Reform of Australian Government Administration

From many accounts, the aspirations of the present values are not being attained, but I would like to make a simple point that:
. transparency, and
. accountability
qualities are essential in the context of the actual employing organisation, the APS and the Australian society. The effectiveness of the individual in the workplace should not be impeded by circumstances that are under the control of other workmates, supervisors and official instrumentalities.
In addition, the qualities of ethics and equity should ensure that discriminatory views and actions are not tolerated or ignored.
There is an obvious requirement for effective performance and leadership in numerous areas, critical to the development of the social and technological infrastructure. To this end, the APS principles must be concisely and meaningfully stated, so that the principles are of practical use on a day to day basis.
To this end, I would like to suggest the case study of the community response to the bushfires in Victoria. The groundswell of support for the afflicted illustrates the incumbent energy that may be applied to this social problem. I think it is so important that I would like to relay an expression of hope and faith in the Australian Government, when a fellow train traveller observed that what Victoria needed was a Boeing 747 acting as a water carrier to douse the fire fronts. Forward thinking and organsational skills of this order, would be encouraged by a clear and insightful set of Public Service principles, I would say, and success in this area would win the respect of the community at large.
So I endorse the criticism of smallminded activities that diminish the contributions of the majority of the service.

The APS Values are not all really values at all. Most are Motherhood statements or vague goals and objectives - fair and noble as they are. They all seem a bit difficult to reconcile. It is hard being apolitical while serving the government of the day who in a politically charged, democratic, partisan environment will milk every ounce of credibility they can muster and ride home on the good work of its employees.

The Values need to be redrafted and separated into Goals and Objectives. Valeus can change too much and be hard to define legally.

I would also suggest that those values that are present be properly adhered to instead of making new ones or reducing those that are already there. There is a cultural problem with senior management and their remoteness from the concerns of their uderlings. This would be a start. I don't know how you draft a new set of values in the light of cultural obsinacy from management and under-resourcing of current service delivery.

More accountability for the "values" already there would be more to the point. It seems that the values are trying to serve 2 groups of poeple - clients of the public service and employees of the public service. Not an easy thing to do in one Section of an Act. For workplace disputes of a serious nature the APSC and the Ombudsman are impotent in their capabilities and the AFP require a smoking gun. A new overarching authority with real teeth to investigate serious workplace issues like corrpution, nepotism, maladministration, harassment, non compliance with safe workplace provisions, etc is long overdue and not just for law enforcement officers because all public servants and government employees are really engaged in just such an activity - administering and enforcing legislation.

I feel this debate is a furphy. There is no mechanism present to ensure compliance with any of these values. Any mechanism and personnel for such an overarching authority - not the inadequate APSC and Ombudsman - should be removed from departmental interference and personal pressure. If a cultural shift on the department of individual departmental managers is not possible for compliance with APS values then some authority to compel them is necessary to engender confidence in the service from the public and its employees.

I personally believe that the APS values could be revised but certainly shouldn't be streamlined or simplified. APS values provide a clear understanding of what is expected and required and with simplification can come ambiguity and incorrect interpretation. Realistically they're not very large, if they were written out like an essay then they should be simplified. Upon reading other peoples comments there is obviously room for improvement and addition of other values which can be expected as our organisation evolves and changes.

Slightly off topic but related to other peoples comments, I do believe that APS values are not incorporated into our business as much as they should be. I was shown where to find them in training and in my 2 years of employment they have never been brought up or discussed since. This may be because I consider myself a good employee and therefore would not consider acting in a negative manner, however our APS values should be used positively, not just as a sword for when a staff member may not have acted appropriately. I do also believe peoples comments surrounding managers behaviours are valid and are worth investigating although this forum isn't the place for that.

Please place your resources in making our APS values more effective by incorporating them into our business, not just altering the text - staff need more than that.

In response, the Values and Code of Conduct are clear and legible, and they are not difficult to apply or remember. Nor do they need more work in the written context, instead, they need more work in 'commitment, application and understanding' by APS leaders.

For instance, Bullying behaviour is a LACK OF:
1. Professionalism
2. Communication
3. Good workplace relations
4. Managing Performance of the bully
5. Leadership
6. Courteous and respectful behaviour
7. Accountability by the bully
8. High ethical Standards;
9. And bullying behaviour can be 'discrimination,' towards someone....

