismissing them in terms of effectiveness or efficiency and understand that it is a cost well worth it.
3.Mandate that every public servant comletes a refresher course on what the public service is, how we differ, how we operate without fear or favour, and why this is so important, every 4-5 years. A refresher course to be completed by all at all levels. Oh...and dont bother doing a cost/benefit analysis on this.
1) We are moving into rapidly changing times and our institutions need to be far more responsive and flexible - the current heirachical framework & risk averse approach can be a great impediment in this regard - other frameworks such as Sociocracy should be considered as models to help improve institutional responsiveness and effectiveness. This opportunity to provide feedback is a key aspect of making government more responsive (well done!) and intelligent - any intelligent system needs good feedback mechanisms and all departments should be open to seeking honest feedback from staff and stakeholders. There is great talent in the APS staff which is often overlooked and not tapped into because our processes are not flexible enough to accommodate other ways of thinking or incorporate innovation that comes from below.
2) Our processes are probably too risk averse, largely due to media pressure and not empowering/trusting people to make decisions and possibly a focus on being right rather than seeking the truth- I believe the community is far more interested in honesty over spin and results over endless policy and plan making and will be far more supportive and forgiving of government that lives up to these objectives. Building stronger trust and relationships with community is critical and can only be achieved by an honest commitment to achieving this goal.
3)There needs to be a stronger integration of departments and policy under a framework of ecological sustainability (don't worry - this also picks up social and economic) to develop a WOG response that is based upon a systems approach to ensure we are tackling the root causes of issues (far more cost effective) and properly considering the implication of various action on other parts of the system. Adopting systems approaches would make a very major contribution to our effectiveness on many fronts (e.g. see Jake Chapman's paper - Systems Failure - Why government need to think differently)
Thanks for the opportunity to input.
In reflection of earlier comments I think the APS need to become an employer of choice. I think current perception if that the private sector offers more opportunity in terms of career progression, renumeration, better access to innovation/ technology and a greater degree of accountability.
I think more accountability in terms of recruitment processes would see an improvement. I agree with an earlier comment that nepotism is a strong underlying force in decison making around recruitment. Positions are often advertised/ created for a specific person/s in mind. I work for an agency where I believe nepotism has had serious adverse consequences for our current financial position and overall reputation. Huge amounts of energy and resources have been spent rectifying the situation, detracting from our core business.
I think better information sharing, particularly in health & welfare sector, between govt depts would ultimately result in better outcomes for the public. Also there is great potential for better information coordination/ sharing/ collation between states and federal agencies in a range of different fields. Most critical to the public would be health/ welfare and education fields.
-a more structured approach to, and greater investment in, learning and development (A serious approach not competing with BAU delivery)
-improving efficiency by reducing administrative red tape within agencies ( Co-operation between agencies will make the Public service experience easier )
-reduce the dispersion of wages and conditions among Australian public service agencies (But recognise and value different skills)
-increasing the location of more functions outside of Canberra (Enable the growth of community based solutions)
-facilitating more collaborative and strategic policy advice by some form of cross-portfolio structures, for example, strategic policy hubs (consultation and co-operation)
-more widespread use of citizen satisfaction surveys (consultation)
-a more co-ordinated approach to recruitment at certain entry points eg. Graduates (The right skills for the task)
-improving current recruitment and selection processes. (how to truly test the best person for that job?
Three ideas for things that need to change in the public service so it can operate better?
1. Introduce the 13 key behaviours of trust: Trust is a key element in Public Service.
Talk straight;
Demonstrate respect;
Create transparency;
Right wrongs;
Show loyalty;
Deliver results;
Get better;
Confront reality;
Clarify expectations;
Practice accountability;
Listen first;
Keep commitments;
Extend trust
2. Educate: both internal and external stakeholders about what is being done for them. Education results in understanding.
3. Seek consultation at every opportunity to attain co-operation, people appreciate being part of the solution.
The public service will demonstrate the country that we are.
We need to decide what we want Australia to be?
A united community of people who have grown and reached that higher stage of development whereby we can ALL live Healthy, Harmonious and productive lives.
