Reform of Australian Government Administration
What needs to change in the public service: tell us what you think (27-29 October)
We are interested in your thoughts on how to make the public service more efficient and effective.
The discussion paper Reform of Australian Government Administration: Building the best public service in the world suggested a number of possible reform ideas including:
- a more structured approach to, and greater investment in, learning and development
- improving efficiency by reducing administrative red tape within agencies
- reduce the dispersion of wages and conditions among Australian public service agencies
- increasing the location of more functions outside of Canberra
- facilitating more collaborative and strategic policy advice by some form of cross-portfolio structures, for example, strategic policy hubs
- more widespread use of citizen satisfaction surveys
- a more co-ordinated approach to recruitment at certain entry points eg. Graduates
- improving current recruitment and selection processes.
Please don’t feed constrained to limiting your ideas to the above list – we want to know your top three ideas for things that need to change in the public service so it can operate better.
Question for discussion
What three things do you think most need to change in the public service so it can operate effectively in the 21st century?
1/ I agree with abacus here: the public service is not a business enterprise in the way that listed companies are.
The public service exists to protect and help develop the fundamental institutions of our democracy, to facilitate the ethical and lawful activities of citizens, and oversee the carrying out of essential tasks which bring benefits to all but which individuals and private enterprises will not do themselves because they would be exploited by others if they did so.
It is therefore not really appropriate and in the long run may be totally self-defeating to use theories based upon money-profit making when our tasks are more properly to be seen as the creation of value and "common wealth".
A continued imposition of the so called "efficiency dividend" now, after nearly twenty years of it, does not benefit but more likely destroys our effectiveness at really serving the Australian people.
2/ The other major issue I see is that a command structure [CS] is not a communication network. This is not understood by many people. In fact real communication is effectively and systematically stiffled in at least one major non-military APS entity. Real communication, which is needed for real learning, occurs as a two way process between people who can relate to and respect each other. The CS - also called the 'establishment' of an entity, is just the skeleton. The CS is an essential legal construct which allows delegation of authority and the imputing of responsibility, but it ain't the brains, heart, or lungs of the organisation. In the 21C we the employees NEED to be able to communicate and network with our colleagues and peers around the country, rather then be squashed ever more tightly into little windowless boxes of procedural prescription.
* Pay all APS at the same rates across agencies and encourage transfers between agencies at all levels, also increase remuneration as this will ensure that quality employees will stay in the APS.
* Improve technology and IT infrastructure. It is the 21st century now!
* Improve recruitment / promotions. It seems that previous qualifications, experience and knowledge mean nothing in the recruitment process and it always seems to be the young girls straight out of high school that are offered any career progression.
- Take politics out of the appointment and remuneration for departmental heads so that Government can be told what they need to hear not what they want to hear.
- Pay all APS at the same rates across agencies and encourage transfers between agencies at all levels
- Get rid of the "efficiency dividend". It is counter productive (except maybe to a bean counter) and a distraction. Too many public servants chasing a dollars saving when they could be better employed providing the services and outcomes to Government
1. Technology. Use of current technologies (mainly on the software front) for staff and public. Some departments are using technology that is ancient in IT terms. This is main reason is cost, but in most cases there are efficiencies to be gained from moving to more up to date technology (both in terms of productivity and integration between departments internally and externally). There is a need for a greater understanding of IT at all levels and a commitment for these to be robust BEFORE it is used for public interaction with departments.
2. Decentralisation. There are several postings talking about pay scales compared with the private sector and the calibre of employees attracted. There are several current and potential employees in regional areas that are happy with the pay levels that Government employment can offer. I have several people that are more than suitable for higher positions, but due to family commitments or other circumstances are not able to move to Canberra, Melbourne, etc. Decentralising would also enable more community relationships/interaction with the other 50% of the Australian population that do not live in capital cities. This would improve the effectiveness of new programs and initiatives when people who live that existence are involved in developing programs that will be implemented in their area (good old local knowledge that can head off potential problems). I do not believe the Public Service needs to match private enterprise wages and incentives as this is a never ending chase. Having spent 13 years in Private enterprise before moving to the Public Sector I have seen the great disparity in wages across an industry and across an individual business in that industry.
