Apolitical objectives seem hypocritical when senior mandarins are being appointed directly from Ministerial offices:
• http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-12/treasury-secretary-john-fraser-to-resign-this-month/9986290
The APS faces numerous unrealistic political expectations and legislative constraints, not least of which is Budget processes. Government’s hand down their Budget measures in May. As is their want, the government (having three year terms) is usually very keen for their Budget initiatives to be implemented and achieving results as quickly as possible. However … to implement new initiatives successfully (in line with best practice)
• consultations need to be undertaken with key stakeholder (as you can’t consult before Budget announcements – due to protecting ‘unfair advantage’ allegations);
• grant program guidelines need to be developed and approved by the Department of Finance (these timeframes can be extensive);
• expressions of interest are advertised (to be equitable – allowing a minimum time period of four to six weeks before the closing date – avoiding peak holiday periods);
• the EOI submissions then need to be assessed, depending on how many applications and how well resourced the assessment team is and how complex the program is – this could take a month or two before being approved by the delegate;
• then funding agreements need to be negotiated – noting that no work can commence prior to the funding agreement being executed;
• by this time, you’re at the end of financial year and the pressure is on to get millions spent, because if you don’t – there’s no budget funding next financial year;
• and as for evaluating programs, there is usually no funding appropriated for evaluations, no baseline assessment was ever undertaken before the measure was implemented, and real meaningful outcomes take years to flow through, but which time there will be another government, the program is yesterday’s news and no-one really bothers. Which is why evaluations are only ever undertaken on meaningless superficial KPIs, such as how many grants were executed or how much funding was spent.
The amount of money that gets spent before the end of financial year – merely because of appropriation ‘use it or lose it’ processes – is ludicrous, inefficient, and unethical (unspent funds are often identified by Ministers to fund ‘adhoc’ proposals of questionable value and limited oversight). If a program has funding allocated, it shouldn’t be at threat of losing that funding simply because APS legislation requires appropriate lead times to develop sound program guidelines and implementation plans.
The disaggregation of the APS into different departments with differing Workplace Agreements was also a misguided initiative that has introduced a mountain of inefficiencies – every time an APS employee changes departments (machinery of government moves, promotions etc.). Also, it reduces flexibility, APS employees should be able to be assigned to which ever area / department requires work to be done. In this day and age of technology, there is no real need to collocate people in the same office / town / state. Virtual teams take some adjustment, but can be hugely beneficial in achieving results. Enabling people to work flexibly from home may also greatly improve productivity (as well as save of office rental).
Another big inefficiency is business planning in the APS. The APS is not a business, the amount of resourcing that has been wasted on business planning which has subsequently been undone (the following day in one instance) because of changes beyond the APS control (machinery of government moves, restructuring, changing priorities, whole of government reforms).
The government charging itself for services is also ludicrous, hugely inefficient and counter-productive. Talk about increasing red tape and paper work. If work needs to be done, then it needs to be done. The grants hub is one area in which I’ve recently been working and it’s outrageous that the Hubs are quoting huge sums to undertake the required work – in some instances as much as half the value of the entire grant program again! And that’s not even for fast tracked prioritisation. Our department serves our Minister. But in future, when our Minister needs an ad-hoc grant to be administered quickly before the end of financial year, it’s unlikely that it will be achievable.
The APS also needs to be extremely careful about protecting the public it serves and its reputation. Just because there is more data available than ever before doesn’t mean the government can use it in whatever way it sees fit too. Recent media leaves me questioning whether the APS is indeed a public service, or the government’s henchmen, ready willing and able to serve the government of the day no matter how unethically, inefficiently or ineptly policies are piecemealed together in the flurry of the media’s fleeting spotlight:
• http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-09/the-high-cost-of-taking-on-the-tax-office/9623416
As noted in the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia’s book, The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia (1993), whilst our Constitution provides that the legislative, executive and judicial powers are to be exercised as three branches, it does not detail the relationships between the three branches and how they are to operate in practice.
As Wikipedia notes, there is no constitutional system where there is a complete separation of powers – some overlap is inevitable – though a system of checks and balances has developed. However, scrutiny of the executive by the legislature is weakened by governing party numbers in lower house. This leaves legislative scrutiny in the hands of minor parties in the Senate, wielding greater influence and coercion than their representative purview justifies.
Perhaps this APS review needs to examine the limitations of the Constitution in supporting an APS that can provide an apolotical, professional, agile, innovative and efficient service.
And then there’s the whole relationship with state and territory governments …
Good luck with your review :-)