Reform of Australian Government Administration

There are a number of strategies that should be considered to improve the APS, which will involve significant change. I would point out that that whilst there appears to be a general view that the private sector is more efficient / more innovative / more highly skilled etc, there is actually little evidence to support that and that the private sector is not subject to the same legilative framework as the public. It should not be assumed that making the public sector more like the private is desirable. In response to this question, the three things I'd consider are as follows;

1. Decentralise. For several reasons. Canberra is to all intents and purposes an industry town with reducing resources making increases in the public sector a strain on the environment. It also tends to insulate people in Canberra from the diversity that is to be found in other centres, perhaps leading to decision-making that does not reflect the needs or desires of the Australian population. Public servants generally gain promotion much more quickly and are missing out on experience that would be valuable in a public service career at higher levels. It seems to be accepted in Canberra that people do the work that in the regions people are doing at one to two levels below, simply because 'you have to offer higher wages to attract people to Canberra'. Somewhat ludicrous reasoning there as it means you don't necessarily get the best people doing the work.

2. A mobile workforce. The available workforce is going to have to meet significant challenges to maintain Australia's standard of living. Agencies should be able to move specialist roles between them as required, for example web designers or project managers. Perhaps employed by the APSC? The notion of being paid to be at work 7 hours 21 minutes a day is redundant. People in the 21st century should be paid for the work they do and the quality of the work they do. This would theoretically enable people to go and do other things, like self-education or volunteer work, and still meet their performance requirements.

3. Increased knowledge sharing and cross-agency collaboration. Whilst I recongise that there are always organisation culture and structural issues, I consider that greater collaboration will enhance knowledge sharing and improve decision-making. Move away from silos and perhaps enable people to collaborate more, and perhaps move as employees between, the public and private sectors to bring the best aspects of each into the APS. Secondments may also be a way to achieve this with formalised agreements between public sector agencies and industry.

I would like to see a public service where relevant agencies that interact regularly are more integrated - not in a physically sense. Presently there is the appearance of silos (agency walls) and the need for countless MOUs (which serve a good purpose) further support to better integration. More transparency of what agencys could do for each other would be a large contributor to innovations. However presently there is the appearance that budgets get in the way of establishing true innovative ideas (not to mention turf). Maybe some quarrantined funds should be held to provoke inter agency innovations that could be funded from those held funds.

The many law framework for each agency makes it even more difficult for each agency to interact effectively. Some further law reform to bridge common interaction issues should be investigated.

At the state government level I see Birth Deaths and Marriages and Revneue Officices potential significant contriutors to Federal Agency delivery of compliance on such matter of taxation and well fair payment compliance work. This could only be achieved by introducing a common data protocol across all sates and collection of specific data attributes via electronic interface. It would be pererfable that these registers were on a national platform.

1. Standardise pay and conditions across the APS.
2. Decentralise roles. There are many skilled and intelligent employees/ potential employees who can not or will not move to Canberra, there is an obvious skills shortage in the ACT and the Australian public misses out on having the best APS by limiting opportunities to those willing to move to the ACT. In 2.5 years I moved from an APS 3 to an APS 6, I am highly educated, skilled and committed, as I live in NSW and am unwilling to move to Canberra I am at a time in my career where I have reached a plateau and unfortunately need to consider employment outside of the public sector to continue to progress. I can stress how important moving work into the states is to make the Australian public sector the best in the world.
3. Streamline recruitment processes, every selection I have applied for has taken a minimum of 3 months and up to 5 months, this is absurd and off putting to non APS applicants and in fact is a deterant for APS employees also. Many of my friends, highly skilled professionals refuse to apply to work in the APS based on the lenghtly application and recruitment process.
4. Secondments for APS 5/6 employees to move between agencies as a developmental opportunity and for greater cohesiveness across the APS.
5. Remove lengthly and costly adminstrative processes for basic internal practices. Eg. to be reimbursed $6.80 for a train ticket for a meeting I needed to consult my manager and corporate services and the area financial controller who emailed me 2 pro formas to complete. These forms were completed, signed off by my manager and sent to the financial controller, he approved the expenditure and sent the forms interstate to be processed by payroll who then actioned the payment into my bank account and sent me a confimation email. Is this the best use of time and money? What was the real cost of reimbursing $6.80 to me? What is the real cotst of reimbursement for the 30 odd staff that attended the meeting - huge savings in time, money and frustration can easily be made.

1. True equity across APS levels - Review of roles, responsibilities, output, accountabilities, tasks, duties, effectiveness, attitude, thinking and expectations. The ATO has a Workforce Capability Glossary - and this would be a great place to start. Perhaps we are in need of an APS Workforce Capability Glossary - ensuring it is is appropriately applied, adhered to, enforce and used as a measurement for performance.

2. From a green / cost saving perspective, I wonder if we co-located more government agencies, whether it would save costs associated with leasing, office furniture, office equipment, we could share people resources, perhaps we would use less electricity overall, we might save on stationery and printing related material. A whole-of-government apporach may not be absolutely practice, but even a few moves / changes would see some benefit.