3. Commonality across Departments. Introduce parity across Departments in pay, structure, funding, etc. This will produce a public service in which people work for the Department they have an interest in rather than going for the money or other perceived incentives. It also promotes the image of “Whole of Government” working together to provide a service to the community we serve.
1. Focus on being one service. This includes having common service agencies responsible for employment, finance, general procurement, and general use IT systems.
2. Focus on being Australian. This means using modern technology to disperse the main body of government agencies around the whole country with only ministerial liaison in the ACT and only local service delivery located in major CBDs. For example, the fisheries portion of DAFF could be located in Geraldton WA near a large fishery, the forestry portions could be in Orbost VIC and the agricultural portion in Warwick QLD; or FAHCSIA's head office could be split between Blacktown NSW and Sunbury VIC.
3. Focus on the public. Cease being government workers (which feeds political influence) and service the public. Public service policy should reflect legislative instruments (Acts, Regulations, etc) not government policy statements. This is particularly important when the majority party in the House of Representatives does not control the Senate.
Flexibility
I think flexibility is a key ingredient in being able to mobilise your workforce to learn new legislation, techniques, methods that allow the public service to achieve the best outcome.
Independence
The key selection of personnel should be free from nepotism being prevalent and the process and selection should be above reproach. The selections being made should take account of an individual's skill both internally and externally in the public service. I also think that where people have got qualifications this should be considered much more highly than people with no qulaifications. The individuals who lack knowledge should be required to gain that knowledge and in so doing make the public service efficient and effective in creating solutions to problems. This may even extend to managers where they do not meet the benchmark of qualifications and are not appropriate for the work being undertaken. The selection panels should be totally independent
and should include respected and qualified individuals to make sure employees receive their fair amount of opportunities and are given opportunities to show what they can do.
Processes, procedures and change
The main problem with the public service is that change should be created from the ground up. It should not be a case of providing a framework that is
inefficient and ineffective in providing a timely solution. The procedures and practices being followed should not act to block a solution beacuse someone does not ackowledge it, ignores it and does not see the whole but merely a part of the solution.
1) Let's review how Departments are funded. Whilst I agree to an extent that as a Public Service we are not a business, I am totally unable to justify the regular end of financial year spend up which occurs so that equal or greater funds are allocated in the following year. If Departments were encouraged to spend appropriately (without screwing their staff) potential savings could be channeled into areas such as staff welfare, improving working conditions (thus reducing unplanned leave) or encouraging Public Servants to "go green" by subsidising public transport.
2) Like a lot of people have already posted, I believe the pay structure needs to be overhauled. To run any organisation effectively, you need the right people for the right job and whilst the private sector is able to continue to offer more attractive incentives, we will not be able to attract candidates of suitable calibre. We must be able to compete. Movement toward a common pay platform for all public servants would also be good, I don't need to mention the huge disparity between different departments for jobs at the same level. While increased pay may help recruit more suitable candidates, it may also help us retain the corporate intelligence of current employees.
3) I hear a lot about "Whole of Government approach" but do not see it much. In many instances, the most difficult third parties to glean information from is other Government Departments. Make it easier for different Departments to communicate, be it by liaison positions, Memorandums of Understanding or other means. It sometimes saves half a dozen different people in half a dozen different areas doing the same job.
1. Recruitment process:
The way we recruit is embarrassing and needs to be simplified. Our current practices are cumbersome and bureaucratic and the timeframe between advertising and recruiting is a joke. Also provide training to those on selection panels, I can only wonder what externals think after they’ve attended a public service job interview.
2. Performance management: Actually do it!
3. Provide the appropriate leadership training for middle managers:
I have seen too many staff members (even at the APS3 level) put on higher duties at the APS6 level and expected to manage teams of up to 17 staff members with absolutely no training or support whatsoever. Some of these individuals may have great potential (others because the business area was desperate), but if they receive no formal training or support, how can they adequately perform in their roles? In addition, I don’t understand how someone with no emotional intelligence or experience for that matter can successfully obtain a promotion at the APS6 or even EL1 level.
1. Mandatory double-sided printing for all documents across all Departments, and re-using paper which has only been printed on one side for drafts, etc, unless confidential.
