Reform of Australian Government Administration

What three things do you think most need to change in the public service so it can operate effectively in the 21st century? An interesting question and very useful responses. My view is that we 'don't have a view' of what the APS needs to be in the 21st Century. When the government decided it needed to determine how best to 'Defend Australia and Its National Interests' out to 2030 it commissioned a Defence White Paper and resourced its development. The White Paper is a clear blue print of what is to happen, by when, why, who needs to do what, when and so on. THE RESULT IS A RESOURCED PLAN !!! The people of Australia now hold the Parliament, Government, Minister and Defence leaders accountable to implement that Plan. We (APS) need the same initiative from government and I believe the initiative would be applauded by the public.
The issues previously raised in this forum, and many more, would be addressed by Companion Reviews steered by Subject Matter Experts from academia and the public and private sectors.

Firstly i disagree with the idea that pay across the departments at certain levels should all be the same. Some Departments are utilised by the Government far more and those staff making sacrifices should be paid according to that. How do we recruit talented people when their choice is to work at a Department that does a standard 9-5 day or work at a crazy pace for longer hours and the same money?

Recruitment process needs to be changed also. Its very complicated and the best people are not getting the jobs. Incompetent friends of other workers are still getting through and the time it is taken to recruit people is ridiculous. If we put out an advertisement, by the time we get around to making an offer, the best applicants have been taken by private sector businesses who moved on the talented staff fast and we get left with the 3rd or 4th on the list.

Pays closer aligned to those in the private sector or we wont be able to continue to recruit talent to the APS.

The end of financial year spending spree has to end. The way in which we are funded needs to change. So many departments are out spending up big and get the same amount of money the next year. We on the other hand are chronically under funded, and struggle to gain more funds to cover our growing costs (due to a dramatically increasing workload put on us by the Government).

BJ is also correct about implementing a APS wide system to performance manage people who are under-performing and move them on. These people are a significant liability, a huge risk and a money drain. They should be moved on if they cannot work effectively in their role.

I also agree fully with MinSupport. Those issues are big and shouldnt be underestimated. And I agree generally with Silent Majority's points. Also academic qualifications doesnt make a good manager. Experience managing makes a good manager and that is equally if not more important in promoting people to higher management roles.

1. Introduce an Excellence Framework - The Business Excellence Framework (BEF) is an integrated leadership and managment system that describes the elements essential to sustainable organisational excellence. The aim of BEF is to create and environment of continuous improvment. Organisations performance can be assessed against the categories. If all agencies are using this as an Umbrella then we can have meaningful measurement across agencies. This is BEF is similar to Baldridge which aslo provides a quality awards framework. We need to be able to benchmark globally not just nationally and the only way to move ahead is to implement a framework that we can do this. The BEF measures innovation, leadership etc. and supports a citizen centric philosophy.
2. Values - Current APS values are still in the 80's and although extremely relevant require review to maybe have a higher level values and although will be discussed at next forum I beleive it is at this level we begin to change. An organisation cannot change unless we realign our values to the 21st Century. and then get our leaders and staff to align their personal values to the organisations. Values determine personal standards and moral judgements the foundation on which attitudes and persoanl preferences are formed. We need to be in touch with our values before we can move forward, only then can we move forward into an ethical decision-making culture.
3. Leadership - we need to reconstruct what Leadership is and that is difficult as it is not a single observable dimension of behaviour but reflects a variety of behavours, skills, attitudes and beliefs. A lot of money is spent of leadership development, it appears to be seen that if L&D iscontracted out we get better results however what is required is to decide what type of leadership structure we want? Is it visionary/transformational leaders or servant leadership, are we pushing for participative or situational and do our leaders understand these strategies. There are leaders who's self interest can stifle innovation and some leaders think the same set of principles can be universally applied. Move forward with L&D approaches.

1. Greater mobility and flexibility to enable staff:
- to transfer between state and federal public service
- be seconded to other departments, new policy hubs
- rotate between service delivery and policy development areas
- to work from home
(More use could be made of the APS adn departmental employment registers, remote IT services).

2. Value the skills and experience of all four generations (Gen Y etc).
Succession planning is a great idea but don't assume the baby boomer generation will retire in hordes. Their retirement decades (55 to 85 years) may not be spent completely out of the workforce. We need to better understand each others preferred working styles and expectations to work more collaboratively.

