People of Australia

APSC Commissioner Peter Woolcott recently said that the APS needs to get better at communicating with the public on public service branding, or what it means to be a public servant.

A simple way to begin this process could be to develop APS-wide branding that could be included on public communication from any agency. Agency websites and official communications generally display the Australian Coat of Arms in conjunction with the agency name. These could be complemented by APS branding of a similar size that delivered messages about what the public service is and does.

An example for a service delivery agency could be e.g. APS - Committed. Respectful. Accountable. - while policy agencies could utilise branding that encapsulates the policy function e.g. APS - Inform. Respond. Deliver.

This would be a way of demonstrating externally a lot about how the APS sees itself internally through things such as ICARE and the APS Values.

This continues on from my first submission. Even under a single area of government responsibility such as aged care, decisions made by the Dept of Health or the Aged Care Pricing Commissioner are reviewed by the AAT while decisions made by the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner are reviewed by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. This is ridiculous. With the different review principles of the AAT and the Ombudsman, the public services are thus subjected to different levels of quality and scrutiny in review. The lack of any legal knowledge or experience of Ombudsman staff is obvious in their consistent classification of matters of natural justice (lack of consultation, ignoring evidence, failing to address issues, lack of impartiality) as “merit” reviews (and therefore not the Ombudsman’s responsibility) and the use of admin laws that apply only to the judiciary (The Bias Rule) to members of the public. Unlike other ombudsman services, the public service ombudsman is not an impartial, independent body. It is the public service investigating the public service. It fails to mention any further avenues of appeal in its letters of decision, its website both fails to mention the time limits that apply to the lodgement of judicial reviews and makes only discouraging statements about the judicial review process. Unfortunately there is no political will to look into what is a bi-partisan approved service with its own legislation, no less. What is fair and achievable however, is that all public service decisions be subject to the comprehensive and accountable processes of the AAT review process.

I am surprised, and disappointed, by the small number of citizens (94) who engaged in the consultation process. Does the Review consider this number is sufficient for the Review to understand 'the public's view' on the APS?

Yes

There are 2 major obstacles to equality and fairness in the Australian public service decision-making and review appeals process. One is the lack of a unified appeal process. The other is the continued refusal of the public service to explain their decisions - despite the requirements of the AD(JR) Act . Currently, there are at least 2 avenues of appeal for public service decisions - the AAT and the Commonwealth Ombudsman (CO). Which of these is engaged depends on which public service is under review. These 2 bodies operate under different principles of review, the most significant difference being their ability to review decisions based on their merit (or accuracy/ legality). The AAT will review on merit. The Ombudsman will not. And so in 2018 the Ombudsman retains the very same limitations to review that the Commonwealth Administrative Review Committee found so egregious back in 1971. Any agency subject to review by the Ombudsman can make any errors in law with impunity. Those errors cannot and will not be reviewed under any circumstances. The AD (JR) Act requires that all public service decision-makers provide, upon request, a written statement of the reasons for their decisions, including all evidence on which their findings are based. Apparently, this bill ensures that the public service will comply. Yet they don't. The Act is ineffective and good administration in the public service remains a pipe dream until the public service can be made to be fully accountable to the law.
If this public service review wishes to make pragmatic solutions, take a long hard look at the Commonwealth Ombudsman. It is the last remaining relic of the public service dinosaur of long ago which, in its current form, has no place in the public service of the future.

Preserve public servant's freedom of speech if it doesn't reveal non-publicly available information

How should we make it clearer and easier for people and organisations to approach and engage the Australian Public Service?

• We need to show the public they can trust this institution, building trust through character and competence in every interaction with them.
• When considering why the public interacts with the public sector - it is normally because they need something that they are either entitled to or they need help with. Putting ourselves in the position of those that come to us, understanding who we serve and what they need will enable us to make it easy for people to approach and engage.
• We need to be more careful of the optics that we create when interacting with the public. when it looks like we don't care, when it looks like we hate our jobs, when it looks like the public is bothering us - this fosters distrust and also frustration. We have amazing jobs, career opportunities by the bundle and secure incomes - the public we serve would love the opportunities we have. If we cannot be proud to serve the public and this nation then let someone else who is do it.

Hi APS Review,

In your research, have you determined what are the main interactions the People of Australia have with the APS?

Anecdotally, I would have assumed that there was three to four major agencies that the People of Australia have contact with (e.g. ATO, Centrelink, Medicare). Perhaps even within those agencies, there a few main processes (e.g. Income Tax Returns, Medicare GAP payments and Family or another benefit payment). If this was accurate, improving and/or linking these processes would present the best 'bang for our buck' and make the APS a lot less confusing. Mygov is definitely a step towards simplifying the APS for the public.

Grateful for the outcomes, if only preliminary, of your research.

Cheers, Nick

Is it time to discard the idea of citizens as passive consumers of government and public policy and to create a more participatory APS model? Don S Lenihan has been working in Canada for years on experiments in public engagement that see government and administrators in a very different light and could create bold change with improvements to society.

