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. Senior public servants must reassert their role as principle providers of independent, frank and fearless advice to government. The power and control of appointed ministerial advisers must be challenged so that ministers get the advice they need rather than the filtered, politically sanitised information their advisers choose to give them.
2. The APS needs to decentralise. Move Canberra public servants into the regions so that they experience operational environments and develop
policies that work in the real world. Provide greater opportunity for regional based public servants to work and progress in the regions rather than be forced to go to Canberra to achieve their best.
3. Re-create an integrated public service. Breakdown the departmental fiefdoms that have been built over the past 15 years or so. Take advantage of benefits of economy of scale that can be reaped from having a common function, such as pay, performed by one agency for all of the PS. Take advantage of the skills of others by encouraging them to transfer at level without having to concern themselves with changes to pay and entitlements.
Standardise all pay scales across the public service - This would be almost impossible when you consider the inequity between departments wages and duties take Centrelink and the ATO.
EL1 in Centrelink earns between 81,508 - 88,022 and would as a general rule be a manager in an Public Service Centre managing anything up to 70 staff with public contact of the worse kind. EL1 in the ATO earns between 88,420 - 96,420 and may not have any staff at all …. Who does this seem fair too ? Also can you tell me why the ATO has 24,423 staff of which 259 are SES. Centrelink has 74 SES out of a workforce of 26,157. Which department do you think works harder ?
How many other inequities are out there between other departments ? I fear the task is too great !
It is a concern that many staff move around so much, I feel the public sector is losing a lot of skills due to staff turn over.
Where I work (call network) it seems alot of processes or guidelines (mostly in relation to HR and target statistics) are decided by people who dont really know exactly what we do and how we do it, As a result Staff feel they are given unrealistic targets, and this contributes to high level of attrition, and increases local stress levels.
Managers need to be given broader guidelines on how to achieve required outcomes, and have more power over processes at a local level. Local managment is superb, but seem to feel they have their hands tied in alot of situations.
People entering the workforce today are forecast (and sometimes just forced) to have as many as 20+ different employers during their careers. Speaking as someone who has already worked in small business and government departments several times, the three things the APS absolutely needs to attract staff are:
1. A flatter pay structure. Those complaining about 20% variations in pay aren't looking very hard, there's over 50% variation around the APS6-EL1 level in small agencies versus large departments. No wonder no-one changes departments.
2. Portable superannunation. I have no idea why government departments are exempt from super choice legislation. I know the history of private and public sector super are separate and different, but it's just stupid that people are forced to have separate private and public super accounts (seriously compromising the power of compound interest) or roll their private super into the under-performing public sector super scheme (again, losing serious money).
3. Job descriptions. You are not an APS3 in Centrelink or an EL1 in DoFA. You are a customer service officer or an accountant or a building project manager or whatever. The fact that most departments can't even articulate what their staff do in job advertisements promotes the perception that nothing actually happens. Plain English and clear roles would help enormously all round.
In other news:
- There is no Australian Public Service. There are hundreds of agencies. There are 100+ different employment agreements. There are almost no transfers between departments. There is no advantage to applying from one department to another. There is no formal mechanism for or even clear expectation of inter-departmental cooperation. Even government security clearances are non-transferable. There is no Australian Public Service.
- Grad's. Graduate recruitment programs. Sick of them. Such a waste of money. So insulting to other staff. Today's grad's are probably an even greater waste of money than ever, given increasing labour mobility. Meanwhile, all your other staff -- including the ELs and the SES and the PhDs and the handful of people who have gone through the ranks and know your business backwards -- are wishing someone would spend a fraction of the time and money wasted on grad's on them. Recruitment and promotion are supposed to be about relevant skills and experience -- or you can be a grad'. Can them all.
- Accountability. The plain fact is that accountability mechanisms in many departments seem to cost more than their activities. We need a simpler system that accepts that mistakes may be made. Adding more and more layers of supervisors, managers, senior managers, auditors, external auditors and approval rounds simply increases costs without increasing output. If that means an APS4 ends up at Senate Estimates apologising for a bad call, so be it. Putting another 6 layers of management between that decision-maker and scrutiny doesn't stop mistakes happening. No, it doesn't. All those extra people know less about the factors in the decision than the first person, so they don't help at all. Stop wasting money pretending they do.