3. Creative solutions to complex policy issues
Create opportunites for public servants to better engage with academics and the public e.g. IT interactive discussion forums, internal seminars/ workshops etc. Share best practice approaches e.g. "brainstrorming" ideas within your branch, department, across APS, and non-government sector. Allocating time and resources and risk planning will be a challenge in a highly dynamic policy environment.

1. Standardise all PS wages and conditions for all APS 1-6 Positions. ie An APS4 in ATO is paid the same as an APS 4 in Medicare. At the moment the top of an APS 4 in ATO is more than the base rate of an APS 5 in Medicare. This is totally inconsistant with the current advertising campain of "One Service, Thousands of Opportunities" (sic). I devalues to worth of Every APS officer. It is also interesting to note that even within one Department (DHS) we have at least 3 differing salary scales for Centrelink, CSA and Medicare. Having a Standardised Salary scale, with no change in salary when moving at level would facilitate more movement between departments rather than more people want to move to, say ATO because they have the highest wages or people only staying with ATO because of the wages. You can still have a salary negotiating facility. For example you have a position that could be graded between APS 3-4, if someone at the bottom of the APS 4 scale could always negotiate up if they are successful. Wage increments would be automatically given, providing satisfactory performance. For those at the Top of an increment level they can receive say a $500-$1000 bonus for continued satisfactory performance.

2. Get rid of Agency Agreements. I have yet to see the value in the process of Agency Agreements. I amount of time an money that an Agency Agreement costs must be very expensive. While each department will have a budget for this, mostly bi-annual, task. There is the additional cost of staff down time which I doubt has been counted. If each staff member spent a minimum of 1 day in total on Agency Agreement activities (which is very conservitive) this would in my departments case be about 3,500 days lost productivities. The other on-costs of, staff printing associated parafinalia, e-mail traffic, etc, I just could count at this stage. In addition the current structure of Agency Agreements always creates unrest and distrust between Staff and Management, which once again gets Staff talking, e-mailing, etc all during work time and creates a significant unwarrented cost. I would like to see the cost savings if any that have been achieved through the implementation of Agency Agreements.

3. Continue with the focus on Performance Management Strategies. It is very important that Staff know when they are performing well and when there are areas to be focused on for improvement. It also aids in the salary progression and is a good tool for use when Staff are applying for other positions, either promotion or transfer at level. These Performance Management Tools could also be used, at the request of the individual, to be uploaded to a PS wide promotional and Transfer Register. Some departments already have similar registers, however these involve the staff member having to put forward an application. Job applications can be written by other people and some people interview better than others. Your continued Performance in how you work day to day is the key. We will always get personality clashes between Staff and their Managers, and there are already in most departments avenues to address these issues, eg Peer support, internal transfer registers, the Union, EAP's, etc.

A few things that need to change:

1. Most departments would concede that the Canberra branches appear top heavy - with little justification for the concentration of numbers or disparity in pay packets. Solution: either trim away the unnecessary fat layers of management, or communicate more clearly throughout the department exactly who is doing what - people don't mind if they can see with clarity the function and purpose of an otherwise nameless management type in Canberra seemingly duplicating processes carried out in other non-National locations.

2. Streamline the decision-making process - too many managers are scared of making and being responsible for their decisions. Make them clearly aware of what they can and can't do, and stop them deferring and delaying decisions. This would improve staff morale, as well as efficiency in everything from duty rosters, leave applications, internal promotions and the recruitment and selection of new staff - we are losing good candidates because the recruitment and selection process is so long that by the time we inform successful candidates and offer them a position they have already received employment elsewhere, and we are forced to them work through applicants based on order of merit, meaning that often the candidate who attains the position may not be the most suitable, btut he last man standing.

3. Do not promote people to management who do not at least have the right academic backgrounds - it is embarrassing to see people waffle and wander forlornly around hoping noone will identify their poor management skillset - as most staff behave professionally, poor managers can hide from identification because statistics such as turnaround times hide their incompetencies.

