Home > The Panel's Priorities > Genuine transparency and accountability for delivering outcomes for Australians

Genuine transparency and accountability for delivering outcomes for Australians

It is important that measures of outcomes and performance in the APS are not exclusively based on agency silos, reflect a robust evidence base, and address project or cross-portfolio outcomes that matter most to Australians. This will boost accountability and trust in the service. A future APS will welcome scrutiny and feedback, and make the most of such insights to lift performance across the service.

Survey now closed

Terms of Use

What we think is needed

  • Public performance commitments and reporting that focus on measures and outcomes that matter to the Australian people.
  • The Secretaries Board taking a prominent role in improving the quality of performance reporting across the service, including through realising the intent of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) and with a focus on providing meaningful information to people.
  • Reinstatement of regular independent capability reviews for all departments and large agencies. Such reports – and management responses – should be publicly released.
  • Publication of annual APS employee census results for each agency, alongside management responses, with the APS Commissioner empowered to review results that warrant attention.
  • A disposition to seek and act upon external perspectives to help improve agency health, for example, through the greater use of advisory boards.

What is shaping our thinking

  • Feedback that fear of failure is affecting the approach to performance reporting, including use of metrics that are easier to measure rather than outcomes of importance to the public.
  • International (for example New Zealand and Canada) and domestic (NSW and WA) efforts to improve transparency of performance, for both policy and citizen-service measures.
  • Relevant findings of the ‘Independent Review into the Operation of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013’ (PGPA Act Review), particularly recommendations 1, 4 and 34.

What we are still exploring

  • How to ensure that any new arrangements around APS performance reporting are useful to the Parliament, including the Joint Committee for Public Accounts and Audit and other parliamentary committees.

Comments

Wed, 01 May 2019

Include triple bottom line in any evaluations - economic, social and environmental. Include evaluation/review from those from the sectors and communities which are impacted by the agency’s work as well as both delivery, technical and policy sections of the agency. Look at documenting and evaluating long-term results and then using these results in development of future policy and advice to government. Publish succinct (1 page) and clear summaries of results. Be open to publicly presenting on results.


Wed, 01 May 2019

One of the challenges for delivering cross-agency/whole of government services or improvements is that the remuneration/accountability of Departmental Secretaries does not encourage this. Other countries (such as New Zealand) have set very high level targets (eg 10% reduction in crime rates) that involve multiple Departments, but have put 'at risk' a percentage of salary/performance pay of the Secretary/s. In Australia, Secretaries' performance is measured by the performance of their Dept only.


Wed, 01 May 2019

  • Reinstatement of regular independent Evaluations for large scale programs or projects over a certain threshold (total actual cost over lifetime as opposed to estimated total cost and initial funding envelope). Reports and management response should be publicly released and used as communication pieces to demonstrate APS value or lessons learned for future improvements
  • Stronger education and awareness packages to ensure all public servants at all levels appreciate the importance of cascading performance criteria linked to overall outcomes - the notion of a clear line of sight is a sound guiding principle but is rarely executed well. This should be a standard manager skill set to ensure accountability and understanding at all levels.
  • The notion of having measures /responsibility for priorities for change embedded in SES performance agreements is sound, however it should also be balanced with Operational expertise. To develop a future pipeline of SES leaders who are invested in delivering the APS of the future long term, responsibility for some initiatives should be open to EL staff across the APS (possibly managed centrally by a Department/s, also offers a way to facilitate cross agency parterships, exposure to cross APS SES and opportunities for mobility). Empowering people to have a say in realizing the future of the APS and ensuring we don't fall down at the implementation hurdle (which we have often historically done) is vital. Offering this as a development opportunity to EL staff as well as SES ensures that this vision for our Future APS is owned by the APS.

H Noble - IP Australia


Wed, 01 May 2019

When I learnt project management I was shown a triangle with the following words at its points: cheap, fast, high quality. We were then told that for each project we could only pick two of these. This was basically their way of describing the tensions between key factors in achieving outcomes. Transparency and accountability are fine goals, but we need to ensure that our measures appropriately reflect the priorities set for each project etc. For example, if a project is given little funding then it would be unreasonable to critique it for being slow or low quality. Secondly, when I worked for one state regulatory body I was told that we could critique the performance of public sector work but not the goverment policy that drove it. Yet in several cases bad performance was a direct result of poor government policy (as in, politically driven policy). Genuine transparency and accountability must operate at all levels - government policy included. So a bad policy is a bad policy and we should not blame the APS or subcontractors if they fail to achieve outcomes deriving from it. I also believe that genuine transparency means no "creative accountancy". For example, replacing permanent staff with contractors and reclassifying the cost code so we can misleadingly claim staff cost reductions when we are in reality spending more money on personnel. As a member of the public I would also like to see expenditure on branding and restructures with actual cost/benefits included and ROI. Finally, the most successful workplaces I experienced were ones that focused on continuous learning. Mistakes were deconstructed and analysed and learning derived from them. This meant a path of continual improvement. Accountability must lead to improvement of service, not blame without learning.