2. No redecorating of office spaces/workplaces or re-covering chairs, etc, unless damaged or worn (aesthetics, change of management/Government or personal whims are an unacceptable waste of taxpayers’ money).
3. Being more proactive instead of reactionary in our policy approaches.
1. Future APS organisational structure & culture
Existing APS organisational structures and cultures are not capable of meeting the transformational challenges of the next 3-4 decades within the constraints of flat operating budgets and a constrained supply of quality people. Future APS organisations need to be both stable and adaptive to complex and rapidly changing environments.
They will be characterised by:
- capability to comprehend and respond effectively to the complexity of their environments;
- responsiveness to Government, Parliament, citizens, communities, groups, organisations and sectors;
- new structures that maximise the engagement and effectiveness of everyone in the organisation;
- professional cultures based on respect, trust, contribution, self-responsibility and ethical standards;
- good people with the right knowledge and skills working in productive environments that maximise their ability to deliver;
- better productivity of all key resources, services and assets – people, data, information, knowledge and finance - not just financial efficiency;
- a balanced approach to performance and conformance, innovation, cost and risk;
- high quality leadership and management at all levels;
- plain language that is comprehensible and meaningful.
The transformation to future APS organisations will take a decade or longer – we need to start building the foundations for organisational change now while continuing to improve the performance of existing (hierarchical, bureaucratic) organisations.
2. Planning
Existing APS planning mechanisms are not adequate to ensure the provision of effective capabilities to achieve policy, program and delivery objectives.
A consistent and effective ‘One-APS’ approach to planning would:
- combine strategic and operational planning (NOW-NEXT-FUTURE) in a single coherent process;
- address all elements of capability required to produce policy, program and delivery outputs, including people, information, finance, services, procurement, governance and management
- restore effective resource bargaining through a top-down bottom-up approach
- replace the current ‘efficiency dividend’ with a ‘productivity dividend’ mechanism that encourages and rewards APS people in seeking and achieving sustainable improvements in productivity (performance and efficiency)
3. One-APS frameworks for information, reporting and technology
Currently there is no consistent formal approach for the management of information and data, reporting or technology at APS or agency level. Consequently there is no effective control over performance, costs or risks for these activities, which account for approximately 60% of APS operating costs.
A One-APS approach would establish:
- mandated approaches for the management of information, reporting and technology (through appropriate administrative legislation and central agency coordination)
- ready access to relevant and consistent information and data across the APS and agencies
- coherent reporting standards and content across the APS and agencies
- a consistent framework for the efficient delivery of technology-based services across the APS and agencies
- a basis for significant improvement of existing APS performance with reduced operating costs
- a sound foundation for future APS organisations
We need a to ensure policy design and delivery always, ALWAYS, considers the needs and perspective of the people it is meant to serve. We need to empathise with them - to walk a mile in their shoes as Elvis would have said.
1. Have a real movement policy between jobs and roles, a policy that is determined and controlled by the staff member not the managers or the ogranisation. The lack of movement adds to the lack of motivation of staff especially in times with no jobs advancement opportunites. A real policy can increase the capabilities of staff and provide each organisation with new positive employees while improving business outcomes. The key is that staff have the say in their career opportunities.
2. Have clear policies on what is work life balance? Where one starts and the other finishes. Some area or a recourse for all people to ask for a clarification on decision that directly affect somones work life balance.
3. Lets drop this right V wrong and just try and solve some of the people problems, I work with and along side of so many wonderful people who are just unhappy in their working life and I see that the system casues them to be dishearten and they just don't perform at their best. I think its time to invest more into the people we have.
I agree totally with the comments Submitted by BeyondHelp on Wed, 28/10/2009 - 17:02.
1. Accountability: People are too afraid to speak out about unfavourable situations in the workplace. Far too often people get away with breaching the APS Code of Conduct and the APS Values as there is not enough confidence in the system. People feel that if they speak up they will be victimised/singled out and the workplace becomes a very unfavourable place to be. I agree that unethical, inefficient and criminal behaviour within the APS often goes unpunished and unresolved because of the reporting mechanisms and the lack of confidence in the system.
