Nicole Thorne-Vicatos

As a previous APS member, I welcome the opportunity to provide input into the exisiting establishment. I honestly hope that the review is entirely independent and reads the submissions with openness and interest, as the blurred lines between the responsibilities of management between the public service and the Australian Government is one of the major contributors to the negative state of play. Public servants are responsible for their actions in and outside of work which is understandable, however it does not appear to be the same for the serving politicians of the day. How many decisions made by SES are influenced by Ministers?
This introduces the next area of concern: the SES. I have looked through the submissions and noted the extremely high number of anonymous statements made by public servants. It would be reasonable to surmise that existing staff should be able to voice their concerns through their line of management, but this is not the case. The levels of nepotism, bullying and harassment and favouritism that are currently being practiced is disgusting in any workplace, but it is disgraceful when the Australian Government should be an employer of choice and also implements workplace legislation in the first place.
There has also been considerable discussion around the utilisation of consultants. The most glaring example of this could be hiring consultants to address strategic management issues. Isn’t the SES answerable for this? I am quite certain, SES interviewees would wax lyrical about their accomplishments in this area, but then seem incapable of implementation upon securing the position. The biggest sin of all is to not implement any of the report’s recommendations after having hired the consultants, drawn in staff to consult and share their stories (and once again be given false hope and fall even further behind in their tasks due to lack of resources and unachievable timeframes and workloads).
The other concern is the lack of planning, resources and support given to agencies to assist in the implementation of the 2020 Digital Transition Policy. Traditionally record keeping is the least desirable task to conduct and its importance to strategic management and legislative compliance is undervalued. How will a digital transition then have any opportunity to be implemented properly with dedicated and realistic resources when the only ROI that can be identified is the reduced amount of time it takes for document searches? Given that earlier academic research identifies a failure rate of 70% for edrms implementation in the public service, the 2020 policy should have been rolled out with the planning it required. Let’s not have another IT project initiated without some realistic targets and consultation from the people on the ground regardless of the level that the Agency has deemed them at. The world is now digital, but why not form solid foundations for the future instead of blindly seeking a level of compliance that is not attainable?
I was employed with the APS for 11 years and resigned after having experienced many negative interactions. I would be extremely interested in sharing these with an aim to improve for the future. I respect many public servants and the service they provide in their field to Australia and their influence to improve global situations. Regardless of public perceptions, the majority are not lazy or apathetic, but are dedicated and recognised as knowledge experts in their field. I understand why there is a negative reputation, but I also wonder if this is because of the constant negative workplace they may be experiencing each day regardless of the rhetoric identified in the code of conduct and legislation.