Although, in the APS how often is Bullying behaviour reported and then either not managed at all by leaders, or, managed very poorly? How often is the bully the team leader? When APS staff report bullying to senior leaders, what happens as a result? Is the bully managed (performance managed) or are staff subjected to more bullying? Are bullies 'protected' by their leaders? How often are APS staff scapegoated for the poor behaviour of a bully? Is there a need for an APS wide survey to assess the level of committment to the Values......

Many of the APS Capabilities are mirrored in the Values, and as such, staff are appointed on their ability to demonstrate the Capabilties and Values.

The Culture of an agency can be seen in what happens, who does what, what is valued and appreciated, and so on. Therefore, the leaders of the agency establish the culture and standards, by what is followed and adhered to, in terms of the Values and Code of Behaviour.

However, when bullying behaviour is shown to be a clear breach of the APS Values, Code of Behaviour and Capabilities, the result should not be to protect, promote or move sideways, it shoud be immediate expulsion from the Australian APS.

In summary, the Values are fine, the problem lies in their application, commitment and modelling by leaders.

APS code of conduct simply doesn't worth the paper they are written on. For instance: employment decisions are based on merit. In reality every APS officer knows it is mainly based on association at workplace. Some officers wait for years for a go at an opportunity while some others are given every opportunity as soon as they start at a team. Examples are so obvious, if anybody takes the time to seriously look into it they will be amazed at the blatant nature of it. This is again due to Customs culture of promoting unqualified people into managerial positions without any tertiary qualifications. Just because someone has been at Customs for 20 years you are qualified in managing a team of 40-50 officers. I mean we have managers who are having difficulty typing on the computer. i mean after 20 years an officers would be very experienced in certain aspects of the job, but managing staff is a totally different ball game. Because of this the job itself loses its motivational qualities and break ones spirit.
If a manager promotes someone to a position even for a temporary period and not even bother advertising it to the rest of the staff, and turns around and says "I have made an executive decision" without explaining on what criteria he /she based the decision on, this to me is obvious discrimination. Where is the fair system of review. And the examples go no and on.

There are two issues being discussed:
- how we conduct ourselves as Public Servants;
- how the Department/Agency we work in conducts its internal business.
We are covered then by two sets of rules - one striving for personal excellence and the other for expediency.
What are we really doing - conducting the business of the government of the day!
Changing the values, rearranging or altering the wording will have little meaning unless the APS is given clear guidelines/direction about the expected relationship between itself and the currernt and future governments.
We have recently come out of a period where alternatives were being explored and this served to weaken the APS as a vital tool of the government.

Any set of values is useless unless the leaders of agencies and departments live and model the values in their work. I understand that SES Officers are under stress and have enormous responsibility, however this simply does not excuse bad behaviour in any form. Too many times I have seen SES Officers swear, call each other names, make derogatory, disrespectful comments, and yell at staff. Why is it acceptable to hold ASO3s and 4s to the highest standards of behaviour, put them through Code of Conduct investigations over relatively minor issues and expect the utmost professionalism at all times if their superiors cannot seem to manage it?

Agencies should also take greater responsibilities for educating staff on how to incorporate the values into their everyday work in an ongoing manner. It is not sufficient to simply give them a 1 hour training course in the values when they start, and then hope this carries them through their entire public service career. To entrench the values, continuing education is required. Perhaps when new rulings are made, or cases over the values come up, all APS staff should be advised of what the changes mean to them.

Overall, I think the values are fine, but people need help linking the abstract statements to the concrete reality of their everyday work.

The APS values state that we serve the Government. This has been a shift in the Commonwealth public service 'philosophy'. A generation ago, the APS was there to serve Parliament. A kind of partisan culture has developed in the APS as a result of this shift in values. This does not serve the public and is one of the more insidious elements that undermines our democracy. Before considering enshrining these 'values' in the Act, we should rethink what they mean.

