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?
I have a few thoughts on improving the public service into the 21st century:
1. More accessible moves between departments/agencies. The mechanism exists under the PS Act, but its rarely used.
2. Better selection of, and training for, managers. A poor manager can let down an entire work area.
3. More intelligent engagement with risk - being constantly risk averse benefits no one, and simply leads to more work.
1. The re-creation of wheels: A number of government departments have very similar functions, but each agency still continues to look, evaluated and create their own versions of doing things. This includes information technologies and policies. For example the US Government have a single portal for the management of Grants for both State and Federal. How many are there in Australia??
2. Power sharing - there seems to be, whether deliberate or not, various departments and agencies do not seem to focus on the greater good that could be done but rather the impact on that particular department or agencies share of power.
3. Collaboration with State and other Commonweath agencies, consult with Community, be more directive with providers (Service Providers and Contract Service Providers), listen to those working on the front line with communities and provide tools and support to do the job. Relationships with trust take time to be established, however can be broken in the blink of an eye.
a standardised APS pay scale system where all departments share the same pay for equivalent APS levels. There are huge discrepancies between departments as we stand.
- Recruitment and selection process must be transparent - agencies now are breaking the rules and getting away with it.
- Bonus and Flexibility agreements must be scrutinized more closely, must be getting close to 30% of the workforce on old AWA's. The bonus system is not transparent, are ratings changed in order for employees to receive bonus' they would not otherwise receive. Allow all employees to see who and how much some employees receive as bonus'
- Heads of Department must be employed by the APS not on contracts, only interested in short term solutions.
- Culture of avoidance plagues the APS.
- Less use of consultants, why do we need them? Some of the work prepared by consultants should be prepared by APS employees, arent we paying people on flexibility agreements and bonus' to provide this work?
There needs to be a stronger balance between policy development which is necessarily based in Canberra and Program and Service Delivery which should be delivered close to the end user. Where agencies don't have the infrastructure to deliver at the local level the program or service should be contracted to an agency that does. Too often we see new programs that are initiated by the Government and then "delivered" by being advertised in newspapers - rural and regional areas are effectively disenfranchised by this approach. In summary, Program and Service delivery should be as close to the end user as possible.
There is currently a severe over bureaucratisation of processes where routine decisions about minor matters go through multiple layers of approval resulting in delays and endless redrafting of guidelines (for example) that add little or no value. I think there has been a misplaced reaction to grant programs that have been poorly administered in the past (eg Regional Partnerships). There needs to be a streamlined approach to implementing programs where devolution and delegation to the departmental level needs to be balanced with a clear understanding of the importance of transparency and professionalism (ie speed and efficiency). We seem to have lost our sense of urgency and relaced it with multiple layers of checking where no one really has responsibility because there is always another level (right up to the ERC!). There should be a strongly adhered to Program Design principle that enshrines transparency of process with minimal layers of approvals for basic guidelines (ie the stuff you need to actually deliver the dollars where they are needed) in a timely way
I would like public servants made more accountable and at the same time given more responsibility. We have a situation in our department currently where we are told that Division heads cant be trusted to stick to their allocated ASL levels so approval to recruit has been removed from them to the Deputy Secretary level creating another process step. What is wrong with holding Division Heads responsible for their ASL levels and making it a performance issue (if its so important)? Better performance management that actually makes people responsible
Hi,
The public service need to stop working at cross purposes and agencies should work to common goals. An example of how this does not happen now is climate change. FaHCSIA has been establishing both new construction for affordable rental dwellings and facilitating the First Home Owners Boost scheme. No minimum environmental standards have been imposed on these new constructions, meaning we are working at cross-purposes with the new Dept of Climate change (new construction is responsible for 25% of the worlds carbon emissions).
The approach of Departments actually working together could be expanded into a host of policy area's, increasing the efficiency of public programs as well as reducing cynicism within the ranks of the public service.
I do suspect this one will end up in the too hard basket as agencies jealously guard their portfolio responsibilities, or even worse, delegated to some high level inter-departmental committee gravy-train to eventually disappear into obscurity!