There are a lot of things in the Public Sector that is desperately in need improvement, but the three most important things are:
1. Elimination of duplication of services/programs especially between Local and Federal government, which obviously leads to millions of dollars in waste. One example is the security clearance process this could be done by one central agency and be transportable across agencies.
2. Streamlining and consolidation of Departments and Agencies that in some cases deliver more or less the same services. One example ASIO, ASIS and Defence Signals Directorate do they really need to be seperate, consolidating them will result in savings in admin cost.
3. Eliminate redtape and waste. Sometimes a project is started and half way down the track it is stopped with a lot of money already spend.
1. Pursue excellence by a return to merit principles for recruitment and promotion by:
• Recruiting at APS1 level through an APS-wide process;
• Returning to appeal processes for all ranks up to Secretary; and
• Annual APS-wide promotion to level selections should be undertaken; (Departments could take the next off the Order of Merit lists or undertake their own recruitment/promotion process as at present.)
2. Greater efficiency in expenditure by enhanced transparency by:
• Requiring that program/project approval should be on the basis of published objectives and public reporting against the objectives is mandatory; (The APS officers involved should be publicly accountable for achievement of the objectives, and their performance should significantly affect their promotion prospects.)
• Giving companies the option of tendering for contracts without any commercial-in-confidence provisions; (Such tenders should be weighted 1% higher than tenders with C-I-C provisions.) and
• Applying similar arrangements to in-house tenders.
3. Greater diversity of APS experience and skills by encouraging cross-Department careers by:
• Facilitating movements between Departments and between geographical areas; and
• Moving to common pay scales across the APS.
1. CONSULTATION
Based on experience within Centrelink, too many changes are introduced by policy-makers in Canberra without adequate consultation with staff who deal with implementation of policy and procedure on a day to day basis. This results in inefficient and unsatisfactory work practices being put in place. There should be a mechanism for such consultation so that the people with hands-on experience could provide practical input as to the detail of any changes.
2. RATE/NATURE OF CHANGE
Again based on experience within Centrelink, change seems to be introduced too frequently, sometimes within months or even weeks of a previous policy being put in place. This causes confusion and/or uncertainty and a lack of confidence for staff in regard to current policy/procedure affecting a variety of issues for their day-to-day work. It would be better if existing policy/procedure could be modified and improved rather than overturned radically, and work processes (including our entire computer working platform!) could be modified and improved, rather than being replaced by completely new (and less user-friendly!) processes. All this would assist clarity and efficiency.
3. FLEXIBLE WORKING HOURS/LOCATIONS
A return to flexible working hours would be good especially for staff with family/caring responsibilities. Additionally, in this modern age, wherever direct customer contact isn't required, more efforts should be made to introduce options for computer-based work from home to contribute to family-friendly working conditions.
1. The HR profession's paradigm, which shapes the APS agency culture - and prevents the adverse impacts of that paradigm being discussed and understood; the paradigm being challenged and replaced, - is based on the assumption that people need to be controlled.
This mindset prevents a culture of innovation and empowerment growing, open communications, safe, trusting work environments and relationships being created and sustained. It is why so many projects fail - people are afraid to speak up and share their concerns - and why bullying is endemic - people are afraid to speak up and say the behaviour made them feel uncomfortable as soon s it is experienced.
We need to help the HR profession to be able to reflect on its traits and impacts, so it can adapt, adjust and grow its mindset (it's culture, paradigm) so that empowered, innovative, open, safe, trust-based workgroups and relationships can become the norm.
2. The organisation I know best is not a fit and proper (healthy) place for humans to give of their best - their skills, experience, expertise, energy - to the maximum. People are generally not empowered, engaged or professionally challenged, growing or fulfilled.
We need to embrace and embed the notion of our organisations recognising that they have an obligation to work continuously on their health, well-being and fitness for getting the best out of their people, so that the nation gets the best possible outcome from its investment in the talent it pays for.
Each organisation needs to do the work necessary to understand where it is on the organisational lifecycle, how fit it is for its purpose, what are the emerging signs of ill-health or 'disease' and what preventative measures it needs to take to mitigate anticipated problems of its aging or to avoid them altogether. All agencies need to work continuously and pro-actively on renewing themselves, in a planned, systematic way, to keep themselves healthy.