1. Better training systems for all staff at all levels. A lot of junior members can't get the training required to adequately perform their core job, whilst senior staff are getting all sorts of 'feel good' training that doesn't help them actually manage their staff. People can not be expected to perform and / or progress if they are not properly trained! Lack of training also leads to lower morale.
2. As stated by many before me, the amount of talent that is being ignored in the regional centres by having so many jobs only advertised in Canberra is amazing. Decentralise and start finding out what resources / skills are out there (some already within the APS). Not everyone can live / work in our Nation's capital… if nothing else it is geographically small and will run out of space sooner or later. I thought we (the APS) value diversity? That should include not just personal qualities, but also geographical locations…
3. Agree that secondments to other agencies would be invaluable to both the APS and the individual. Advantages include, cross training, systems improvements and general diversification of skills. Win-win for all involved. Why should this benefit be reserved predominantly just for graduates and senior management? The coal face workers have much to offer, as they have often spend years gaining their knowledge and experience.
Common pay and conditions across public service agencies - lack of this most definitely affects people's enthusiasm to move across agencies or to even consider the same role in an agency where salary levels are lower.
Innovation: without innovation the public service can't move forward. Innovation is also exciting, attracts and retains employees and creates energy and dynamism.
Possibility: looking at what is possible rather than what is not possible. Prioritising possibilities and making them happen.
It's a far reaching idea, not original but, while pragmatic, seemingly impossible to get to.
1. Government wastes incredible amounts on the purchase of off the shelf products for its IT needs and then spends incredible amounts turning them into something they were never intended to be. Reasonably useful products turn into mega monsters which eventually implode on themselves after years of tweaking, bandaiding and bastardisation. Along with plenty of whinging along the way about having to continue expanding the monster because it has cost so much. Bite the bullet and create new systems which do what you need.
2. A whole of government IT solution would see a truly cohesive mechanism for saving huge sums of money every time portfolios change and as departments progressively increase their need to talk to each other, electronically or otherwise. There are significant overhangs with continuing to contract "experts" with specialised skills which no longer exist elsewhere (read Coolgen, Appbuilder, Siebel), commanding exhorbitant sums for dinosaurs. A single system which talks across networks, employs a generically skilled and portable workforce and solves dilemmas with the "trendy" new IT kid on the block does indeed mean that Defence needs to agree with the rest of government on a single solution and start to pragmatically spend taxpayer dollars on the best IT our public deserves.
Firstly, and this is point is mentioned in many of the postings and feedback, if the aim of the APSC is to take a holistic approach, there should be a standardise scale of employment. An APS6 with one organisation has a different pay scale to another organisation. Staff will reconsider movements, laterally and promotions due to a varying and unequal pay scale. This in turn reduces cross pollination of staff and experience, which through my experience of working with several APS departments is vital. I understand and support the varying roles and responsibilities, and therefore classification of roles, yet the unequal pay will and does prevent people from furthering themselves, increasing their workplace satisfaction and therefore effectiveness, by failing to move to a more (personal) desirable role due to a potential pay difference. However, this works both ways, with unmotivated staff taking on roles and working with certain ‘higher’ paying organisations.
Secondly, information sharing within the public service would benefit from a streamlined approach. The polarity in a request for information from another organisation to another is extreme. I understand and appreciate the need for confidentiality and legislated powers, yet the media will run with a story about the ramifications of the inability or ill effect of information sharing on a constant basis. We, as a collective group, that being the public service, not just Customs, or Centrelink, we, as a whole should be working and focusing on our role, together, to create a better Australia. And this can be severely hindered by a high level of red tape.