Cheers
Please not that these are my personal observations and views:
Lack of trust between departments:
It has been my observation that there is very little trust between various departments. Security Clearance is a classic example. Most departments / agencies do not recognise security clearances (any level) issued by any other department. One has to go through the entire process from scratch. What a waste of tax payers’ money! How can one develop and build a ‘Whole of Government’ strategy if there is no trust between all stakeholders involved? As a suggestion, it would be worthwhile to have a single entity / department (e.g. AG’s) establish a section / branch for issuance of security clearances across the Commonwealth Government that are valid and recognised across the board. I am certain that similar efficiencies can be gained in a lot of areas by consolidating overlapping needs.
Leveraging the power / magnitude of the Commonwealth Government
Again, I do not believe that the various departments leverage and utilise the magnitude of the Commonwealth Government as a whole. We do not leverage from similar work undertaken by other departments, but choose to reinvent the wheel each time – experiences from use of a technology, application etc. Also, each department ends up paying far too much for software licenses (Microsoft in particular) by signing up departmental agreements rather than an agreement at Commonwealth level. This would benefit al departments – but smaller agencies would benefit most. I am sure there will be many more areas to streamline and gain efficiencies.
Contract & Procurement processes too weak
This is based my observation with various departments – it tends to favour vendors / suppliers more than the department itself. Generally, there are no penalty clauses pinning down vendors for delay / slippage / quality etc. If there is one, then it is usually not enforced – which not only causes delay (and additional cost as a result) but magnifies the risks and results in substandard quality product being delivered or reduction in scope of the deliverable/s. This puts the department in a compromised position and leaves little room to pursue legal action if need be. If it can be done for doctors or other professionals, then I suggest there should be a ‘name and shame’ site listing all dodgy vendors / suppliers.
I have also witnessed departments in a rush go to market with a RFT / RFQ without exactly knowing what services they are seeking. The requirements are often so ambiguous and poorly defined which then becomes open to interpretation.
APS is not about Technology
For some reason, I get a feeling that most departments ‘chase’ technology and want to be cutting edge. As 'dgjones' wrote in the first forum, “government administration requires ready access to technology-based services for effective utilisation of its core resources (people, information, finance)” – but, sadly, in most cases technology ends up being the driver rather than an enabler of business.
Over reliance of external consultants for key decisions
In my view, there is an over reliance on so called ‘subject matter experts’, consultants when it comes to critical decisions / direction a department should take. It has been my observation that in quite a few cases, some of these ‘experts’ have displayed limited knowledge on the subject, have blinkered views, drive personal agendas or have vested interests. Generally, the appropriate person/s within the department would know the business drivers intimately and be in the best position to make the call, but are often restrained from the decision making process. This is where the SES should step in, show leadership and take more calculated risks.
1) Leaders (especially Group Managers) who know what they want to achieve, how to achieve it, and can allocate appropriate resources to actually get the job done
2) Commonality across agencies in terms of remuneration, leave policies, and other working conditions
3) Co-locating whole Departments in the one location eg - for all Canberra-based staff in one department, they should be in the one building in Canberra. This reduces the need for transport between locations.
1. improving efficiency by reducing administrative red tape within agencies and to our stakeholders
2. reduce the dispersion of wages and conditions among Australian public service agencies
3. increasing the location of more functions outside of Canberra
1. Proactive recruitment and retention strategies for Indigenous Australians - in particular use of affrimative action stratehies such as special measures positions and a deliberate treategy to ensiure that Indigenous people occupy senior (SES) positions directly relevant to Indigenous policy and service delivery.
2. Improve overall recruitment processes including the time to complete selection exercises, enahncing mobility provisions for exsiting APS employees especially in terms of portability of current conditions such as salary packaing - we're one service untill it comes to moving to a new agency and taking a novated lease with you!
3. Shifting to a CO-PRODUCTION model of policy development that not only brings consumers and citizens inside the tent but creates the tent in the first place. There is still some reticence to really create the means by which citixzens can participate in the policy making process ther than commenting on our ideas after we have developed them. A much better though arguably more intensive and challengeing process is to develop policy options WITH stakeholders from the outset. The UK idea of Policy Action Teams is worth considering as one example of how this might work.
