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 comments from others, about unnecessary top heavy structures. But if you must make changes, get rid of the higher paid managers (SES) and improve things for the workers at the coal-face. (Results in greater dollar savings, relative to job losses.) We need flatter structures before the ships tip over with 1 one person rowing and 8 providing instructions.
2. More de-centralisation of Govt. Dept is required. Spread the responsibility across regions by creating National Directors and National Managers positions in the regional areas and you will attract persons with this expertise. Another bonus will be the end of regional staff constantly looking to Canberra for direction on any decision related to policy. This will improve efficiency and spread the responsibility to experienced staff in regional areas.
3. . Recognise the skills, knowledge and expereince a person can bring to a position, rather than what academic qualifications they do NOT have. Too often we see the wrong person selected for a position based upon academic qualifications, rather than the skills and expereince appropriate to the job. Also prmotion and higher duties should be based on the experience a person can bring the position rather than who you know or an application / expression of interest written by a person othere than the candidate for the position.
1 – Negotiate the fundamentals of one certified agreement for all commonwealth public servants. This would save each department so much time and money negotiating their own agreement and allow transfer of staff between agencies much easier.
2 – Lead by example in environmental initiatives, for example: solar panelling on roof tops of APS buildings to offset power bills; capturing rainwater for use on gardens and in toilets etc.
3- Create a federal pool of specialist resources ( eg ICT) and allow the flexibility of pay at the APS/Exec level so attractive remuneration packages can be offered with commonwealth APS conditions. This would allow better retention of staff and reduce the reliance on contract agencies that charge like wounded buffalos.
What is the Public Service?
Answer: It is recognised by the public as an overstuffed organisation of overpaid bureaucrats, dills and deadwood, who wouldn’t know a days work if they tripped over it.
Why do they have this perception?
Answer: Lack of effective communication, perceived inefficiency and waste of taxpayers dollars.
Can you blame them, when even those of us who are dedicated and work in the public service, cannot perform our jobs effectively, by the slowness of management decision or buck passing if you will and the lack of effective resources to enable efficient work practices for us and our stakeholders.
I speak from years of experience in the investigative sector and have stressed out at the lack of resources and communication between Departments. The situation is ludicrous. We cannot operate under separate umbrellas. Centrelink for example. An effective and dedicated organisation at the coal face. Try to get something decided by those in Canberra forget it for at least 3 months, if ever.
1. Adopt protocols for staff.
If they are unable to meet expected work loads for their particular position, offer training and if they cant perform after that, they should be considered not suitable and terminated. This gets rid of the idea that once I am in the public service I’m here for life and don’t have to work too hard for my money.
(Fair days work for a fair days pay)
2. Standardise all pay scales across the public service.
After being in two Departments over the years (ATO and Centrelink) the disparity in wages for similar work done, is ridiculous.
3. The Public Service is not a business.
Don’t treat it like one. It is there to serve the public It has to attract and utilise all the talent within the sector. I will back it in that most Departmental heads have no idea of the talent in their own departments.
4. Promote efficient Departmental interaction.
Share data bases, share information and do it in a timely manner.
5. Expand Departmental data access.
Not only between Departments but major third parties, to reduce the time consumed waiting on replies and the impost on those third parties. In other words utilise the resources that are available via the net and modern technology.
“I’ve been through all this before! Nothing ever changes”
1. Standardise recruitment (e.g. 1 common application process and criteria per level plus position/agency specific information), pay and conditions and then standardise administrative systems across the Commonwealth (reduced training requirements, common training materials, increases interoperability across agencies, enables whole of government reporting etc).
2. Standardise security clearance process across the Commonwealth which would enable transferability across agencies
3. Establish "free" innovation centres where young and old alike can come and try to solve National problems that we face... eg. economic issues, social problems, agency challenges etc. You may even include a % incentive for those that save taxpayer dollars!!
1. we should be able to move between agencies without going through the whole process.
2. payment of performance bonuses to SES not acceptable because what they do is put pressure on staff and any achievements or productivity the general employee don't get any credits for it.
3. behaviour of some SES staff borders on bullying and harassment and it's all about operating requirements.
4.selection of staff should not based on qualification alone but should acknowledge skills and experience.
5. that their should be a check and balance on the management of public service superannuation. the global financial crisis brought about so many heartaches because of the negative returns experienced in the last 2 years.