Lastly, the public perception is still, as I feel, average. I enjoy my role, I enjoying coming to work and give my full attention everyday; however, there are other people that do not share the same enthusiasm or work ethic. The use of PDA / PDP / PAS should be used more effectively. Several agencies require and base their corporate plans on voluntary compliance and the general public meeting their obligations and desire to improve the country and not take advantage of the system, citing the ATO, Customs, Medicare and Centrelink as examples. What kind of effect would we see in self compliance if community confidence increased? I think that it would make a difference. The rapid response and sensitivity of the ATO’s recent efforts in assisting victims of the recent Australian disasters, the bushfires and flood, and even the GFC, I feel has increased confidence in what the organisations does, how the organisation follows the Australian ethos of mateship and increasing the humanity factor.
1. APS Wide Enterprise Agreement. Currently each agency has an armada of HR, Admin and other staff involved in the framing, drafting, negotiating, managing and other tasks surrounding EAs. This is resource intensive and very costly when calculated over all agencies. Possibly a core EA with agency specific annexes could be developed which would allow the savings to be used in other key areas of need.
2. Leadership/Mangement Training. It is possible for PS staff to progress through all levels to at least EL1 without any formal leadership and management training (and skills). This leads to a number of sub-standard leaders and managers who are not equipped with the necessary wherewithal to lead and manage themselves let alone a number of staff. We could learn a lot from the military leadership and management training which is a mandatory precursor to career progression at almost every promotion level. The military system provides members with a vast array tools to manage and lead staff. Poor leadership and management of staff leads to underperformance, poor morale and loss of the good performers who move on to better areas and leaders. Many of the military principles and ideas should be considered for inclusion in APS training. Leadership and management competencies should be mandatory for progression to APS3 and beyond.
3. Recruiting. The recruiting processes are bogged down in bureaucratic red tape and processes. The time-frame between advertising and appointment is inordinate and often leads to the loss of highly suitable candidates because of these blowouts. More resopnsibility (and accountability) needs to be pushed down to the areas needing staff rather than the administrative HR tail wagging the working area dog. all staff undertaking recruiting responsibilities should have mandatory selection training before being allowed to become a part of any panel.
1. Same pay scale and conditions for all APS employees.
2. Same pay scale and conditions for all APS employees.
3. Same pay scale and conditions for all APS employees.
It has always amazed me that Centrelink workers get paid much less than say, someone working for the ATO, not to mention worse conditions both within our Agreement and our day to day dealings. I worked on the Front Line for 10 years and was verbally abused who knows how many times, assaulted and dealt with very dangerous situations (sometimes involving customer's weilding weapons) on a daily basis. I no longer work in that environment thank goodness, but still work for Centrelink. It is a kick in the guts when you see what you have to deal with on a daily basis, knowing that you are paid less and have worse conditions than someone working for a different dept (BUT same employer - The Federal GOVT) who doesn't have to deal with the same dangerous situations.
1. All management in the PS should be subject to formal and regular (every 6 months) rating by the staff which they directly manage. The questions on which they are rated should be set by the staff, not by management. The rating results for each manager in each agency should be transparent to all staff in that agency. If a manager has 'failure' ratings over consecutive periods, the manager should no longer continue in that role. This will ensure over a relatively short period of time that effective managers (that is effective in the eyes of the staff in getting the job done properly) are recognised and rewarded and poor managers are found out, then improved or lose their management role. This will also counteract the tendency for managers to do only those things that will impress those above them even if this is not effective for the organisation or public they serve. This requires trust in public service staff who I believe want to work in public service organisations that are effective, responsive and respected by the public in general.
2. All new public service agency heads should be appointed by a Parliamentary committee representative of the make-up of Parliament, not the Government of the day. (The committee should have say a minimum 80% agreement on the candidate.)This will ensure that agency heads are much more independent, frank in their adive to Goverment and depoliticised.
3. The above 2 will be enough to lead to ongoing reform of the PS.
How about we just return to the basics of a civilised society 'honesty, truthfulness and diligence.' Far too often we are seeing the effects of a PS that is in overdrive attempting to correct bad/unpalatable decisions with more of the same. Isn't it about time that we, as individuals, are held accountable for our "own" actions and not have the wiggle room afforded to indecisiveness as a means of not accepting the role-action-responsibility requirements.