1. reduce the dispersion of wages and conditions among Australian public service agencies
2. increasing the location of more functions outside of Canberra
3.improving efficiency by reducing administrative red tape within agencies
1. Improving current management of and response to staff underperformance.
2. Improving current recruitment and selection processes to ensure staff that are selected have the right skill set.
3. Better recognition of good performance.
- hard work is rarely rewarded in the PS and poor work has minimal consequences when people know it's near impossible to be fired. This creates a ineffective working environment and causes disharmony and poor work ethic.
- This ridiculous practice of hiring graduates with completely unrelated degrees and getting preferential treatment over existing public servants without degrees needs to stop. The government should concentrate on setting up appropriate degree courses with universities in relation to the operations of government such as advanced policy creation for instance, rather than just trying to boost the degree numbers through graduate recruitment.
- Whole-of-Government needs to be coordinated more through Minsisters and driven by CEOs. There is constant bickering between departments or domination by one department, which totally goes against the approach. Department heads seem to put their own interests above that of acheiving a common outcome or goal, eg Indigenous Affairs.
I want to feel like I belong to something, and at the moment I don't. If I worked for the CSIRO I would be working for an organisation whose history dates back to before WWII, whereas government departments change their names regularly, and branches and sections even more frequently. If there was a sense that I belonged to 'the APS' that would be an improvement, but I don't get much of a sense of that in my day-to-day work.
There are a number of things that could be done to improve a sense of belonging:
1. The online presence of government departments should convey a sense of history. It should be easy to find out what the department was doing each year - and not just by reading annual reports. The online published output of each department should be able to be viewed chronologically, or in such a way as to show what has been going on over time. And material should not be removed simply because of a change of government: departments should have an existence independent of the governments they serve.
2. The IT systems used by different departments should be as similar as possible. It seems crazy to me that when I moved from DEST to DIISR during the MOG changes I lost access to the electronic side of TRIM for a period because DITR did not use it. Similarly, DEST used PDMS while DIISR uses Slipstream, but these software packages accomplish exactly the same task. It makes no sense for government departments (which regularly exchange staff and which are regularly merged with each other) to use different packages.
3. It should be possible to transfer between departments as easily as transferring within them. I'm not saying pay scales should all be the same: staff within some departments/agencies (e.g. Centrelink) have handle more stress than do those in others and this should be reflected in their remuneration. But the basic employment conditions should all be the same.
4. There should be a single common value for the whole APS. I appreciate the attempt at creating one "The best public service in the world . . . ." however I think this misses the mark. As an individual public servant in Australia I have absolutely no feeling for how 'good' our public service is compared to those in other countries, and I don't see how I ever could develop such a sense on a day to day level. Conversely, putting Australia and Australians at the centre of everything we do is too parochial, especially in a globalising world. I spent my last 5 years working in an international branch, and I think the values that come with considering things from an international perspective are more credible than nationalist values. Following this same logic, I prefer to work for the federal government than for a state government, and I would prefer to work for CSIRO (a national agency) than for a university.
Keeping in mind the dictum ‘more than two objectives is no objectives’, clearly the APS values (while useful as a comprehensive list) do not sum up what we do. The key value that I think should be focussed on is ‘Professionalism’ as other relevant values can easily be derived from it. Professionalism implies:
1. Relevant qualifications, excellent skills and expert, specialised knowledge in the field which one is practising.
2. An intention to produce high quality work, and a high standard of professional ethics, behaviour, and work activities while carrying out one's tasks. A high level of morale and motivation.
3. Having an ‘open for business’ attitude when working with stakeholders and clients, and considering their needs as equally important to the needs of one’s own organisation. Seeing in one’s stakeholders the reason for one’s profession existing in the first place.
4. Holding a positive attitude towards the profession and having the intention to perpetuate it through knowledge transfer, collaboration and mentoring new members.
I would like to see the APS having just this single word goal ‘Professionalism’. This is something to aspire to, and a standard that individuals can measure themselves against. It is an idea that communicates the flavour of what it is like to work in the service (where experience counts for more than do qualifications) and it is also a value that the Australian public can hold us to, and take confidence in.
Being professional does not mean that there are no problems to solve (e.g. managing relations between the elected government and its departments will always require care and attention) however a professional recognizes the inherent challenges and difficulties of their work and does not shy away from them or invoke them as an excuse when things go bad.