3. APS Code of Conduct and APS Values - more active communication - more embedding them into our culture - more living the values - more highlighting the relevance of them to our attitude and behaviour, in our day to day work and in our approach to our work, that is - demonstrate (perhaps by way of scenarios) what they mean from a high level, strategic point of view, showing us how directions and decisions are shaped around them - right down to demonstrating how we as individuals can demonstrate them in the simplist of tasks or smallest interaction with another.

* Have government ministers conduct completely unannounced visits of randomly selected offices.The views of what staff put up with will change dramatically .Constant abuse from customers obviously has a negative impression on daily staffing levels.

* Those that rent AND claim Centrelink benefits,should have their rent paid directly to the landlord/property manager. Lease agreement/application paperwork should be provided to Centrelink directly from the landlord/property manager.Records should reflect full sharer deails.This will provide the customer with the knowledge their rent is paid. This will reduce Rent Assistance fraud. This will reduce the time "wasted" on an issue that is an easy fix. Property Investors will be satisfied with the knowledge Centrelink recipients are not high risk,they may even increase their portfolio as a result.This can only increase employment and development in the building sector.

* It is probably about time the Federal Government took over the running of all government hospitals. Non of the states are doing a great job.You can only hope it would reduce administration costs and red tape.It would also help free up funds to allow the states to fix their education and policing problems.

More centralisation of management and budgets; a lower ratio of middle/upper management to productive staff; recognition of the importance of experience in a position. A lot of money is wasted on recruitment when a job is already being well done by someone who is non-ongoing or on temporary/higher duties. There is also a productivity cost, as a new incumbent has to learn the job and take up colleagues' time as they help the newcomer.

1. Consolidate departments. Over time departments have become too independant, there's no consistency across services and the financial wastage via red tape and duplication in positions/decisions is a disgrace and taxpayers (and we all are) deserve better.

2. Much like point one IT services need to be consolidated. Currently there are too many systems and websites designed and built for similar purposes but with so very different operational qualities. One user should be able to navigate through all Australian governmental information/services via one gateway. And even with huge data storage requirements at least by utilising the same user interfaces the public would benefit, and this could lead to greater online usage, less phone enquiries and even less face to face enquiries.

3. Following on from consolidation, APS pay rates should be consistent across the APS. Profit generating organisations are able to compete because of that very fact, they generate profit based on productivity. Why should the administration of public monies allow for staff employed by the APS in effectively the same roles but in different departments to be paid differently? Duties/tasks should determine pay rates and should be consistent throughout the APS.

One Government one APS.

1.Recruitment.
It's plain to see that the APS suffers from a lack of good people (some agencies more than others) and we need a series of reforms focused on correcting this issue.
To start with we need to improve the public image of APS agencies in order to attract a larger pool of talented applicants. We should also move focus off Canberra and locate more central offices in Australia's major cities where the majority of talented applicants are likely to reside (or to wish to reside).
This better pool of applicants then needs to be drawn upon by a thoroughly revamped recruitment process. The current process is slow and is based too much on the creative writing skill of addressing selection criteria. There needs to be some component of standardised testing to ensure we recruit people who aren't completely lacking in knowledge and ability (which factors, unlike being suitably bubbly in an interview, genuinely determine who can do a job well).
Once we've brought talented new people on board we then need to clear away the deadwood. Time servers, bullies and malcontents need to be fired, at the moment this is way too hard and it's a crying shame for talented staff to miss out on promotion or confirmation because the staffing budget is burnt up in supporting people who add nothing to the organisation.

The process of recruitment requires a huge overhaul. Too often we see people who are not suitable being promoted or selected for positions and yet those who we are aware have the skills have been deemed unsuitable. One of the reasons I see for this is the use of written applications using selection criteria. Often candidates are capable of doing a job but not capable of explaining how they do it or perhaps they have not yet had the opportunity to demonstrate this capability.
Positions often go to those who are simply capable of writing selection criteria and nothing else. Given that there are now many professional selction criteria writers services which you can hire, the person getting the job may not even be capable of that but has simply paid someone else to do it for them.
Regardless of what system you use to select staff, you will not get it right 100% of the time, therefore a failsafe needs to be put in place. A simple three month probation period where the candidate has the opportunity to demonstrate that they can do the job. Out of a pool of say 10 people who appeared suitable you may find 7 are suitable so the other 3 can be let go and then if you only have 5 positions keep the 5 top performers and place the other two on an order of merit.
Another pitfall is incompetent employees being promoted out of a team. The team leader or manager is desperate to rid themselves of a troublesome employee so they give them a glowing reference and consequently this employee gets promoted. Using the three month probation system if you find that they are not reflective of the glowing reference they were given you can send them back to their old position, after all a manager who gave them such a glowing reference would be only too happy to have them back!