6. All APS employees should go through stringent security clearance prior to engagement.
1/ Professionalism and staff relations within APS will be enhanced if staff are only allowed to progress to APS 6 and higher levels if they have had experience in managing direct reports, as well as a proven track record to show effective, harmonious and productive relations with their direct reports e.g. some ELs have never had to be responsible for other staff and the myriad of possible scenarios that go with that responsibility.
2/ Reduce top heaviness in some work areas e.g. some APS agencies, and work areas within some agencies, are too top heavy e.g. half are EL1s and higher.
3/ 'Time is money' is paramount in private enterprise, and should be across all the APS as well, so under performance needs to be dealt with e.g. scheduled meetings usually starting significantly late, tea breaks 25 -30mins twice a day, agreement to re-meet in 2 or 3 weeks drifts into a couple of months while the work languishes etc.
since the destruction of the seniority system chronism has gone rampant in the public service. Under the old system it was not only your seniority date but your efficiency that was taken into account. Since the end of this people are not given equal opportunity for advancement. And on top of that they legitamately call favouritism " mentoring". So we just get people who are yes boys or who happen to be best friends advancing while those with real skill and ability are completely overlooked. These people either become disgruntled and cease to perfrom at an excellent standard or leave. There is no need to justify giving short term higher dutiies and I have seen this short term extending to periods of well beyond 3 years.
Managerial staff are getting younger and younger I know of one who is 24 years old) while more mature and long term staff are actually perceived as somehow lacking. They often lack the experience absolutely important in people management and in understanding the broader picture.
The service does not encourage constructive criticism. This is seen as negativity or cynicism and people are worried that it will impact in career prospects. So the service will continue dysfunctional practices. It is telling that the only way this can occur is by making these exercises anonymous.
It is time front line workers had more of a driect impact on the way their services are managed rather than top down management. there should be honesty in practices so that double speak does not promise one thing but deliver another, That way people can really choose if thats what they want to be part of.
Differing conditiions in different sections is a sure way of causing staff dissatisfaction. Those sections who are perceived as making the government money seem to get the better conditions, and those who are involved in distruibuitng or costing money luck out.
Agreeing with other posts, pay levels need to be consistent across departments. Centrelink and DOCS for example deals with customers and are often put in 'at risk' situations yet are paid lower than most other departments. I feel state government positions should look are being consistent pay with federal also.
Up to date technology, too many departments are using cheap over utilised and under performing printers, computers, operating systems and faxes etc.
Government departments need to work together, in regard to information exchange. Departments such as Centrelink for example pays Australia Post, Federal Court etc for information used in Investigations. Why are government departments moving money between each other instead of working as one?
1. Address underperformance - at all levels.
2. Consider whether staff management responsibilities and technical/content matter expertise could be separated into different roles performed by different people. They are quite different skills and while some managers do both very well, it is more common that they do not.
3. Make it a requirement that managers from EL1 level upwards thoroughly gauge their staff's skillsets prior to contracting out work to consultants. Ideally, managers should already know their staff's capabilities, prior work experience and training, but staff turnover and restructures can sometimes preclude this. Much of the work that is contracted out by the APS at vast expense is done so by default, and not because of an absence of skills in the APS. There are many very well trained and capable people in the APS who leave because so much of the interesting and challenging work gets contracted out.
1. Consistent market rate salary scales across the Public Service. All departments should be paying the same to get the same job done by someone of equal skill level. This does not mean that the pay scales need to be straight jacketted into the existing structure of APS,EL,SES scales. It means paying someone who does the same job as someone else the same amount and having it represent a true market value. One of the weirder things I have seen in the service is the idea that an administrative supervisor of techinical staff must be paid the same or more than the person they supervise. My experience in private enterprise (ICT areas) is that frequently technical staff are paid a lot more than their supervisors because their techical knowledge is worth so much more to the organisation than the supervisors skills are. The only area in the public service I have seen this happen in is the medical area (hospital administrators are normally paid substatially less than skilled medical staff). It needs to be extended into other areas (especially ICT)
2. More standardization of the way processes are done across the public service. HR, finance, purchasing, etc. should be done the same way except when the business really is different enough to justify a different method. Currently everyone seems to do their own thing making it difficult to merge or split departments and for staff to move around.
3. Flatter structures in management. A hugh number of management positions seem to do nothing useful other than generate or request reports. If a report is not actualy used by senior management or front line service staff then its existence needs to be constantly questioned. If its not actually useful, the staff supporting it could be reassigned to more worthwhile productive tasks. It has been my experience that a lot of reports get produced and filed without anyone ever actually intending to use them. I think it is a by product of some managers inability to take responsibility for decisions - they worry that someone (the former ocupant of the job or a manager above them) might get upset if they change how things are done.