2. Recruitment / promotions: Qualifications, experience and knowledge seem to rarely play a role in the recruitment processes. Recent processes have indicated that it is not "what you know but who you know" which determines weather you obtain a promotion. I believe that Team Leader comments (including verbal comments) should be made known to the staff member concerned. Just becasue a Team Leader has "favourites" should not impact on a recruitment process. Team Leaders should be able to demonstrate leadership skills. Being bias, judgmental or worse should not be a characteristic of a Team Leader. This behaviour somehow does not seem to be abiding by the Code of Conduct or the APS Values. But as mentioned in point 1 above there is no confidence in the system so employees just "put up" with it. This in turn leads to unhappy employees.
3. Skilling: Employees have a wealth of knowledge. People should be able to build on their knowledge and expertise in order for career advancement opportunities. Maybe even rotating staff through different areas could be a start. It would be good if there are opportunities for staff to undertake training such as those offered through the cadet / graduate programs This would lead to an even more skilled workplace and people can have the opportunity to show that they do have the potential to advance themselves. It would be nice to see that there are steps towards promotions and career advancements.
I think the public service would benefit from implementing more efficient systems - not just IT systems but also processes between agencies and government on the provision of briefing and policy advice in general. For example, there is not always a well-established chain of command/communication point between the relevant units in different agencies. Also, there appears to be an adhoc and reactive approach to tasking of different agencies for high level briefing. The quality of policy advice is not as good as it could be if people had, for example, more than a couple of days' notice for tasking or if the request had been sent to the right person in the first instance.
I think the government would also benefit from a secondment program in which people from the private sector could be encouraged to work in a government agency for a year or two in the field of their expertise, and in which public sector employees are encouraged to seek experience in the private or non-governmental sector.
1. Create a dreams list for the nation, followed by goals list, values list, actions plan, and daily activities list. Create an effective blueprint that represents the Australian people consult collaborate and focuses on inspiring all Australians to strive not just survive.
2. Organize the blue print by planning and control, Step 1. What would you do if the nation had unlimited talent, time and money, Step 2 List what results you want to achieve within the next twelve months, Step 3 link the Dreams and Goals to the values list, Step 3 Action plan list all the objectives that must be completed on the goal, Step 4, List your daily activities.
3. Discover the dreams of the Australian People not just another own your house dream, inspire nations to support themselves and become self sufficient.
1) Sound strategic planning, with MEANINGFUL and ROBUST cascading into sub plans and performance agreements. Not every level of the organisation needs a strategic plan, at some point there needs to be detail and the ability to measure against this detail.
2) Given the aging demographic we will continue to have to do more with less. Many back of office functions should have processes streamlined within and across agencies with centralisation or outsourcing as appropriate.
3) Investment in IT, innovative systems and rationalisation of systems.
E.g. 1. The younger workforce is capable of deriving efficiencies from IT but are constrained by less IT literate management.
E.g. 2. Devolution of resource management under the noble goal of providing resources to the decision maker have gone to far with sections developing tools to micro-manage budgets as the corporate systems don’t provide this level of visibility.
I strongly agree with (1) and (2).
(1) current APS planning mechanisms are inadequate - there are straightforward and effective planning approaches that combine strategic and operational planning, and provide the cascading mechanisms described above - current APS 'business planning' does not effectively address all requirements, and is not taken seriously by EL or APS level officers
(2) APS employment levels will remain flat for the foreseeable future - APS has to increase its productive capability to stay across the size and complexity of policy, program and delivery tasks - to do this it must progressively reduce overhead costs while providing effective support for people in line activities
Re (3), I agree that there is a need for IT rationalisation, but this should be through a shift from the management of technology to the management of services. Technology management is not a core function of government - service management is. APS IT management have been avoiding this issue for over a decade, but time is up. Internal IT production simply will not be able to compete with industrial-scale technology service production for standard services, with respect to quality, cost or security.
Critical priorities for APS IT management are:
- establish services management infrastructure (preferably to a consistent One-APS standard)
- establish true whole-of-lifecycle costing for internal IT production
- focus internal IT production capability on key services that external providers can't or won't provide - ie not generic services
1) Surplus Federal Equipment - Government Owned equipment that are deemed surplus to requirements, and in working order should be made available to charities, schools, developing countries etc. Currently there are restrictions in place on gifting. If there are proper systems introduced, it would be possible for this equipment to go to worthy causes. Surplus items can currently only really be auctioned. Not always a cost effective solution, but it should not always be about getting a return. There are many bodies out there in dire need of equipment we get rid of every year (furniture, computers, stationery, etc). A simple solution would be for all Government agencies to submit a list of their surplus equipment to a central registry, that would be matched against requests received from authorised bodies. After a certain period, ie 30 days, if there isn't any requests for this equipment, the Department can sell them through Auction.