1. Current funding arrangements based on a 12 month cycle historically has created an environment where spending is restricted in the first two thirds of the financial year and becomes more freely available at the end of he financial year.
This has significant impacts on:
- employees and the ability of the Public Service to provide a consistent level of customer service throughout the year;
- contributes to some employees being on HDA or employed as non ongoing for extended periods of time; and
- restricts the ability for some long term planning aspects.
As a result of the current process, a significant amount of allocated funds are not used as effectively as they should be.
2. There needs to be much better cooperation between Government department/agencies to ensure the best possible outcomes are achieved in relation to the various Governments priorities. A good example is the work being performed by COAG - from the outside it appears that individual departments/agencies are progressing their own agendas and not working closely together and as a result it reduces the effectiveness of the overall progress.

Some of these are already mentioned but adding my 2 cents worth and weight to the argument, definitely:

1) Streamlining - systems, processes, programs should be the most efficient and effective they can be. This may mean taking a centralised approach, polishing up what already exists or changing things completely. Look to systems, processes and programs that are known to work and have a good track record. Each department will have something they do very well. But beware: If it aint broke (and working well) don't fix it! Practice impeccable judgement and be careful to avoid waste. Eliminate change for the sake of change;

2) Consolidation & Consistency - Across departments and within, what models work best. Don't re-invent the wheel! Look at what is being duplicated by departments and consider if it could be better achieved by one united approach, a central system or registry. Do away with multiple versions of the same thing and always take into account a bigger picture approach, whether it be for use across other departments or with an allowance for future changes and developments. Don't set out on a 10 year program to develop something that will be out-dated in 5. Likewise, don't invest in a system for one department that could actually be utilised by all;

3) Communication - better communication between departments at the administrative levels, what works well for one could be shared with others. Develop universal guidelines that can form the basis or template for specific activities, i.e. Committee Administration, Operational Guidelines for complex projects. Loss of corporate knowledge is huge in the Public Service given the transient nature of employment. Knowledge needs to be shared and wherever possible captured in written form.

For all of the above, it makes sense to have an over-arching administrative oversight body. I recommend that body be the APSC with a core focus on cross-pollination of best practice processes, knowledge, systems for and between all departments. This service should be provided without charge.

1) If the government and senior APS executives are serious about fundamentally improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the APS, there is a significant step which can be taken. And that is to remove the "permanent" status of ongoing employees. Everyone knows that the APS has far too many people who have embedded themselves in positions when, quite frankly, most private sector organizations would not hire them. There are far too many APS employees who coast along, secure in the knowledge that the APS inefficiency provisions are in themselves so inefficient that it is virtually impossible to remove them. Hence the inappropriate use of the VR process in many cases.

These are matters which few people would publicy acknowledge but we all know it goes on. I submit that people who are good workers do not need to fear the loss of "permanent" status. Only the inefficient people would fear such a change. Employing the APS workforce on the same basis as the private sector would enable APS managers to at last remove the "dead wood" from various APS agencies.

2) Secondly, standardizing employee Annual Evaluation Reporting (AER) may enhance APS effectiveness in the 21st century. Whilst some agencies conduct an excellent, professional AER process, there are other agencies whose standards in this respect leave much to be desired. Possibly a standardized approach, facilitated by the PSC, would yield greater employee productivity and effectiveness.

3) I am not submitting a third point, as the first two points will be difficult enough to achieve!

three areas of improvement
1. join the public service not the individual agencies. this would have significant savings in adminstration and identity management that would make the change cost effective. one record.
2. remove a significant amount of the governance over change. departments are spending significant amount and dramantically increasing the cost of change by over governance of change initiatives. this department has 10 SES in a room every fortnight discussing what projects have merit. dividing up very small funding amounts. Its cost more than that to make the decision.
3. centralise all base operations, possibly a shared service model, ie property management, HR, IT, finance, contract management. I understand there is work happening in this area but we need to do the lot. where ever possible. all departments should work closer together and get closer aligned.

thanks for the opportunity.

regards

Richard

1. Centralisation is ridiculous. It costs money and time for staff to get into the city centres. The rent paid is higher. We are not as attractive as a private employer in places like Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra because the cost living makes it very hard to live on what the public service can pay. Regionalisation of work would allow for lower costs for the government in terms of office rental and lower costs for staff for travel and living.

2. While I believe that there should be job security available to staff, I don't believe that it should be at the cost of not being able to deal with underperforming staff. While there are procedures in place, they are incredibly difficult to actually use.

3. get rid of the efficiency cut every year. it isn't resulting in efficiency, it is resulting in less operational staff to actually do the work.

1. Increase video-tele rooms to reduce the travels among different cities.

2. Increase the cooperation (formal channel of research business line) between similar organisations in Australia, Canada, NZ, and UK, such as ATO and Canada Revenue Agency.

3. Subscribe the database by one united labrary and give every federal organisation a certain amount of user ID and password, such as Lexisnexis, EIU,...for law and business.