1. Let agencies identify savings and keep a proportion to reinvest in learning and development or IT systems upgrades, rather than having to give all savings back to Finance. This would create an incentive for greater efficiency.
2. Remove the efficiency dividend. It is sending small agencies to the brink while some agencies could accomodate greater cuts. It is a blunt instrument.
3. Get better coffee in the parliamentary triangle.
1. Abolish the APSC and replace it with a new organisation with a clear conceptual understanding of principles. While the Public Service Act is fine in its intent, its application and administration has made it worthless.
2. Expose and eliminate the fundamental lies perpetrated every day in the APS. These include that selections are based on merit, that all SES possess the same set of core capacities at a high level, and that the APS is pervasively efficient and professional.
3. Put managers into management roles and technical experts into technical roles, and don't confuse them. A manager is not a technical expert who has got tired of technical issues and wants a promotion. A manager is a person that has specific thinking skills, empathy, and understanding of the role.
There is only one change that I would like to see:
There needs to be a major change with the way the Child support agency operates. I do not think the current model is efficient or successful Children are suffering as a result. I know the child support agency is seen as an intermediary.
It is my belief/idea that child support should be paid or included as a payment from centrelink ensuring the money gets to the family involved and that no child goes without.
That the Government can then go ahead and recover the unpaid or due amounts from the paying parent and if they refuse to pay the amount (as most payers do with the current system) that moneys are taken from their taxation or as regular debits from their centerlink benefits. The government then has the power to take unpaying parents to court.
If payers refuse to pay child support to the government, then they are required to pay the highest set rate until they do their tax return with the ATO so we can adjust it according to their income, this will have a flow on effect and you will see that more people who now avoid doing their tax return because of CSA payments will then begin to lodge tax returns to avoid paying a higher rate in child support.
Result: more people are compliant with ATO; more money is circulating and coming into the federal Government piggy bank.
Result: no child is in poverty
Result: government can then set penalties and interest on unpaid child support amounts= more federal government income.
Just an idea ????
Move depts and agencies that do not need to be in Canberra out to attract (AND RETAIN) the most valuable employees.
Provide more employment benefits besides salary eg gym memberships, childcare facilities, cafeterias etc.
Get rid of half of the employees in the service delivery agencies (you know the ones) and replace with a smaller, better paid and more efficient and effective workforce.
With a focus on “improving efficiency by reducing administrative red tape within agencies” - suggestions include:
1. Legally recognise email and electronic files as a formal and primary means of communication with stakeholders rather than hard copy/paper mailing.
2. Move to paperless working – requires legislated acceptace of electronic filing, allowing electronic submissions of information from/to external stakeholders without the requirement for a paper copy. Legislate for electronic filing/ archiving in preference to paper archiving – or at least amend legislation for the ‘option’ of electronic filing/ archiving. Develop and promote more on-line working (including electronic signatures for work clearance/approvals) to enable employees to more easily and efficiently work from home or work in decentralised (state) offices.
3. Continue to progress more collaboration and harmonisation with our global regulatory counterparts for processes and procedures related to the evaluation and approval of certain consumer/commercial products (eg. therapeutic products, industrial and agricultural chemicals, food products etc.), to enable more collaborative work sharing within a global forum or allow mutual recognition (complete, or partial to the Australian situation) of product reviews/evaluations/approvals by other regulatory agencies.
I have one major change to suggest - which is really more of an aspirational goal. I would like to see the public service more 'joined up'. By this I mean both more structurally integrated (a whole of service if you like) and more coherent in its narrative/objectives. Less division, more inclusion.
Proper Training is essential for all our staff and in recent years this has not been happening. The Australian poplulation has become frustrated with being told different information all the time. (This happens in all agencies). We also need to look at a more unified classification of positions and pay. The APS is the Australian Public Service and National body. Yet many of its employees feel that to have a career in the APS they must move to Canberra or the very least Sydney and Melbourne. As our population increases and the need for the cities to spread out the APS needs to look at outsourcing more work away from Canberra and out to the rest of the nation. (For the same Pay and classification they would have in Canberra) This allows its employees more choices for their livelihood, helps create work and assist in local economies, freedom for its employees to chose areas not so expennsive to live in. (creating a happy employment environment).With the technology we have there is no reason that we can not offer more choices for employment.