2) Bring back the Vocational Trainee Ship system, as another method of intake to the Public Service. The current graduate program discriminates against students / people who did not qualify for University. The old Trainee-ship system (was around in 1987), provided an entry point to non-university students. The Traineeship included 12 months of on the job training, and two days per week of TAFE training. Gave the opportunity to many people who would not normally had gained employment to the Public Service.
3) Bring back the Department of Admin Services. This was one Federal Government Department, who amongst many other things, arranged Common Use Contracts, that every Federal Government Department had access to. There were so many advantages for having such a set up, most importantly, the bulk buying power of the whole of the Federal Government. The contracts were already arranged, no need for each Department to go it alone and re-do the wheel each time. Makes so much more sense on many differant fronts for all Government Departments to be united (includes pay!) and have access to the same contracts.
4) I know you can only submit three ideas, but i think this one is also worthy. With all the talk of Government Departments being green, we can always do more. The Federal Government should introduce mandatory services that each Department must implement. This should include services that can easily be introduced almost anywhere, and are relatively cheap. For example - mandatory - Cardboard Recycling Programs, Fluro Tube Recycling program, Co-Mingle bins (cans, glass etc) recycling program, toner recycling programs, etc, etc.
The three things I think most need to change in the public service so it can operate effectively in the 21st century are:
1. Improving current recruitment and selection processes
2. Increasing the location of more functions outside of Canberra
3. Reduce the dispersion of wages and conditions among Australian Public Service Agencies
I could write voluminous amounts about all three having worked in the APS for almost 20 years but a glance at the comments already posted on here indicates to me that most of what I would say has already been covered.
Thank you.
1. The most significant issue in the APS is the declining technical competence that is obvious in the teams that I manage.
There are several reasons for this observed trend.
The main one is the absolutely dreadful state of what is often called Learning and Development (by comparison with private sector training and development programs) in the APS.
In most federal departments that I have knowledge of (3 in all) there are very few skilled curriculum developers. In the ATO there are actually fewer than a handful and DIAC L+D features few skilled and qualified educators managing their L+D programs. Centrelink is better but needs more.
The programs produced by poorly skilled curriculum developers and assessors results in the experience that the operatives undergo as neither positive nor productive. Most of the APS programs are in fact strongly didactic and use the basic, traditional deductive approach - teach the rule, apply the rule and assess. Unfortunately, while this approach has a place it is not even delivered well in the APS in my experience over 10 years here.
In addition, most of the APS L+D internally developed programs are rarely usability tested prior to delivery, resulting in quite unsophisticated products often riddled with errors and out-of-date material.
Another focus of the L+D communities is the emphasis on 'counting' rather than producing and delivering the sort of the quality learning experiences staff are seeking. For example, the ATO has it resources focussed on setting up an LMS system while ignoring the quality of the programs that the participants will engage with.
The model of having a team “universal trainers’ each of whom can deliver any program in the Department Curriculum has never worked well. And it continues to fail. We have staff coming back from these sessions continually saying that they could have read the materials themselves, (rather than have the trainer read it out) with the same or better learning outcome.
The Outcomes approach is also significantly ignored by the APS L+D community. There is no focus on the REAL learning outcomes for the staff and certainly no emphasis on them achieving learning outcomes that enable them to perform their role better (and happier).
As a result, our people are becoming overtaken by the changes and advances in the technical aspects of our work in the APS by not receiving skilling and development that will keep them up to date with the technical aspects of their jobs.
If this review is going to do anything, it need to start with the education and development areas of the APS as a high priority. There are plenty of good people who are skilled educators who can provide capable assistance and a drop of excitement and passion to get the task completed.
Temerity, B. Ed. M.Ed., Business Admin Post Grad.
End.