3. No person should be able to hold a managerial or leadership role unless they are skilled and accredited in how to create and sustain a workgroup climate where everyone feels safe to speak up, to say what they need to say to the group or to each other; where everyone feels safe to be innovative and act in an empowered way; where everyone can find challenge, growth, opportunities to make a difference, receive recognition and contribute their professional potential to the full.
1. Use technology more wisely. The amount of data and information that is circulating around various Departments that could be more readily shared is enormous, however the amount of data and information sharing is pathetic. Better use of already available techology could go along way to making access to information within government much better.
2. Get rid of a level of SES - ie do we really need Secretary, Dep Secs, FAS's and AS's and then EL 2's?
3. Put more real work out to the Regions - 63% of the APS works outside of Canberra, yet there are very few roles for EL1 and EL2's. APS 6 take on a much larger role, without recognition in their level. Would also make it easier for people to transfer within the APS without everyone having to move to Canberra.
1. REMOVE TENURE (external flexibility)
An APS job is as good as a job for life. This can result in extreme complacency.
Consider asking those simply hanging on for retirement to retire now.
A greater flow of employees into, and out of, the APS would be benefit the APS and its employees.
2. REMOVE JOB OWNERSHIP (internal flexibility)
People often cling to the roles they 'own' - sometimes in the same job for decades. This makes it hard to match skills to job requirements, and negates career development.
3. CHANGE THE ATTITUDE
Too many APS employees spend large amounts of time justifying why they can't make a decision, why they are not responsible, why an idea won't work or why they just can't... do anything.
This can squander not just public resources, but employees' lives.
Rules need to be changed in regard to our PSS (Public Service Super). Under current rules, beneficiaries can NOT be nominated, benefits are paid to your spouse whether you want that or not.. I don't know of any other Superannuation Fund that does not allow nominated beneficiaries. This is OUR hard earned money, surely we have the right to decide who we would like to benefit from it in the event of our death. Many spouses are NOT the parents of our children and are under no obligation to share the benefits with them if they are adult children. This fact is not widely known among members of the PSS, but those who know are horrified that such an archaic rule could still exist.
PSS MEMBERS SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO NOMINATE BENEFICIARIES !!
My second comment relates to the softness of our welfare system. Legislation needs to be a lot tougher.. for example Single Parents who advise they have separated from their partner but continue to have children with them for many years later while remaining on Single Welfare payments because they choose not to live with each other and deny a continuing relationship citing "one night stands" which result in pregnancy. Current legislation fails to support those who work in the front line and renders the powerless to stop the welfae abuse.
In the tax office, one thing that annoys me is the loss of valuable older staff due to the terms of the CPSS and PSSDB schemes. These schemes (particularly the CPSS) penalises staff in some circumstances that work past 54yrs 11months of age. Generally these are longterm staff with a wealth of experience in the public service.
In relation to the PSSDB scheme staffs won't go parttime due to the negative effect on their final average salary. It is better for these staff to quit and find part-time employment outside.
These schemes should be updated to ensure longterm staff are not disadvantaged in the event they chose to stay in the ATO or public service as a whole. It is not acceptable that high level staff can quit and be returned on contracts due to contacts they have; this is inequitable and not a valid point in my opinion.
In relation to the APS and its current priorities for low carbon it is offensive that an organisation will promote 'ride to work' and '10000 steps' and even public transport while at the same time remove the Workers Compensation for its employess for home to work travel. It is being seen to do the right thing, while doing the exact opposite. All these other methods of transport involve increased risk of accident in my opinion.
I don't agree with the idea of the one wage rate for each agency; agencies have differing requirements for qualifications and staff should be compensated accordingly.
1. Step back from close partnership arrangements with private companies. This compromises public administration in a number of ways depending on the nature of the partnership. This is particularly costly where they take part in higher level decision making.
2. Step back from 'owning' problems outside the workplace. 'Owning' peoples personal problems and then pushing this down to the lower and middle management is an exercise in all care and no responsibility. No manager can be accross all issues they are supposed to and effectively manage their team. This is partly why under performers can be promoted into management positions with the consequent impact (or lack of) on effectiveness.