1. Like most others, I agree that Pay and Conditions should have one basic standard across the Public Service. Yep, back to something similar but simplerer to what was there before Certified Agreements and the like. While we at it, abolish Performance Based Payments. What a joke that has been from day one.... We work as team!!
2. Use contractors ONLY when completely necessary. In a similar vien, outsourcing just about anything has been a disaster. The stupidity of applying Private Enterprise practices to the Public Sextor continues to astound me..
3. A culture of knowledge sharing and learning within the PS. NO more lip service from Management that just results in US and THEM..
We need to have a greater vision of what we want Australia the be like, to be about and to be for in the coming years. The APS needs to reflect the community more in what goals we have for our country, our aspirations, and how we are going to get there.
Currently we have very little vision beyond when the funding runs out (isn't that the very definition of a project, it has an end date, ie when the funding ends).
This inability to have a vision beyond an election cycle is the greatest source of frustration for everyone I know as it leaches into everything we do.
So we know we need a vision, so what's the vision?
China plans 100 years in advance, we plan 3-4 years (I know there are long term projects, but really we spend way to much on 'quick fixes' that turn out to be long term problems that never seem to go away or be able to get fixed.)
I was reading this article the other day : http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/23/china-martin-jacques-economics
The bit that interested me was the difference between a Nation and a Civilisation. We constantly hear about Nation building and that we are an economy, but not much about Australia being made up of many communities and what's wrong with being a Civilisation?
I guess that's one of the questions for the APS, do we want to continue down the nation path (being that we want everything the same - uniformity everywhere), or do we encourage diviersity.
Unfortunately money talks, everything else walks. If the Govt or the APS is serious about wanting to make the necessary changes to the APS to make it "better" in the 21st Century, they had better ensure that they bring a pot of gold to the table to show they are serious, otherwise it's just lip service.
1. More flexible retention schemes, opportunities for part-time work and/or creation of adviser/mentor positions. We must find a way to retain the talents of many senior specialists in the public service, many of whom do not want to retire altogether upon the achievement of some mystically-appointed retirement age. The nation faces a looming crisis with the ageing of the population and the impending retirement (loss) of literally thousands of highly valued public servants. The administrative impact through loss of knowledge about processes and past decisions is considerable enough, let alone the technical impact through the loss of senior and very experienced technical specialists who cannot simply be replaced within a few months by a standard recruitment round. The training and education pipeline for these skills runs to many years and in many cases relies heavily on on-the-job accreditation, mentoring, coaching etc. However the reality is that current APS staffing limits, workforce design practices and superannuation provisions actively inhibit agencies from seeking to retain these kinds of people. In fact, it is easier to see them go and then hope to get them back as consultants at a 200 or 300 per cent cost premium. There has to be a better way.
2. More flexible contracting and industry investment practices. All well and good for Mr Moran to preach from the mount about a timid and risk averse public service, but the individuals in it are constrained by CPGs, government approval requirements, internal departmental processes and other mechanisms that stifle innovation, introduce layers of complexity and result in massive overhead costs and time delays on what should be - by comparative commercial standards - the cost and timeframes for getting on with business.
3. More flexible staff movements across government agencies. With some quick work to introduce standardised job families and sensible parameters about broad bands of pay, substantial savings could be made on the cost and time lags associated with recruitment campaigns by enhancing the ability for skilled staff to transfer between agencies. Formal exchange programs involving 'like' agencies would also achieve the same aim.
A uniform job classification structure and pay scale across the whole of public service; a move away from agency based agreements. If is not the role of the APS to be a model employer in Australia, then whose role is it? Pay differentials in excess of 10%, 15% or even 20% between agencies send a message of 'poor' agencies where work isn't valued and 'rich' agencies that are generous to their staff. How can we hope for the highest levels of integrity from public servants when this is not reflected in how their agencies value them?
Integrity and ethical committment from CEOs and the SES. There is nothing wrong with the legislation as written; too often it is ignored or cherry picked at the convenience of the executive. This tends to breed a culture of corruption and nepotism, where meaningful consultation and engagement with staff is regarded as unnecessary. This is often reflected in the 'hard nosed' attitude of HR to staff, protecting the organisation from its staff rather than helping the staff to do their job as well as possible. This is also consistent with the politicisation of the APS under the previous coalition government.