4. Re-think the whole pay scale/ classification debate. There is a huge pre-occupation sometimes with the Executive and Senior Executive ranks because of the remuneration they receive. The simple fact of the matter is that we grossly underpay some segments of the APS - merely due to classification - for example, we have property valuers with 5-10 years plus of experience in the public service commonly at APS 6 level - being paid around about $76,000 per annum - compare it to the industry where for the same level of expertise and experience you would have a base salary of $85,000 - $95,000. But in order to be paid as much in the public service, they would need to be Executive Level 1 as a minimum, making the whole pay scale/ classification issue a farce. Compounding this issue, the valuers make extensive use of vehicles as 70% of their operations require fieldwork. Then non-valuer management, not used to the way that cars are used in the job, being inculcated in a part of the APS that sees car use as a luxury instead of a necessity, reduces the cars available to make their budget look good. Which leads to a situation forming of one car for every two valuers in most cases, meaning that the workforce is rearely above 50% productive, but at lease vehicle running costs are down... You then have management types in Canberra worrying that they have too many Executive Levels, not realising the current farcical arrangements in place. And that's just one example of an issue that needs to be fixed in pay scale/job classification stakes.

In summary: management in the APS can be a little backwards looking and incompetent, not taking the time to understand the operational requirements of staff, let alone appropriate remuneration levels, constantly trying to apply management and budgetary processes like a square peg to a round hole, but not seeing the square peg as square peg but a round peg, and hoping over time that the square peg will become a round peg by the constant wearing down, even at the risk of sacrificing the things about the department that maintain excellence.

You pay peanuts, you get monkeys and/or elephants - result chaos, disorganisation, lower productivity and efficiency.

1 For departments to recognise that having APS staff with a deep understanding of the subject matter is critical for the development of the best policy advice. Staff with both program and operational experience should be highly valued in the policy development process, as the ability of policy to be implemented is a key attribute of good policy. Good policy Is based on a deep knowledge and understanding of the relevant industry, including how the industry operates, the roles and responsibilities of the various players in the industry, where power and influence lies, where the capacity to make change exists and how change will be achieved. While staff with generalist skills and knowledge of different sectors can add value, the generalist movement has gone far to far. We need to get the balance of experts vs generalist right to deliver the best value
2 Return to a standardisation of salary levels across the APS . Devolution of the setting of salary and other remuneration matters to agencies and departments has imposed huge management and administrative costs across the service and competition between agencies/ departments on salary grounds. What ever the perceived benefit of this was meant to be, I have never seen any significant benefit demonstrated,
3 Personnel practices should be reformed to increase length of stay in a particular position and place much more value on having staff with operational and program delivery experience . Current structures , especially those that encouraging short length of stay in a particular position, have led to much inefficiency as staff in the early stage of a position are unable to offer good advice.

Background.
The APS has had a very positive history, from Duncan McLachlan, who argued that by decentralization of departmental activity and attributing individual responsibility to branch heads, Coombs Commission, the Uhrig report which had additional input by Peter Shergold.
The APS framework was further enhanced in the late nineties by the PSA, FMA and CAC acts, streamlining roles, responsibilities and expectations, as well as being impacted by Workplace Relations, the Auditor-General Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and agency-specific legislation.
Current
And I am aware of the current declared intention for the APS, (on the 30 April 2008 the PM gave a speech, outlining the government’s seven bullet points for the APS:)
1. Reinvigorating the Westminster tradition of an independent public service with merit-based selection processes and continuity of employment when governments change;
2. Building a professionalised public service committed to excellence;
3. Developing evidence-based policy making processes as part of a robust culture of policy contestability;
4. Enhancing the strategic policy capability of the public service;
5. Strengthening the integrity and accountability of government;
6. Broadening participation in government through inclusive policy processes, and
7. A contemporary view of government service delivery that emphasises both efficiency and effectiveness in outcomes.
Therefore, my commercial experience (banking, commodities and trading) coupled with my APS experience makes me the ideal applicant for this appointment.
Problems.
If we take from the 30 April 2008 talk as the starting post, we need to put a reality check into place.
(1) Accountability. I believe the first problem was touched upon by McLachlan. Individual responsibility to branch heads. By in large, a significant sector of the APS is not responsible for income generation. By not generating income, the value of the funds is not always appreciated, allowing us to fall into an ‘all duty and no care” system of processes that are generic and not output specific. This runs from the manner in which panels are put together (benchmarked) when selecting agency service providers, right through to the consistent internal name changing of teams and department, which then re-assign budgets, and wipe the old slate clean of any successes or failures.
Although I accept that the main asset the Commonwealth has with its public service is the trust that exists between the two, there are too many strata of complacency. The solution could include putting senior public servants on a three-month revolving door contract, where tenure would be guaranteed by long-term successes, and complacency would be eliminated.
(2) Cohesiveness. I am in full support of the “all of Government” approach, where public servants share their skill sets by moving agencies. In my view, equally important is the insights gained by understanding other agencies “realities”. It is one way to promulgate solutions, identify the “real” issues and put us all rowing in the same direction.
(3) Understanding the “Australian” reality. We are a multicultural nation; meaning many of our citizens originate from differing nationalities (as I did). This means we have assimilated many norms and mores to be where we are. This means following the UK’s method of “simple English” legislation where legislation cannot be enacted if it cannot be understood by the average 11 year old (important when one realises the amount of citizens for whom English was once a second language). And would facilitate Commonwealth intention when placed before the Courts. We are a resource rich country. Size wise, we are not dissimilar to our main export markets (BRIC nations, UK and the USA). Population wise we are very different.
The APS needs to place itself to better understand the Commonwealth inflows of information, and subsequent direction so that as a nation, not only can we react to our internal demographics, but also add to the name, as “the lucky country” by ensuring legislation that takes advantage of export markets exists.