This is an absolute favourite of mine.
The Public Service is trying to act like business. Not only does there appear to be a lack of expertise in this area but an inanely superior attitude, that they know what they are doing.
Take for example: One Department has quoted for a job from another Department.
In the first instance that Department had no expertise in the area they wanted looked at, but decided that they would lay down the protocols.
Secondly the other Department desperate to get the job, does not cost it out properly and although having the expertise via its own staff, does not consult the staff who have to do it and blindly underbids.
Results: A haphazard underfunded inefficient approach, where staff are then under pressure to perform to make up for their managements lack of foresight and lastly a bad outcome for the other Departmental stakeholder. Taxpayers money down the drain again.
1) If other Departments are seeking assistance from others that do have the skills, consult those staff who have to do the job.
2) Get rid of this business idea. We are all under the one umbrella and can assist each other. Besides we are all paid from the same Treasury bucket.
3) Have the Departmental heads stop trying to score brownie points and do their job by leading by example and making us all one efficient, accountable and a public acknowledged, world leading public service organisation.
1. Get rid of performance pay. No one person can achieve anything without the support and hard work of everyone in the department.
2. really practice family/work life balance strategies. These policies are not working in practice.
3. Insist/ensure management have more than technical knowledge. The best leaders are people that walk the talk and have fantastic people skills.
1. All Public Servants should be able to maintain their integrity and independance from any political influence.
2. All Public Servants should be trained to be independant and trained to give frank and fearless advice.
3. All Public Servants should be trained to give advice based on sound logic and reason and not on political correctness. A course in learning how to detect logical fallacies would be greatly beneficial.
1. Leadership - there is a "silo" attitude by leaders within agencies let alone across agencies. We need leaders to work at the enterprise level. This in itself will deliver efficiencies, better understanding of the business across the whole organisation and greater innovation. In spite of many messages for staff and leaders to work at the enterprise level there continues to be a "me" factor in all leadership decisions taken.
2. Greater presence in the regions / branch offices and less in national office / Canberra. Many staff in national office have never done the work of the organisation (service, audit, client interactions, revenue collection etc) and yet they develop and direct policy and processes that are meant to be implemented and in many cases these are not workable. A greater presenece in front line areas out in the branch offices would provide much better informed decisions and build better relationships with the community.
3. Trust - train staff appropriately and allow them to make decisions relevant to their delegation. In recent years we have seen more and more decisions escalated - team leaders unable to make basic decisions, escalated up the line continuously. Train the staff, empower them to make decisions...this will cut out the bottlenecks, lead to quicker turnaround on work and perhaps see innovative practices implemented more readily.
Here is grosso modo the 3 main things that need to be addressed to face future challenges:
1. Intellect; APS needs an educated workforce of high calibre only the latter romoves mediocrity and creates opportunity for new challenges.
2. APS needs a forward looking value system based on bottom up and top down accountability and productivity based reward system. a renewal mechanism should be in place that transcends bureaucratic politics.
3. APS needs to create a transparency culture that encourage APS staff to actively come together and face modern challnges rather than stay as fragmented departments trying to stay peacefully apart.
1. Decentralise.
Why are so many public service offices located in Canberra or large capital cities? The best people may not apply for jobs as they do not want to move to Canberra, or work in the city. With increasing housing costs many professionals live in outer suburban or regional areas- we need to tap into this.
The Public Service should be at the forefront of a shift to regional & outer suburban offices. Among the positiives are; cost savings on rent, a more motivated workforce as there is better balance between work/family life & less pollution/congestion in our cities.
2. Deal with underperformance. There are too many inefficient/incapable people taking up positions.
3. Bring in some sort of performance based pay. There is no incentive to work harder as you still get paid the same as the slackers.