Not a business. The role of the public service is to serve the public, not to generate shareholder value. Treating the public service like a business introduces a commercial imperative: to cut costs and staff and to boost output. While we are always bounded by comercial reality, we must be both efficient and effective; the pendulum has swung too far towards efficiency at the expense of effectiveness. The requirement for continual efficiency dividens and doing more with fewer staff inevitably leads to burnout for high performing staff and the consequent loss of corporate knowledge and expertise.
Recruitment. It needs to be merit-based but merit needs to be based on the future more than the past. Can the candidate do the job before them rather than prove they did their past jobs effectively? Abolish selection criteria - they are a form of torture. And promote primary family/child care responsibilities for men - it's as much our responsibilities as it is that of our female colleagues.
1. The culture as a whole of APS need to change, so that each employee is accountable, responsible, flexible and contributes to the overall objectives/goals of the orgnaisation. I sincerely believe that this is inhibiting the movements within departments and across departments.
2. The fast tracking of career paths for knowledgeable, responsible and high achievers need to be looked into. Also, wherever appropriate, the previous other experiences/ overseas expereices need to be considered without just looking for APS experience alone. Or else, the agencies would be wasting the potential and capabilities of such candidates/employees and allowing such employees to look for other opportunities. Ofcourse, appropriate care and checks are needed to avoid favouritism.
3. It is my belief that people with higher educational qualifications need to be looked into to further sharpen thier skills and experiences so that they could become a capable and successful managers to lead their teams/sections/branches/clusters/agency.
1. Whole of APS pay scale & conditions
2. Information sharing across agencies on all programs, best practice to improve processes and working as one organisation the "Australian Public Service" not competing with each other.
3. Remove red tape, how can any procedues be streamlined to become more efficient when numerous, pointless approvals are required for simple things. Fix SAP to work or remove it, private sector could offer far better products that actually do what organisations require.
1)improve recruitment practices so people who can see the bigger picture are selected for the public service, I come across colleagues who freely admit they have no idea of mathematics and legislation but they are serving people and they are responding to enquiries about income and asset tested payments! leading to delays when people arent asked to provide the correct information when they claim
2) Key performance indicators and government agencies, staff spend so much time fudging stats for work done because unless these kpis are met the government department wont fund the agency the stats dont reflect the amount of time work truly takes and the number of staff it takes to do it properly. There is an expense to the public in rework because of haste to meet the statistics, the funding should reflect the number of applicants for the agencies services.
3 staff suggestions: they are vetted by upper management who dont work directly with the applicants for the agencies services . more weight needs to be given to staff on the front line.
4) I agree with an earlier statement about varying salaries across the public service, Centrelink's work is just as if not more so, complex than the ATO for example , so good staff leave
1. Make more positions available outside Canberra offices. Therefore increase the number of staff in state and regional offices. As we need to have more frontline staff answering questions from the general public. Also more policies can be written and more programs can be managed from state offices.
2. Recruitment Strategies
- timeframes for recruitment process eg. application to final outcome should be a maximum of 3 months
- there should be a set timeframe for how long an APS staff member can be on high duties
3. An aging population within the public service. I believe a lot of knowledge will be lost about programs and policy once senior public servants retire. We need to find ways to keep the knowledge that these staff hold. Eg Golden Gurus program.
1. Unified salary and APS levels across the public service which would make it easier for interdepartmental transfers and save on recruitment costs.
2. Listen to what grassroots staff have to say before amending policy and changing procedures due to knee jerk reactions to negative political response from the general public.
3. To save money allow greater interdepartmental data sharing to tighten up on clients fraudulent claims and applications. Also have government offices provided in more places responding to different client needs rather than large department offices in limited regions only doing specific client requests.
I believe one of the main changes should be to educate those in upper management in the work that goes on at the lower levels. Currently, there are far too many decisions being made by people who have no real understanding of how their decisions are affecting the lower echelons who do most of the 'grunt' work. If those in upper management were to actually spend time DOING the work for just a few days, they might then be better equipped to understand what needs to be changed.
Eliminate some of the upper management positions in favour of more lower level positions. I know of one area that has approximately six EL1 and above but only a dozen or so staff under them. This seems to be a trend.
A complete overhaul of the Siebel computer system or eliminating it altogether would see an increase in morale and in efficiency. Work that used to take one hour to do, now takes three. It is messy and inefficient and full of information that is not necessary. The number of extra mouse clicks required have raised OH&S issues relatiing to carpal tunnel syndrom and tennis elbow, and the increased eye strain is causing problems in my area. Instead of spending billions of taxpayer dollars on a system that simply does not work efficiently, hiring more staff would have alleviated the number of complaints coming in on a regular basis.