Don't "water down" the APS Values and Code of Conduct - I have read some of the suggestions and they are too generalised, lack substance and are open to interpretation. The current Values and Code of Conduct are clear, specific, and there can be no conjecture in their interpretation.
The real challenge for the APS is to actually have these as a living, vital components of organisational culture - not simply paid lip service to - as this appears to be the way.
I have a long experience in the APS and I have been both surprised and appalled as to how these principles are continuously breached, with no action taken. I'm afraid to say, the breaches often occur by those in the so called "upper echelons". Often staff are too afraid of the repecussions to speak out and I know, from experience, it does one no favours to do so. This is why breaches of the Values and Code of Conduct perpetuate.
The APS sets itself up for medocrity if this continues, not to mention the lowered morale and productivity which arises when these principles, the foundation of the APS, are breached. It sends a very bad and confusing message - basically, the Vales and C of C are there but it's OK to breach them because nothing will ahppen and staff are too fearful to say anything.
The APS need to lift its game. It's the organisational culture that needs to change, not these vital APS principles!

My major grievance is not with the values themselves, but with their application. Of particular concern to me are the following:
•establishes workplace relations that value communication, consultation, co-operation and input from employees on matters that affect their workplace;
•provides a fair, flexible, safe and rewarding workplace;
•focuses on achieving results and managing performance;
The managers in my area seem to interpret these values as meaning that I can't have an opinion, any opinion it would seem, and I have been frequently punished for communicating something that they didn't want to hear.
This problem comes down to upper managerment doing nothing to manage middle management leadership, so I sit on the bottom of the food chain feeling very resentful. I'm not the only one, but it seems that I am one of the only people in my area with the courage to stand up for myself. Of course, this perception of mine does nothing to enhance my relationships with my peers. It's a head in the sand mentality. Unless upper management get serious about enhancing the experience of APS 3s and lower, then the workplace will continue to be the fake and empty experience that it is, where free speech doesn't exist, and where the only honest communication occurs outside the building.
I think that you'd be shocked with the level and intensity of the dislike that exists within a seemingly harmonious environment. It's not real harmony in many teams; certain individuals are simply bullied into submission, or else they're sacked, based on "values" issues. I find the whole situation extraordinary and have often been reminded of the novel 1984, by George Orwell, where it's a crime to have a difference of opinion, or even a difference in thought.
I'm disappointed in my experiences in the Public Service, and only stay because I earn more than I would in the private sector. It's not a happy world that I inhabit.

Yes, on one hand it should be stremlined and shortened, and include the following core values :
1) being apolitical,
2) tranparency
3) meritocracy and being driven by performance
4) access and equity (so that no single group, gender, race is allowed to continue to dominate areas in the APS)
5) diversity
6) world's best practice professionalism
7) respect for each other, and
8) efficiency and integrity

On the other hand, the best statement of values alone will not see APS become what it aspires to be, just like the Ten Commandments alone can never prevent even believers from 'sinning'. Effective checks and balances framework based on the APS values must be well thought out and spelt out especailly in areas where the values can be so easily and indirectly derailed without detection. This happens when there is no means of direct measurement against the value system.

An example is the APS value of Equity - it is equally wrong to treat unequal people equally as it is to treat equal people unequally. Alas, how often we see in the workplaces that unequal people are consciously or unconsciously being treated equally as if every one should be of a particular race or speak with certain type of accents to be given equal considerations. Without checks and balances framework, true equity in the APS remains at best an ideal or a moral high ground with little or no substance. Social inclusion agenda could be a step in the right direction. Only time can tell.

I believe the Act should contain an overarching statement about the values. The values seem to be divided into three groups: those that are directed at Government, the public and employees. This distinction should be referred to in the overarching statement. .

What are currently listed are not really values but action taken to achieve a value. The values could be listed with some commentary on how these are to be achived

The Act could be rewritten to say something along the lines of:

The APS values are enshrined in legislation to ensure that the APS provides an innovative, ethical and responsive service to the Australian community, the Australian Government and APS employees. These values are:

Fairness and Impartiality - This is achieved by
- actions and decisions being sensitive to the diversity of the Australian public
- providing a fair system of review of decisions affecting members of the the Australian public and APS employees
- employment decisions being based on merit;
- having a workforce which recognises and utilises the diversity of the Australian community it serves
- providing a fair, flexible, safe and rewarding workplace for employees free from discrimination and harassment

Accountability - This is achieved by
- having the highest ethical standards;
- being openly accountable for its actions, within the framework of Ministerial responsibility to the Government, the Parliament and the Australian public

Responsiveness - This is achieved by
- providing frank, honest, comprehensive, accurate and timely advice and in implementing the Government’s policies and programs

High Standard of Leadership - This is achieved by
- focuses on achieving results and managing performance
- establishes workplace relations that value communication, consultation, co-operation and input from employees on matters that affect their workplace

The above is a quick example and would need to be expanded upon. It is the format rather than the wordsthat I am recommending.