3. Accountability at the SES level needs to be applied. The SES need to work as a team but this seems to have gone to the point where they are not personally accountable for the damage they cause or allow to happen or the missed opportunities. Rather than build capability the current crop of SES seem focussed on showy quick gains. When these do not work out (they never fail) they seem to be able to just talk their way out and go on, generally in another branch or department. Asserting success is not the same as achieving it.
An addition to my previous comment. If we look at the private sector, ideas have great value. Good and bad. Increasingly, it is the search for new ideas, rather than resources which constrain what gets done. The person with the new idea is the one who gets ahead of the competition.
I think in the APS we need to have this attitute a bit more. Lets try out lots of new ideas. Some (many) of them will fail. And some will succeed beyond our wildest dreams. And you can rarely pick that beforehand. I think the ability to try out new ideas is only going to improve other areas of the service. We will keep clever creative people. New ideas will save money. Perceptions about the public service would change.
In response to your invitation for 3 high priority changes to the APS:
a) require more rotation of APS Staff, particularly at senior levels (eg EL2/SES), between portfolios. That should encourage more of a whole of government perspective, ooperation and coordination;
b) facilitate greater movement between the private and public sector, while requiring accountability from people who only may be temporarily in the APS;
c) closely review the outputs from the APS, to check that the highest priorities of the government and the community receive priority in resourcing decisions, and low priorities receive appropriate treatment (that may be no further action).
One improvement that seems to be missing from 99.9% of suggestions is a clear purpose for each agency. Be it Tax, Immigration, Centrelink, Community Health, Child Support or a myriad of others, each department has the proverbial "elephant in the room" that is ignored. Those who overstay their visas, do not lodge or pay tax, receive benefits illegally etc are not treated for compliance improvement. Departments are so busy checking or servicing those who do comply there is a significant proportion of the population (same as those who don't pay road fines) who remain untouched because "it is too hard." Too few public servants actually engage with the community on complex cases.
I would agree generally with many of the other comments that have been made and that they ideas are all Good Things. I think though that they do not go far enough. I think there is only one thing that will drag the APS into the 90's (we have to manage expectations).
A Sense of Adventure
When I look at the APS I see lots of people with lots of good ideas. Some of the ideas are from the 70's, but we could wash them and use them again. Very few of these ideas have even been tried. This is because very few ideas get the opportunity to be tried. Agencies so rarely get the resources to try out something new (The New Policy Proposal process, while giving regular cash, is not nearly large enough to make new sucessful ideas anything other than rare). So when an agency with several hundred bright minds gets an idea a year, the one they choose, rather than being innovative and new and great is the one that is conservative and certain to work, so they will get to have another idea next year.
1. The public service needs to become more outcomes driven. There needs to be change of focus and culture away from process to outcomes. Job satisfaction would increase as a result.
2. Reward energy, innovation and initiative, especially among those who are not at SES level. Unfortunately there is a culture of "sitting on" people - not rewarding, recognising or promoting talent. This is partly due to the outdated position classification system which puts people into silos and puts a ceiling on the level of work they are "allowed" to do.
3. Energise people - give them responsibility and a sense of purpose in their jobs. Put the focus on hard work and outcomes. Change the culture from one where the focus is on entitlements to one where the focus is on the work that needs to be done, the outcomes that need to be achieved, while supporting work-life balance and flexible jobs.
1 The public service must remain in touch with its customer group, retaining the aspect of service to its public rather than being just administrators.
We should remain good-tempered and human while administering the law, our actions and the reasons for them being accessible to customers. (Letters also must be meaningful and informative, not repetitive. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are squandered every day in postage for mail not read by customers.)
2 The public service must go back to proper, on-the-job training for its staff.
There are very good reasons for people to be "experts" in a field. It is often not enough that a staff member can search for a payment type on e-reference and follow a work-flow when the intricacies of the payment are not fully understood by either them or the customer. This is not the best practise.
3 The public service must continue to support its staff.
Good ways to do this are to discourage and follow up bullying & cliques in the workplace and to make sure work conditions are not continuously made "more efficient", to a level where efficiency is impossible.