1. The public service does not exist to cover minisiters policy mistakes and produce publicity material for their minister, until there are some SES with some backbone to stand up to this culture the public service will not be serving the intresets of the taxpayer. "making our misnister look good" is a current question time motto.
2. In regard to "reduce the dispersion of wages and conditions among Australian public service agencies" In my department an EL2 can be responsible for a budget larger than entire department/agencies. Dispersion of wages must be linked to the scope of responsabilities. A programme director who manages $5m is not equivalent to one who manages $500m and yet this is exactly what is proposed. A better way to judge this could be a combination of financial delegation, policy impact on whole of gov't and number of staff managed. I suggest this for EL level up to SES.
3. So long as secretaries remain responsible for all aspects of their departments operation a cross department approach will not work, effort follows the money. In the Computing world an office of Commonwealth Gov't interoperability with the power of veto over ICT projects would server as a gatekeeper and ensure that Departments can work together.
What three things do you think most need to change in the public service so it can operate effectively in the 21st century?
As surreal as it seems, I have worked in the public service (federal) now for 20 years. While I began my career as a graduate, I was not employed as part of a graduate program. Working in two large organisations I have enocuntered my share of bureaucracy and narrow mindedness but my proposition is that these issues exist in all aspects of our lives, it's how we deal with them that makes the difference!
I have been priveleged to work in the public service and I have actively sought and been rewarded with dynamic roles throughout my career. I believe that the public service entitlements are more than fair and lend themselves to attaining a work life balance at all levels. Again it's how these entitlements are availed that makes the difference.
1.Continue to promote and develop a whole of government approach to services provided to the community. (Create a one stop shop for issues and information that overlap)
2.Continue to foster an environment of innovation and best practice leveraging off and seeking out opportunities for improvement in our efficiency and effectiveness so that decison making is timely and not delayed. This is about challengin the way we do things and opening our minds to doing things differently.
3.Continue to change the mindset of people in the public service to one of pride and committment through opening minds to possibilities and potential through career mapping and coaching. Too often people do not think strategically about their career although this one of the most rewarding and significant aspects of their lives.
1. I think Government departments need to embrace a regional presence. Perhaps this entails departments like Centrelink, ATO, Customs, etc, sharing facilities and/or offices but I think regional Australia misses out. I worked some time ago in a place called Horsham Tax Office. Only 5 of us but the whole community knew us, it was convenient for Horsham and surrounding areas.
2. I think Government needs to think long and hard about freehold ownership of office accommodation for its public servants. Places like Perth have enormous commercial rental costs (due to the many resource projects in that State) but it seems we are at the mercy of our landlords in most Govt departments. Government ownership of office accommodation will ensure greater flexibility, Govt department budgets can benefit from capital gains upon sale of such accommodation when upgrading/relocating. A lot of departments get into a cycle of centralising then decentralising and, in the midst of all this, spend many millions simply housing their employees.
3. Carbon Neutrality - lets make it mandatory for all Govt depts to ensure hybrid fleet used for their car pool, ample bike parking/shower/ locker facilities for every employee and ensure a Health and Wellbeing allowance is available to each employee to further their health, fitness and , as a consequence, their effectiveness at work. In keeping with this theme, there is simply no reason why any Govt department should use paper (sounds a little radical but definitely achievable - if we simply made a decision (similar to supermarkets banning plastic bags) to ban office use of paper, could we cope?
There are highly skilled staff located in the states that are denied opportunity because they are not located in Canberra - which negates the point of having a National Public service and is a detriment to the APS.
There is a lot of bureaucratic red tape that is requried for governance but makes efficiencies difficult - for example needing an ergonomic keyborard requires several forms to be filled in and a 6 week wait - rather than a trip to Officeworks.
A recruitment process based on answering selection criteria- it is onerously time consuming for the applicant and the panel - reading dozens of applicatons addressing 7 or 8 selection critieria. This process itself wastes time and takes time - which could be one of the reasons aps selections take so long to complete.
1. Same pay structure & conditions will assist in staff wanting to change to other agencies. As your personal circumstances change so do your work requirements eg some days I would be happy & available to work after hours/weekends so I can have other days off but in my position the work is not available to do this yet in another agency it may well work.