His principles of a public engagement approach are:

1. There is a new policy environment as the world becomes more complex which require participation of a variety of parties
2.  There are new public expectations with the public today less deferential and trusting of, governments). They expect far more transparency, accountability and responsiveness to their needs and concerns.
3.  Good policy is comprehensive 
4.  A new set of holistic policy goals is emerging
5.  Real progress toward societal goals requires public participation
6.  The public taking responsibility implies them having some control 
7.  Decisions are made collaboratively (not just consultation)
8. Accountability is shared
9.  The public engagement approach requires trust, and builds trust 
10.  Public engagement is inclusive
11.  Every community is different so flexibility in solutions and implementation is required
12.  Local governments are the gateway to the public and may be the best channel through which to engage
13.  Citizens’ voices must be heard throughout
14.  Public engagement is fully scalable - using deliberative discussion to unite a group of people around a common goal and mobilise them to work  together to achieve it.
15.  Policy and service delivery are linked and shouldn’t be seen separately.

More on how in his book at http://www.politicipublice.ro/uploads/rescuing_policy_ebook.pdf

Such an approach would require significant change in the APS.

I've made the following posts in other sections of this site. However, I think they're relevant here:

For pretty much every issue or problem perhaps we need to ensure we have the right expertise, the right stakeholders, and all levels of government in the room.

Ideally, especially for regional and remote issues, this room should be mobile and spend time in the affected areas.

I've often noted the change in a person's views after they've spent time in the problem area; for example, politicians visiting remote communities and the SBS program 'go back to where you came from'.

Perhaps engage anthropologists to define community groups and appropriate representatives similar to what is done in native title claims.

Do not leave it to the community to self-select.

Consult with (LISTEN) to those groups and incorporate their feedback into policy and implementation.

And consult with civil society on how to make it easier to engage with the APS.

Consult with society on everything!

A "public service" should serve the public - seems obvious, but it doesn't currently do this, because it reports to a single political party that has formed the government. All current problems - politicisation and lack of frank & fearless advice or risk-taking - come back to this. If you want a genuine public service, the only practical reporting body (including hiring & firing of CEOs) is the parliament. It's not complicated.

When Jean Jacques Rousseau outlined The Social Contract, it was clear that government was to serve the people. This relationship has become problematic over time and is never more evident in their distrust expressed by way of citizens exiting the My Health Record database.

When we have politicians sidestepping (and subverting) the fundamental protections of the Privacy Act - aided and abetted by leadership within DHS - to publish private information about a complainant in regards to the Centrelink RoboDebt fiasco, we see government failing its side of The Social Contract.

We need leadership within departments that stands up to Ministers and refuses to break the law, rather than providing them with the means to subvert it for purely political intentions. The APS must have the protections enshrined in law to not only allow department heads to refuse such behaviour, but oblige them to do so.

I know I exited My Health Record for the very reasons outlined above.

Part 2 - Partnership management. The fact that the APS has in excess of 25 million stakeholders already tells us something about the difficulty of the partnership management problem. Individual consultation with everyone is simply impractical. Consultation via representative organisations can be problematic, as is pointed out by the Grattan Institute (Who’s in the room? Access and influence in Australian politics, September 2018).

Broadly, the APS should be thinking of its communications through the following lenses:

• Informing stakeholders of their entitlements and obligations – in practice much of this communication will be one-way. • Monitoring the implementation of government policy and obtaining information to support decisions on adjusting government policy – lobbyists can be in this space, but should not predominate. Client surveys and focus groups should provide much of the basic data; while the public service should seek the views of independent experts (such as academics) for policy suggestions. • Engagement with delivery partners (contractors, grant recipients) which needs a shared understanding of priorities and some occasional flexibility – but should ultimately be driven by a set of rules (Commonwealth Procurement Rules, Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines). • Engagement with Government where the Westminster conventions have long established that we have an apolitical public service that presents to government the relevant facts and seeks to implement the government’s policies as effectively as possible. The public serve is on safest ground when it sticks to the evidence, although recognising that inevitably many policies will be shaped by political judgements on equity.

I am pleased to see a section appear for the Australian population (I did not see this here yesterday). It emphasises that the Australian Public Service has 25 million stakeholders, even before you start counting organisations and stakeholders resident overseas.

Let me deal with the issues in two parts:

Part 1 - “Trusted and Respected”. There is a desperate need for a “general comments section” on each of the themes. While I acknowledge that Mr Thodey has publically announced the themes, they could benefit from some refinement. The theme that the APS should be “trusted and respected by its partners” takes the emphasis off “partnership management” and puts it on reputation – it turns the theme into a public relations objective. I would make the same point on theme 5 “renowned for… [its] systems and structures” – surely the APS needs appropriate systems and structures where or not they become famous.

I agree that the APS should be trusted (and maybe even respected) but this is as result of its professionalism across the spectrum, not just in partnerships. Delivery of government services (theme 2) is by far the most important of the five themes for securing the APS’s reputation, and the other three also contribute to reputation. Let us be professional first and let the reputation for professionalism follow.

I would suggest that the theme should be “effective management of partnerships” – not as hyped up as being a “trusted partner” but in all things the public service is better off being boring and workman-like, focussed on what it needs to deliver.

Part 2 will follow in a separate posting