1- I was advised by an HR person not to apply for the job if some one is acting in the position because this is just advertised to make the person permanent who is acting in that position. I think this is an absolute waste of resources and also time of people applying for the job.
2- I am the only person in my section with qualifications and industry experience but I am always given the things to do which are out of my expertise and my knowledge and skills are getting wasted in my department.
3- My supervisor in not qualified and been transferred from other section. Every time we ask for the advice or input there is one answer that I am unaware of the process and don’t understand what you do. But asking higher duties been declined saying you don’t have enough experience even I am the only one undertaking all the responsibilities, at lower APS level.
1. Address the issue of performance management (or lack of) in the APS. I totally agree with comments Submitted by MJ on Tue, 10/27/2009 - 13:42. Managers have no real tools to effectively manage performance, and very little support from HR departments when they attempt to use the processes that are apparently available to them. Highly effective staff are prone to disillusionment with the system and ineffective staff are encouraged to gouge the system for all it's worth. Perhaps this is why bullying and harassment are apparently common in the APS - there are no effective and professional processes to deal with issues as they arise. Perhaps this is also a contributing factor to the prevalence of the restructure, which may be the only avenue senior managers have to rid their organisations of dysfunctional teams and ineffective staff.
2. Address the mountains of unnecessary red-tape, endless forms, checklist and silly processes that are a substitute for good (people) management. Recruitment is a good example of this, and I agree with other posts that it is extremely inefficient to advertise externally to have the appearance of equity when a suitable internal candidate has been identified. This is very unfair to the market and many people have the perception that most government positions advertised are not real. The process is also far too long. The minimum time I've ever been able to recruit to a position is 2 months.
3. Committees. The APS loves committees and it seems every decision has to be made by a committee, or at least you need numerous signatures to dilute the responsibility of making decisions. This is a recipe for disaster, or a least a high level of inefficiency and mediocrity. Timeframes for decisions in the APS are often unnecessary long and this can be excruciating for industry partners and community stakeholders who have to deal with the APS.
1. Eliminate the disparity of wages and conditions among Australian public service agencies. It is inequitable and prevents agencies at the lower end of the scale from attracting and retaining quality staff.
2. Recognise and fund the cost of genuinely implementing work/life balance in agencies. EL and SES staff usually work many more hours than they are paid. While this comes with the territory, they are made to feel either inadequate because they can't get the work done 9-5, or that they are not providing a good example. The workload, expectations and demand on staff, particularly senior managers, do not diminish if someone attempts to implement a better work/life balance. The work and deadlines do not simply disappear. Work/life balance policies are laudable. However in reality with the demands on placed on staff, usually due to diminishing resources to meet annual efficiency dividends, they are not realistic. At lower levels, additional workload is often picked up by staff because colleagues leave the office due to their "work/life balance". This creates resentment.
3. Improve performance management skills of managers, particularly in dealing with under-performance. If managers do what they are paid to, ie manage staff appropriately instead of avoiding difficult situations, this would be an enormous contributor to improved efficiency across the APS.
1. Better balance between efficiency and risk managment in all areas - too skewed in favour of the latter, which is killing innovation and productivity.
2. More effective strategies for change management, especially with introduction of intra-departmental IT and e-government systems - prior communication with users is too little and too late resulting in an over reliance on training and help desk support. This is having a marked negative impact on workplace productivity and undermining the promised gains.
3. Urgent need for complete rethink on recruitment, induction and promotion - current processes are too slow and cumbersome (embarrassingly so!) and too biased in favour of risk managment and caution. We are not getting the right people we need and those good ones we have are not being rewarded appropriately - but strongly disagree on a centralised wage structure for the APS.
1. Simplify the recruitment process - reduce the amount of selection criteria from the job application process, particularly generic selection criteria that does not form a real basis for differentiation and get rid of 'sham' processes to create substantive positions for people who are acting up. The current process is too onerous, and undermines efforts to attract genuine talent to the APS (which is severely lacking) and the credibility of the APS generally
2. Simplify and streamline procurement policies, and consolidate Finance procurement guidance materials - there are currently too many policies that undermine value for money, and many of those policies are almost impossible to find. Increasing the open tender threshold to a commercially sensible value (eg. $150k) would also help achieve value for money - the $80k threshold provides a significant disincentive for small business tendering for government work;
3. Introduce incentives to improve performance - eg. performance based pay, and make it easier to deal swiftly with underperformance.