1. Recognise and use people's skills and qualifications. I have been appointed (or head hunted) a number of times to positions which purportedly required my qualifications and linguistic skills, only to find the situation quite different once I was working for the particular organisation. This is a good example of how the APS tends to deskill people.
2. There is still a lot of nepotism in recruitment exercises. An obvious example is the 'unofficial' selection criteria, which includes socialising with a particular group or following a certain sport/team for example. This problem runs deeper and is a cultural problem for APS agencies. I have seen this in all of the APS agencies for which I have worked during my career.
3. We never see or hear from our current Minister. The government needs to connect with the APS in a more professional and meaningful way.
Each Directorate should develop a skills pathway. This should not be hard to do given the skills pathways available. Using Training and Development to tailor skills for specific areas, which should be completed prior to others would give a solid. I've found that a lot of new APS employees do not have the basic skills required and the area does not have the capasity nor relevant training to teach the requried skills.
1. Address the issue of process/red-tape/bureaucracy - more focus is put on the process to deliver reform (system, policy, administration) than it is on reform itself. The over-engineering of process often stifles/smothers any creativity that may have been applied to the development of efficiency reform and can end up turning the efficiency gain into more process.
2. I do not advise younger people (under 30) to work in the service. The layers of bureaucracy, the frustrating, hindering and often baffling processes and the lack of innovation is not healthy for young people, I think a level of maturity is required to deal with/battle and endure these issues to deliver the required outcomes. They are far better placed in private industry where they can grow, develop, be creative and learn to be flexible and resilient and then use this learning as an older worker in the service.
3. leadership - there are varying levels of competency in the senior levels of the service (SES). Leadership and management skills need to be more rigorously championed through the skills framework and into recruitment activity. I have observed a number of leaders who possess high level technical skills but lack broader people and leadership skills. This results in average (sometimes poor) management (and usually no leadership) of large numbers of people, often to the detriment of all.
1. An active commitment to recognising and promotion of the "Public Sector Industry" in the community. There seems to be a cultural cringe about working in the public sector as compared to other areas of the economy - for example, mining, manufacturing, medicine. This leads to a lack of focus about our role, potential recruitment issues and also confusion when we try to align/equate our functions with the private sector.
2. More specialised skilling in thinking skills, especially for Directors/SES. Due to the complexity of issues, a more systemic approach to decision making is required - this is also highlighted due to a higher turnover of staff (ie the benefit of experience can no longer be relied upon).
3. Recruitment - there needs to be a ban on the 'mathematical' selection processes where every applicant is put through the identical process, including the identical interview questions. These processes do nothing to treat people as individuals. Accordingly, there needs to be decent skilling of selection panel members.
1. Highlight the true cost of APS working extra hours and enable some managers to justify additional permanent staff and/or alternative solutions that may also come at a cost (Professional Service Provider). Suggest Overtime Pay be made more accessible and more commonplace, but with conditions that limit extra hours to a healthy level.
2. Justly compensate the excess hours that some APS perform. Financial rewards will help to retain staff with a good work ethic. Suggest Overtime Pay be made more accessible and more commonplace, but with conditions that limit extra hours to a healthy level.
3. Highlight where some staff perform excess hours beyond an acceptable period and enable some managers to justify additional permanent staff and/or alternative solutions that may also come at a cost (Professional Service Provider). Suggest Overtime Pay be made more accessible and more commonplace, but with conditions that limit extra hours to a healthy level.
1. Reinvigoration of the Westminister tradion, i.e. more emphasis on public service, and less emphasis on serving the Minister. The Government changed in 1997, but much of the SES remains the same. Behaviours and modes of operation which focus on insulating Ministers and the Government from unpalatable information, contrary policy advice, and adverse media exposure appear to remain remain ingrained.
2. The esablishment of policy hubs outside the cloistered, politicised environment of Canberra. This could facilitate a measure of insulation from the politics of the day, the cultural immersion for relevant SES in the broader corporate entity, enhanced exposure to the public, and access to the views and experience of APS staff with actual experience in program delivery.
3. Enhanced flexibility and adaptability, in conjunction with less risk averse behaviour, through greater emphasis on the professional development of staff at the EL1 level and above.