The APS Values should definitely be reviewed, streamlined and further clarification provided against each one. The APS Values (or public service motherhood) statement sets out a list of values some of which mean absolutely nothing. For example, the APS Values claim to have the highest ethical standards but what are they? What do highest ethical standards mean and what do they look like? How does a person demonstrate they have this APS Value? Is there a benchmark that highest ethical standards launch from? And in a diverse community are there minimum agreed standards? Sounds impressive but more clarification is needed. It would be useful to link the Values to identifiable actions and behaviours. How does an APS employee demonstrate highest ethical standards?

There are a numerous inconsistencies and they are:
The APS Values claim to want a workplace free from discrimination and that recognises and utilises the diversity of the Australian community but on page 11 of the 'Reform of Australian Government Administration: Building the world's best public service' (Government Reform) it shows that the proportion of employees with disability has been steadily falling since 2002.

The same is true for apolitical - how is this demonstrated. The APS is supposed to be apolitical as was the design for the executive arm of Government. How is this demonstrated? What behaviours and actions can be described as apolitical or more relevantly what behaviours and actions can be described as political?

The APS Values claim to have leadership of the highest quality? What does this mean? Whatever it does mean it must sit uncomfortably adjacent to SES and supervisors of staff promoted to positions of managing people and lacking the people skills necessary to do this. It is not uncommon to find management who not only lack the appropriate people skills, but also time and workload management abilities and the emotional intelligence necessary to HR structures together.

The APS Values claim to provide a reasonable opportunity to all eligible members of the community to apply for APS employment - and I believe it does - but isn't it more than just a reasonable opportunity?

The merit based recruitment process will always have its critics - but perhaps this is a value (well they all need) further clarification - providing links to behaviour and actions. What does the APS do (act)

To enhance the current APS Values they will require definition to make them a substantive tool in the workplaces and an effective measure of adherence. To do this each Value will need to be broken down and linked to performance behaviour or action/s.

On page 18 of the Government Reform paper the Prime Minister is quoted saying the 'the public service [needs] to be characterised by excellence in policy innovation, policy creativity, policy contsetability and long-term policy planning, as well as a commitment to innovation and, policy in how it delivers services to the Australian community'. This is full of substantive input that could be incorporated into a revised APS Values statement.

I have no problems with the Code of Conduct, although they need to be consolidated. In the particular branck of the Government I work in, there are still breaches of the Code on a regular basis......... very little or no monitoring of the "upper level". Some of the decisions made by managers would result in them being fired from private enterprise. Bring on the standardising across the board for the APS bands for pay and conditions for ALL government departments.
There are still "jobs for the boys", and the "in crowd" in some areas of the Commonwealth Government. How to monitor the APS code is the question... I have seem so many breaches occur and all because someone "up the line" has wanted to protect their position.
As we are an ageing population, the Government is going to have to make allowances for the fact that the larger portion of our workforce are the ones that will be taking time off work to care for others - unplanned leave is the bane of our lives. Women cop it right, left and centre. Let's start counting only days off work WITHOUT med certs as unplanned leave. All this falls under discrimination, something that we see far too much of in our workplaces.

The list of Values appears too long, repetitive, and inconsistent. A summary expression of Values, as outlined in the McLeod Report of the Public Service Act Review Group [1994] could be used: The Public Service is 'built around the principles and values which stress the centrality of an apolitical public service with merit-based staffing, high standards of honesty and integrity, a strong focus on efficiency and results, and responsiveness and accountability to the government of the day while maintaining a capacity to provide quality and impartial advcie.' Or the current Values could be abbreviated to 4: (a) the APS is apolitical, accountable for its actions, performing its functions in an impartial and professional manner within the framework of Ministerial responsibility to the Government, the Parliament and the Australian public, including providing frank, honest, comprehensive, accurate and timely advice and in implementing the Government's policies and programs; (b) the APS is a public service in which employment decisions are based on equity and merit and are free from unlawful discrimination; (c) the APS has the highest ethical standards and leadership of the highest quality; (d) the APS delivers services fairly, effectively, impartially and courteously to the whole Australian public.

If Values are stated as ethics, they are a means or an end in themselves, so a broad or summary expression should be sufficient. The longer list does read as 'motherhood' statements, as already noted in some comments.