Wed, 01 May 2019

Fearless Integrity goes to the core of this, if its right it should be done.


Mon, 29 Apr 2019

Has there been any consideration given to embedding subject matter expertise, such as qualified Master Mariners to provide oversight of APS initiatives relating to the maritime domain? This oversight provided in the Public domain where the laisez faire trade dynamic is properly researched with mariner insight, clear of the security, defence information firewall. This profile would facilitate government intention in relation to maritime strategy, a strategy that broadens its remit to include the commercial (shipping) trade dynamic with a proper analysis of that dynamic. The point here is having the right expertise for the right subject at the right time. Consistent with this profile, has there been thought given to SME's across commonwealth departments to act through the TISN profile to advance a deeper, whole of government, appreciation of the maritime domain.


Mon, 29 Apr 2019

It would be worth considering a stronger and more public role for the Chief Scientist or some role which provides publicly and independently the evidence under which policy is made - and is legislatively empowered/compelled to correct the record where evidence is falsely portrayed.

climate science is a case in point, where the policy debate should be about what to do about it, e.g. prevent it or adapt to it (or even, in a democratic society, whether to do anything at all), it should not be about whether it is happening or not. The evidence is too overwhelming for that debate - and yet in the absence of an empowered authority to protect the evidence base - the debates rages on.

surely we can do better.


Wed, 17 Apr 2019

Just deliver the deliverables


Mon, 15 Apr 2019

Document Statement: On page 16 Strengthen the culture governance and leadership model of the APS

Response: The APS culture must allow for project development to be an acknowledged main stream ongoing core business. This should be reflected in the APS /agency organisation charts manning personnel selection numbers qualifications and experience and representation in agency and overall APS influence and senior management.

This will improve diversity by increasing engineering and applied science influence and decreasing law arts economics influence.


Wed, 03 Apr 2019

Use media and socail media to get the good word out, show Asutralians the work that has been done for them and is being done every day. Tell them how their taxes are spent, in plain english, where they will see it.


Wed, 03 Apr 2019

This area of the proposal needs to provider greater focus on and value in meaningful engagement and the need for leaders to have the confidence and capability to have tough conversations with industry and members of the public rather than shy away from this - resulting in 'tick a box' consultation.


Wed, 03 Apr 2019

In recent times there seems to have developed a culture of risk aversion - where people are afraid of genuine engagement with industry, members of the community... To strengthen this proposal I would expect that the language about partnering and meaningful engagement with stakeholders would be more prominent and be linked more closely with policy development. This also picks up the points you made about 'humility' and the need for the APS to look at stakeholders etc as experts with valuable insights that can only strengthen an outcome - the APS does not not have an exclusive on good ideas or innovation.


Fri, 29 Mar 2019 Any committee or major decisions made that are not accountable and transparent should be advised to a ministerial office providing reason why not accountable and transparent to the community. Anyone acting outside this should lose all authority for decision making. In a case of still not complying they should lose their job.


Wed, 27 Mar 2019 Focus needs to be on long term measures and shared outcomes/roles. This is very hard but critical. Ministers (including new ministers) need to support this.


Wed, 27 Mar 2019 The use of client experience impact evaluation and measurement. Please see the work by Langham, J and Nielsen, P in developing measures that evaluate how public sector service impact real citizens. These measures could be incorporated along with productivity and other performance measures. These measures are also designed to be organisation or department agnostic but instead focus on the integrated end to end experience of citizens when interacting with multiple departs at various levels to meet obligations or receive benefits.


Wed, 27 Mar 2019 There is no accountability in the public service. At all. Any misconduct is usually handed back to the person involved to dismiss and cover up the matter. The APS commissioner refuses to act and when departments break legislation the ALRC isn't interested despite being a supposed independant body. There needs to be a federal ICAC that is truly independent of government with power to investigate and prosecute.


Wed, 27 Mar 2019 In my experiences, working for the APS as a contractor, management (and therefore staff) have been indifferent to project outcomes. If the project fails or suceeeds, there has been no impact on any project staff. In these circumstances, what would motivate staff or management: apathy is a consequent emotional response. Its welcoming that the APS review is starting to include words like "outcome" and "transparency", however, the context in which these words are used are in terms of department reviews and staff censuses. Its difficult to confident that annual reviews and staff censuses will result in a cultural change where members of sucessful mid-size project are rewarded in some way for a sucessful project outcome.


Wed, 27 Mar 2019 To strengthen the proposal I agree with the above mentioned comments - a closing of the link for accountability is required. For example if it is proposed to publicise the APS employee census, alongside management responses. It should be clarified that the response should include recommendations for improvement to address the census results as well as recommendations for continuous improvement for the future. A independent person should oversee/review that the recommendations have been implemented. This review should include the checking at all levels that the recommendations have been applied ie check with the employees that the measures applied have worked. This process can be applied to any review; ensure a formal response is provided from the party being reviewed; ensure the formal response not only includes measures that have addressed failings but also measure that address continuous improvement for the future; follow up report from a independent party that ensures the measures proposed were addressed in a timely manner.