All of the existing APS values are captured with this one word. For example, it is not professional to harass other staff, to steal from the public, to lie or to produce lower quality work than one is capable of. I would like to see this one word emblazoned on everything to do with the APS, and I would like APS members to be constantly encouraged to view their activities from this perspective.
reduce duplication of service delivery in large daprtments across the country
increase flexibility of rnumeration for employees in line with performance
co-locate more departmental representatives together in single offices in regional areas
1. The Service should return to the original service wide pay scale as people now go where the money is rather than where their talents would best be utilised.
2. The Service should return to the one central agency (used to be the Public Service Board) to find a job rather than having to contact each separate Department.
3. Retirement age should be governed by fitness rather than by age.
1. Ensuring that employment categoties/levels, wages and conditions between agencies are reduced or leveled is a priority. This allows for personnel to move between agencies and gain a better understanding and experience in public administration. Additionally, when employment in one agency does not allow for career progression or change, there is less likelihood of losing the person to the private sector or contracting. Both of these save time and public funds in recruitment. Overall it builds a more stable and satisfied workforce.
2. The APS relies heavily on Information and Communication Technology. In many cases the only way that specialist ICT personnel can be brought in is through contracting because these personnel are have skills which attract salaries not available within the current payscale or structure. In order to retain ICT specialists and have them work within their specialist capacity without the requirement to undertake administrative or supervisory roles, which many do not want to undertake as it detracts from their ability to focus on their development roles, the structure and payscale needs to be broadbanded (like legal or scientific personnel), This will provide a long term saving to agencies and retain those specialist to maintain business as usual roles.
3. There is also a need to improve the selection and supervisory training at senior levels (EL and SES) within the APS. Many members have excellent technical skills but overall there is a prevalance of micro-management across agencies. This management style slows down the ability to administer government programs efficiently and effectively and adds to the public view that there is a lot of "red tape". It seems there is a lack of trust at these levels and is reflected in the level of delegations for recruitment approval and financial approval. Better people management skills and an understanding of the social context of the workplace would improve the workplace morale and effectiveness.
I am Dr Mohamed Haji Mohamud Noor. I am an economist working for the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research in Canberra. There are many challenges facing the Australian public service to adjust and/or to excel in the current global environment. In my view, the following three issues need to be solved in the short, medium and long-term in order to create a viable public service which will survive and sustain itself in this everchanging and evolving world.
Issue one: professional mentality
We need to create, encourage and maintain a professional mentality in the public sector. To do so, we need to give more weight to the education, experience, knowledge and skills of the individual public servant and less weight to the hierarchial structure (the job group mentality/seniority mentality) that currently prevails in many workplaces. There should be an honest and open discussion about issues that affect the organisation or for that matter the team.
Issue two: eliminate and/or minimise the risk averse mentality that currently prevails in many workplaces
There is need to inject a mentality of being able to introduce innovative ideas into the system without necessarily being risk averse all the time. This can be done if the supervisors and/or managers or for that matter the SES play a vital role in encouraging this behaviour. As it currently stands, the majority of public servants are not willing to rock the boat for fear of being not listened to or to simply keeping the status quo.
Issue three: Rotational principle
Introduce a mandatory (if necessary: a legislated one) across-the-board system which will enable public servants to rotate every three years within their agency or an agency of their choice. The rotation should take the officer's educational background, experience, skills, knowledge and willingness to join a particular team or area of his/her choice. This will not only add value to the whole system, but will also allow staff to use their skills in the areas they are most interested. This system will motivate many public servants to yield good outcomes for their team, organisation and for the whole Australian public service.
1. To improve moral, if an APS is working in higher duties for over, say, 6 months they should be automatically employed at that higher level.
2. Innovative policy and frank and honest advice should be encouraged while choking of innovative work and suppression of frank and honest advice should be discouraged.
3. When consulting with industry do it with sufficiently senior personnel so that industry is not only listened to, but also spoken to, so that there is real dialogue.
4. Continue to reduce bureaucracy and red tape – both internal and external to Government.
Note: Not just the public service, but all ordinary employees would benefit enormously if there was affordable housing – release more land for housing.
Happy to discuss.