2. IT systems - why are there so many different ones not only in each agency but within each area.
3. Recruiting from school leavers or year 10, not every position needs a degree & training can be tailored to the positions. Some school leavers may find that confidence will increase & therefore their ability for higher study would then be an option.
4. Re performance management - responsibility on individuals & management - good performers do not need to be performance managed, it is just a tick in the boxes.
Moderator - sorry my last got cut off during submission. So here I go again.
Three ideas
1.A commitment to both merit based selections and to better articulated (mandatory) qualifications for promotions/appointments. Merit is much discussed elsewhere so I won't labour the point here. However (mandatory) qualifications would introduce, or ideally reinforce, the need for agencies to invest in staff, and for staff to invest in themselves. Life long learning, encourgaqed and fostered through consideration of ones skills would enable many of the aspirations set out below for a life/work balance and the different needs we have at different stages of our lives.
2. Contrary to many views expressed in this forum - an acceptance that different agencies actually do different things and that staff at the same level having different types of responsibility. Varied pay and conditions are in part a reflection of this and that they also provide a valuable tool to the Executive to attract and retain staff. They enable the Executive to employ few at high rates of pay or many at lower rates - reflecting strategic priorities and corporate needs. Standard terms of employment and rates of pay deter initiative at higher levels. Different agencies develop different approaches - the good ideas get picked up by all attentive agencies, the poor ideas wither and the agency specifc ideas work where they work. Each agency must be free to implement processes and conditions that allow its work force to effectively and efficiently deliver the services that it is required to deliver.
3. Understanding that ethical behaviour is the behaviour we display when the rules governing our behaviour are unclear - everything else is mere rule following. This means that the OPS shoudl first of all better articualte its rules, and secondly reinforce the need for behaviour that respects the principles behind the rules. This latter because the rules are worth following not because failure to do so will result in punishment.
The three things that I think most need to change in the APS so it can operate effectively in the 21st Century are:
1. The APS environment needs to be better able to accommodate Machinery of Government changes. These are becoming increasing complex, particularly in regards to underpinning IT infrastructure and support of business systems. Ways this can be achieved are more common systems and policies (records management is an obvious one where the NAA are already the recognised authority and should be able to come up with one policy for the APS which includes the recognition of transfer of records (both physical and electronic) upon MoG changes. For IT AGIMO need further empowering to perform this role. Same for DSD/AGs in the security space, recognising the need to separate National Security from general commercial grade security).
2. When implementing initiatives that impact on citizens, a total Government approach needs to be taken. Most people see only Govt not Department and also see this across state and local govt as overall Govt. It causes problems and confusion, the obvious one being on contacting someone you get told that they were already talking to you yesterday, when “you” means someone else in the Govt sphere. Either better branding is needed or better coordination or better education.
3. Branding. While I believe this is a possible solution to reducing confusion with delivery of Govt services and the citizen not being able to distinguish between various arms of Govt, not enough is done foster the service delivery arms. Centrelink and Medicare are now well established, but in other areas there are multiple players, particularly in Govt to business interactions, often with similar names (and that can be as simple as “The Department of …”, “Australian …” or “… of Australia” or using common words like Fair, Institute, National, etc. The needs to be oversight of Govt branding with a view to both maintaining the integrity of the brand, avoiding confusion with clients and facilitating MoG changes.
1. Reforming and streamlining the Australian Government Security Clearance Processes - procuring expertise is critical to achieving our goals, so making the security clearances for the private sector (and to PS staff) more efficient across the board.
2. Reforming and streamlining Government Procurement, developing Better Practice Guide for Managing Govt Grants (I know of ANAO best practice, but who says that is best practice?), and recommending that Contract Management be incorporated and mandated into the CPGs.
3. Developing streamlined arrangements for interaction with Ministers Offices
4. Reforming and streamlining processes for managing underperformance.
1. Improve staff mobility access and bring back a proper Merit based selection process. Often staff are promoted into roles due to flaws in the selection process; lack of competency/ability to acquire new roles; lack managerial support/training;no probationary period to guage competency - worse still at the EL1 and above levels where you cannot appeal against the position. Some managers merely delegate their responsibilities and apply for whatever training courses are offered, rather than attend to their Team's responsibilities.
2. Reduce the number of Executive level officers - most APS agencies are too top heavy and do not have enough case officers/workers to actually perform the work. More Field work / face-to face to promote compliance and confidence in the Community.
3. Some staff abuse the concept of family/work balance and produce minimal work and abuse the flexi provisions - citing "family commitments" as a legitimate alibi. Leave provisions in line with productivity levels need to be closer examined.