1. Having enjoyed a career in the private sector I have arrived in the APS late in life. After six years in roles varying between APS6 and confirmed EL2 I can say with confidence that the foremost issue facing the APS is the decision-making and clearance bottleneck that exists at Assistant Secretary/Branch Head level. In my experience with under different branch heads I can state with confidence that far too much is expected of SES officers at branch head level. Workable delegations stop at branch head level which means that branch heads have a span of control that is totally out of keeping with private sector norms (eg direct responsibility for the work of no more than six to eight persons). Branch heads are expected to see, clear, approve and/or note virtually everything that goes on in a branch even if this means unrealistic work loads and extraordinary working hours. For staff under a branch head, this means long delays in getting output cleared and approved, frustration and eventually a lack of caring whether the work gets through or not. In some cases, to ask for an expedient response can result in a hostile or emotional response. In time, staff learn not to ask. Essentially the culture says that a branch head cannot rely upon or trust a more junior officer - not even an experienced EL2 Section Head. Restrictive financial and decision-making delegations reinforce this absence of reliance and trust. Requiring sign-off at Branch Head level for everything means unnecessary delay, rushed decision making and disallusioned staff. It entrenches the heirarchical structure, militates against collegiality and builds risk aversity at all levels. It is time for the APS to learn important lessons from the private sector about efficiency, effectiveness, trust and reliance.

1. The process of performance managing staff seems to be too much of an ordeal for managers to undertake in order to make sure their staff are performing as they should be. Employee's know this, and because they know their managers simply can't be bothered going through the process of being able to fire someone, they don't bother doing their job properly. If managers can't manage their sections performance, they are not doing their job effectively, and this leads to a very unproductive and stressful workplace.

2. It's all about who you know. There are too many managers with no experience in the field that they are managing. They have simply been given a managerial role due to who they know or what crowd they are 'in' with.

3. The processes for promotion aren't based on individuals abilities to perform the role in question. It's based more on how long you have been in the APS, or how long you have already been in a current role. There should be more emphasis on how well a person is able to perform specific duties, no matter how old they are, or how long they have been in their current role and how long they have been in the APS.

There has been a phenomenal response to this forum (already over 500 responses) by comparison with the first 2 (50 and 20), and the discussion is still evolving.

I would strongly encourage the RAGA team to keep this forum open (at least across across the weekend), so that people have an opportunity to read and reflect on the responses and, where appropriate, respond further.

This is the first comprehensive review of the APS in over 30 years, and it's unlikely there'll be another one for a decade or so. Three days is too short a time to allow proper input from the many people who want and need to make a contribution to this important discussion.

1. Bullying by Senior SES staff is unconstained. Whistleblower strategy does not offer true protection. We need a Public Service Ombudsman.
2. Job selection process are restrictive. Those that are good at the "dog and pony show" application and interview processes are not necessarily the best person for the job. Take a lesson from the private industry - the best person for the job is "tapped" on the shoulder and promoted.
3. Improvements in governance processes (i.e.Assurance) have shifted the repsonsibility for outcomes down the chain of command without also delivering the power to change inefficient/ineffective processes. It's time to review the real objective of these programs and whether they also deliver any real benefits.

Too much to say so little space...

1. Professionalise the APS, P3O the APS - SES need to a deep understanding and practice Portfolio Management (selecting and doing the right projects) and Portfolio, Program and Project Governance (now that's novel), Program Management and Project Management (doing projects right). Ever hear of the Project Managed Organisation? Too many projects go bad and don't deliver because there is little or no governance or support to achieve the project or its business benefits.