4. Change the rules for allocating funds to prevent the end of financial year spending spree - if we are serious about efficient, effective and ethical use of Commonwealth resources, this is critical.
1. Encourage agencies and the staff contained therein to be experts in their field. Do not try to invent the all purpose public service at any level. Government is entitled to advice from forums made up of genuine and dedicated specialist not jacks of all trades. Solve the problem of “stoving piping” by other means, not through a further blurring and corruption of specialist functions. There should be no such thing as a manager just a more senior expert.
2. Stop the IT “innovation” juggernaut. IT solutions must be just that, solutions. They must be demonstrably effective tools that actually help and improve the execution of business. How will we know this is happening? – The staff at the coal face are included as genuine participants in the design the IT systems.
3. Train people in a consistent and planned way commensurate with their role and career path as well as in a generic sense. How will we know this is happening? – we are all taught to touch type.
1. Accountability: Unethical, inefficient and even criminal behaviour within the APS often goes unpunished and unresolved because the reporting mechanisms are polluted by self-interest. Independent review panels that are rotated at least 12 monthly must be established so that ethical members of the APS (the vast majority) who have the courage to speak out (the vast minority) can report an issue without fear of intimidation and/or harrassment. If the Public Service Commission is to be taken seriously it must be given proper powers and not be the toothless tiger that it has been described as by the Federal Court.
2. Culture: The APS provides services to the public. APS employees do not serve their managers; they serve the public. They can best serve the public by having their particular skills recognised and utilised in the most efficient manner. An employee who is forced to do a job that he or she lacks the necessary skills for and/or is not qualified to do makes for an unhappy employee. Unhappy employees do not serve the public well. The APS must recognise and nurture its human capital.
3. Technology: Bring electronic systems into line with the 21st century. At the same time take account of the interfaces that APS employees use at home and take advantage of that instilled knowledge when electronic systems are installed/applied/upgraded in APS work environments.
Streamline the gazettal process.
Instead of drafting lengthy applications addressing 5+ selection criteria applicants should merely be asked to submit a 1 page application advising why they think they should get the job and attach a resume. This would be better for applicants, the selection panel, the environment and far more cost effective. I also think it would encourage more applicants to apply and thereby create a far more competitive pool of applicants.
Referee reports could be similarly abbreviated to 1 page and achieve more savings.
Finally the appeal process should be removed.
My colleagues in private enterprise find the process mind-boggling; particularly the fact that you can win/lose a job (one which you may have been acting in for years) only to subsequently win/lose the job on appeal!
- Standard wages across the APS agencies
- Better use of new technologies (social media, blogs, wikis)
- Greater presence in capital cities and regional centres outside of Canberra
- Easier mobility at level across agencies (exchange programs)
- Participation in whole of Government features - such as a centralised website, and staff from various agencies encouraged to work together in social functions such as NAIDOC Week, International Day for People with Disability etc.
- More positive recognition of staff
1. Positions in the public service should not be advertised if the organisation has already chosen a person to fill the positon. The organisation, with approval by the head of the agency, should be able to clearly state publicly that they already have a person whom they wish to appoint (an obvious successor who is well tested and appropriately skilled). To advertise, just so the organisation can be seen to have gone through a process, wastes a lot of time and money, for all involved including the employer and the applicants.
2. Appointees to senior positions in the public sector should have previously undertaken training and have extensive experience in people management and leadership, if they are being appointed to positions which involve leading teams and organisations. These skills should be pre-requisites and not glossed over, despite the outstanding skills and abilities a person may have in other fields. I believe it is essential in a modern and well managed workplace. This would ultimately save the resources absorbed when addressing the fall-out of poor decisions which were made innocently due to lack of experience in these areas. (If the person is filling a purely technical role without responsibilities for people, then clearly leadership and management training is less important).
3. Endeavour to change the culture of academic snobbishness. In some roles it is more important to have a person with the right attributes and skills, rather than a string of qualifications. Whilst a mixture of both is obviously ideal, a very experienced person with no formal qualifications should not be underestimated and automatically excluded when a tick the box vetting process is occurring, given the potential value they may bring to an organisation.