Wed, 27 Mar 2019 Think this is covered in the wording - measure outcomes, not tasks. Need to stop the language from staff which says "this is the way we've always done this", "we are only allowed to use standard agreements" etc and allow accountability through follow up and timely responses. Genuine transparency also flows when people feel the playing field is level - at the moment service providers and users of government service are given tight turnaround times and Government says it needs 20 business days to answer even simple queries. Rules of engagement need to be equitable.


Mon, 25 Mar 2019 This is a thoroughly worthwhile proposal. There is no way such a proposal can be successfully implemented while funding (for FTE, projects or resources generally) is tied to effectiveness measures that are the responsibility of discreet entities (individuals / teams / business lines / groups / agencies or ministries). The thinking for this proposal needs to start at the very top. If funding is considered across agencies or across ministries, then we might be able to take a step in the right direction.


Wed, 20 Mar 2019 It would be beneficial to strengthen the language around measurement in the recommendation and the report. What you measure you optimise, and the current framework emanating from the PGPA certainly has a lot of measures but we generally measure the wrong things and therefore optimise the wrong things - e.g. how much we've spent, how many widgets we've produced. in this regard it would be good for the recommendation/report to say we should measure the outcomes of the APS in economic, social and environmental terms using broad-based measures, which may not be absolute measures but improve our understanding of whether we're making Australia a better place. The AFP's drug harm index (DHI) is a good if simple example of trying to measure impact in broader soci-economic terms, but also enabling the focus of finite resources to go towards the greatest economic and social return. Using the DHI as an example, it would be good if it were explicit that agencies need to invest in the tools to measure important things, just measuring what's easy is not good enough (but is certainly what happens now). It would be nice for evaluation to be explicitly highlighted in this section, given it is the tool for measuring outcomes, as opposed to inputs and outputs, and as a craft it has fallen away in more recent times. Recent articles and speeches by Dr Nicholas Gruen highlight opportunities here. It would also be nice to see an alignment between the evaluation process and the investment decision-making by Cabinet, as part of a genuine business improvement practice which is "no fault" (for want of better words). that is the focus should not be on why something didn't work but on how to make it work as part of a more staged approach to decision-making by Government.


Wed, 20 Mar 2019 The concept of accountability is long used and well intended but hollow in its application. Accountability only has meaning if it has consequence. We hear Accountability constantly bandied around by executives as a badge of honour and a mark of authority. But there is no consequence of non-achievement. We don't think that all private sector constructs apply, they need to be adapted for the public sector - but the structure of individual and organisational outcomes, incentives, measures and consequences drives behaviour performance and engenders a sense of urgency. Of course, as we have seen, poor structures do lead to poor behaviours. At the moment the necessary closed loop linkages of accountability, performance and consequence do not exist. It is the framework on which performing organisations are built and, like a skeleton, it needs to permeate the entire organisation in order for the body to be whole. Managing the "top" and the "direction" has been the subject of countless reviews. Accountability a constant catchcry. But the "how" has been avoided. It is hard. Our work often focusses on remediating poor poorly performing contracts and delivery in the public sector. They have similar hallmarks - an avoidance of real performance standards relying on the common "we will work together, make best efforts", little measurement of what they are actually achieving, where there is measured it is gilded, and it is safer to do nothing than take action. If the review is to be effective, then it needs to address the tough question of how to make the objectives work. That means fundamental change to the way the APS deals with performance and non-performance, seating home the accountability to a consequence - at all levels.


Tue, 19 Mar 2019 This comment is also related to structures that support and enable collaboration, flexible operating, and 21st century delivery, regulation and policy capabilities. It's about public support and promotion of a risk position which enables government to respond in an agile and dynamic way to its constituency, yet be accountable for competent use of public funds. Some innovation accounting could 'legitimise' the funding of experiments which may fail, because that funding is prudently spent to avoid future at-scale fails. At the early stages of a complex, multi-stakeholder initiative which requires adaptive leadership and collaboration, KPIs might be set for a high percentage of failed experiments / failed policy hypotheses, then progressively reduced for successive stages as the learning from failed experiments is applied. Rapid cycle times for stakeholder feedback, evaluation or data analytics are important and results of failed experiments are added to departmental / APS knowledge base to inform other departmental or cross-agency experiments along with evidence from other sources. Public support (Ministerial, Departmental) for this kind of accounting (where fit for purpose) can encourage a growth mindset which lifts APS performance over time, over a pass/fail mentality which is more risk averse.


Tue, 19 Mar 2019 It is the upper management, particularly at secretary level, within an agency or agencies that drives the level of ethical conduct within that agency. If it is the case that this review is regarded by management as nothing more than a mechanism to justify that they have adopted these recommendations and so therefore they act in an ethically sound manner when the reality is that bullying by management remains prolific and unabated and the fabrication of poor performance management appraisals is a cultural norm, than obviously nothing will have changed. There is no mechanism available to capture these spineless people and bring them to account which is why these cowardice behaviours remain as a cultural norm within agencies.