2. Every Agency has a different financial system and each senior manager uses the funding differently, the accounting standards and rules don't appear to be applied the same anywhere and most senior managers with the delegations don't know the rules (more education required). And what's with this single year financial plan, massive spend in June, no cash until the section gets its budget in September or later... who in there right mind runs an organisation like that, it wouldn't fly in private enterprise, budgets are agreed for sections, programs and projects before the end of the FY not half way through it when you now have to be hero spenders (in June on stuff you may not need) or underspend and be in trouble. Productivity Dividends to Government (a three year exercise that has been carried on for far too long to the detriment of APS capability) didn't fix this, there needs to be fundamental change to the way budgets and financial systems are run in the APS.

3. All APS Staff work on either projects or BAU operations/services to the public. Project staff move from project to project across the APS where-ever their particular skills are required, they shouldn't be locked up in a particular agency. Policy Development is just another project with a beginning and an end, and a lot of policy is cross agency so why not have projects across agencies.

4. Where there is a requirement for professional technical/engineering skills (IT is a good example), at least make sure the technical/engineering people are managed by a qualified technical/engineering manager who is also a qualified people manager with all of the skills to get the most from the staff in a positive way. Too many of our highly skilled professional technical/engineering staff are very badly managed by people who do not understand the technical/engineering area or the engineering processes, solutions, skills and professional development that these people bring to the APS.

Thanks for the opportunity :)

I am in APS since last ten years. I have found many good legislation which can make APS World best organization but I am sorry to say that Government's rules and all good legislation remain in the books sometimes. Because of lack of basic qualifications in the cadres from APS level 1 to APS level 5 Government unique framework stops working.Government and Law makers are to be commended for their honest efforts but down the line people know how to break the rules by playing internal filthy politics and little games. Harassment and bullying is there in some corners and is in a very organized way. We can not blame people who are enforcer of these policies because lack of educational qualifications make a person to behave by playing games against people who are not liked by the group. I was a High School Teacher and am aware of the type of harassment some senior kids could do with their classmates in a very organized way and same environment prevailing in APS with some Officers in APS who harass and bully some Officers in such a way in which they do not leave any evidence behind.Promotions are given on the basis of selection criteria. In this, those who are known to people get chosen by the Interview panel and some of those who know how to write and make stories get selected.Your qualifications has got no value in some people's eyes which is very shameful .So please make sure people who have more qualifications academically should get more chances of promotions and extra raises in pay should be given to people with a degree and more to post graduates etc so that people with School Qualifications should join Universities and colleges to enhance their qualifications and become mature. Selections should be made on merits and qualificatiions and may be by internal tests.
Secondly, truth in high cadres is lacking. People in enforcement agencies who everyday ask people to confess what wrong they have done are sometimes found first degree liars. How can you enforce rules when you are not truthful. We do not have any right to apply law on innocent public if we are liars .This is not very common but is prevailing there but you can not find any evidence as most of these Officers make a group and this becomes very discrete and organized.
PAF is not a real rating criteria in practice as very first condition for seniors to write comments in PAF is to discuss with the subordinate before writing. But in most of PAF, supervisor writes the PAF first and calls his/her subordinates later to tell him or her about what is written in the PAF.This system makes people biased and some junior level Officer have to do flattery to get good comments in PAF.Many times bosses are talking behind back of a particular person to defame him/her in the group.Australia is a wonderful Country and can become World's best Country if we can change our work style and feel pain by giving pain to others.I know my comments will not be appreciated by many people but I can not stop myself in telling you the truth and I know truth is very bitter to swallow.

1. there should be a common set of salaries and conditions across the public service. The critical issue will be to make sure there is a transparent set of work standards because one of the main issues the service has is that we pay many people a level above what they are really doing because we have competed across Departments for the same people.
2. the public service is full of fantastic people with great skills and great work ethic (despite the restrictions on resources they keep on keeping on, often at the cost of their health). However, the majority of staff who are wonderful need to have far greater support by having those that arent working properly managed appropriately through real performance management. Currently managers have to take a significant risk if they dare take up the challenge of dealing with people who are not putting in and it is a major impact on the morale of everyone, especially the other team members who have to carry their work load of those that arent performing. Asking people to work, to not disappear for half an hour for a coffee, or giving them feedback about how they might need to improve their skills in some areas is not harassment, it is trying to create a work ethic.
3. To be serious about innovative policy and evidence based decisions then proposals for new policy should be given greater latitude to have bids for evaluation and research so that there can be proof one way or another of what works.