- sorry i lost my input - here it is again.
1. that there should be one APS pay scale for general employees so that it's fair and able to transfer to other agencies with no problems. However, the professional pay should be according to knowledge and skill dependent upon which department. (for example, auditors in the ATO, compared to immigration or customs)
2. that there should not be any performance bonuses paid to senior executives. Senior management refrain from using bullying tactics to deliver outcomes.
4. that there should be a review of APS superannuation fund managers.
5. All APS employees should undergo stringent security clearance.
6. APS selection should not be based on qualification alone more so on skill and experience.
1. While retaining merit selection, reduce the judgemental nature of whether senior people (ELs and SES) are meritorious.
2. Take steps to reduce the 'old boy' nature of the SES cohort. Females and minorities often receive short shrift in selection processes.
3. Merge agency security clearance processes into a single one--one public service, one process.
I do not think all agencies should have the same salaries for the same levels. In some of the smaller agencies, due to a flatter structure, some of the APS level staff have more responsibility at particular levels then in a more hierarchial agency. The small agencies have less budget to pay staff but that is where the higher salaries should be paid. People should be paid for responsibility levels not just because of their APS level. Many agencies increase the level of staff to pay them a higher salary, even though their responsibility level is lower then expected at their paid APS level.
There should be a method established which enables 'named' staff in press articles to respond to the incorrect information printed about them. I am not sure how this can be achieved but 'fairness, equal rights and natural justice' have to be taken into account.
The information style of casading information down or up is very old fashioned. I have been in positions when different people, who attended the same senior meeting, could have been attending totally different meetings, because what they then passed on was totally different. This is because people come from different backgrounds, have totally different interests and have different things on their mind when attending the briefing sessions. With so many communication paths availabe in organisations, it should be very easy to have the one consistent message relayed to the organisation, without having to rely on a 'chinese whisper' method of communication.
The main changes needed to make the public service more effiecent are contained in the actual name itself. Public is self explanatory. Service was best defined by a leading figure from KPMG in that "production of KPI's for service and productivity should not be measured by the quantity but by the quality of the service". To this end my recommendations are: [1] Measurement of the amount of work done should be subjective to the difficulty of that work. This should then be reflected in the amount of the renummeration or the APS level achieved. This should be across all APS entities. Why we need diffrent pay scales amuses me as we are Government departments not businesses (basically where do members of the public go, they cant buy the majority of the services at Coles or Woolworths).
[2] Whilst i encourage the employment of Graduates to the PS to refresh our ideas we seem to have placed to much stock in the reqruitment of same as once they have obtained the posistion they automatically receive an advantage over those who in the eyes of senior management arent as intelligent. It has been my experience that once the departments have paid for their schooling the majority move on to the private sector (a statistic i never seem to be able to find). We need to place value in the workers (the lower level APS's who do the grunt work) as management has this perception that the lower your grading the less you know (when was the last time an APS 1,2,3 or 4 was asked how some new work direction was going).
[3] Reduction of the upper levels would allow for the retention of more actual workers as every time a directive is issued to reduce expenditure it appears the first to go are the lower levels and those that remain are the criticized for the reduction in productivity. In my department the news was expoused yesterday that the APS5 position (bar those in certain areas) is being made redundent, in my site alone that is 16 staff in one area. We do have a posistion for an Executive open but.
Finally we need to realise that cheaper is not better when spending is taken into account. The whole notion of taking the lowest price for services is ludicrous when you take into account the history of most Government departmental blow outs for major projects. Common sense should prevail and the best on offer be taken not the cheapest. This ensures savings in the long run.
1. A PS Act that works and allows for HR and Delegates to fully operate within the required parameters especially where employees are not performing or have serious attendance problems. We have been awaiting changes for a long time and it takes forever (or never) to get changes made by Parliament.
2. Better efficiencies across agencies/departments. Some agencies/depts are so tied up in red tape - eg ATO you need an SES to approve travel and in some case stationary orders. Why cant an EL2 at least do this. Shared corporate services - Finance, HR, Payroll and recruitment.