Chapter 4: The Values and relations with the Government and Parliament

Relations with the Government

The APS Values require that APS employees be responsive to the Government in providing frank, honest, comprehensive, accurate and timely advice, and in implementing government policies and programs. They are also required to be apolitical, impartial and professional, and openly accountable. A related requirement of the Code of Conduct is for APS employees to maintain appropriate confidentiality in dealings with Ministers and their offices, a critical factor for a relationship built on trust and cooperation.

Since last year’s State of the Service report, two Senate inquiries have examined aspects of the relationship between the APS and Ministers: the inquiry into a certain maritime incident and the recent inquiry into the operation of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984. The resulting reports, including majority and minority views, have both been tabled in Parliament. The Government has not yet responded to these reports.

Both the agency and employee surveys explored aspects of the relationship between the APS and the Government. The key results of both surveys are presented below.

Responsiveness to Ministers

In an attempt to gain a useful picture of an agency’s responsiveness to its Minister(s) in terms of providing frank, honest, comprehensive, accurate and timely advice and services, the agency survey asked agencies to advise on the quality control and evaluation measures they use.

Most agencies providing regular services to Ministers include in their portfolio budget statements target measures of the level and quality of those services, against which they report performance in their annual reports. This report does not attempt to summarise those performance results but to assess in general terms the adequacy of the quality control and evaluation measures being used, as reported in the agency survey. Sixty-one agencies reported providing regular (i.e. monthly or more often) services or advice to Ministers. Large agencies (95%) are much more likely to provide regular services or advice than medium (65%) or small agencies (56%).

Of the agencies that reported providing regular services or advice to Ministers, all 61 reported having at least one formal quality control or evaluation measure in place during 2002–03 to guide the services they provided. Well over half of these agencies (59%) reported having four or more measures in place; nine agencies reported having six or more measures in place (Australian Crime Commission (ACC), AGD, Aboriginal Hostels Limited (AHL), ATO, Customs, the Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST), Finance, the Office of National Assessments (ONA) and Treasury). However, two small agencies reported having no quality control measures in place and 14 agencies (four large, six medium and four small) reported having no evaluation measures in place during 2002–03.

The most common quality control measure reported was the specification of a minimum classification for signing off ministerial briefs (95% of relevant agencies). The other measures reported were a central function for the quality assurance and coordination of written material to and from Ministers’ offices (92%) and the specification of a minimum classification for telephone contact with ministerial advisers (43%).

The most common evaluation measure was some form of internal peer review to evaluate ministerial advice (54% of relevant agencies). The other measures reported were the use of a formal rating system to collect ministerial feedback (39%), a formal requirement that oral feedback is collected from ministerial advisers (25%) and a formal requirement that oral feedback is collected from the Minister (21%).

To assess whether any shift has occurred in the use of quality control and evaluation measures, last year’s responses from the 61 agencies that reported providing regular services to Ministers were examined. A comparison of the results shows that while there has been a slight increase in all of the quality control measures, the use of evaluation measures has altered significantly.¹ Figure 4.1 shows that internal peer review of ministerial briefs has increased (from 13 to 33 agencies) and oral feedback both from Ministers and ministerial advisers has decreased (43 to 18 agencies and 52 to 23 agencies respectively).²

It is not clear what is driving these changes. Oral feedback, of course, requires the active participation of Ministers and/or their advisers and the time required may not always be available. Nonetheless, the central role of the APS in advising and supporting Ministers suggests more effort is needed to gain regular feedback. Research in 2000 by Behm, Bennington and Cummane revealed a wide gap between the service standard sought by many Ministers and that being provided by their departments.³ Regular feedback is an essential element of any strategy to improve service and narrow this gap.

The need for regular feedback is also stressed by the ANAO in its better practice guide on managing parliamentary workflow.⁴ The guide is intended to assist agencies in their management of ministerial and parliamentary support arrangements. The 2003 guide updates the previous guide on this subject, released in 1999, and includes advice on feedback mechanisms.

Interactions with Ministers and ministerial ofices

As mentioned, 61 agencies provide regular services or advice to Ministers, and all reported having at least one formal measure in place to guide employees in their dealings with ministerial offices and/or evaluate the quality of services, with 93% having three or more measures.

Apart from the measures outlined above, most also report having explicit policies on recordkeeping. Seventy-nine per cent of relevant agencies report requiring that hard and/or electronic copies of significant email communication with advisers be retained on file. Sixty-nine per cent of relevant agencies require that file notes be made after significant discussions with Ministers or advisers, and 56% of relevant agencies require that oral briefing to Ministers or advisers be followed up by written briefing where appropriate.

Perhaps precisely because they interact with Ministers and their offices less frequently, medium and small agencies were more likely to have each of these three measures in place compared with large agencies. For example, 88% of medium agencies and 83% of small agencies reported having a formal requirement to retain copies of emails in place compared with 67% of large agencies. Further discussion of recordkeeping practices more generally is included in a separate section below.

According to the employee survey results, 26% of all APS employees had been in contact with Ministers or their advisers in the previous two years. The survey questionnaire did not define ‘contact’ or constrain it to substantial interactions, so responses may well include incidental contact such as providing straightforward technical information or information about constituents, preparing ministerials, through to high level policy advice. There is also no way of directly comparing the results to any past period. Nevertheless, the figure is surprisingly high, and indicates a far greater pervasiveness of interaction down and through the APS than is likely to have existed 10 or 20 years ago.

Eighty-eight per cent of SES employees, 47% of EL employees and 20% of APS 1–6 staff reported having had contact in the last two years. Contact is far higher in departments (37%) than other agencies (18%), and in the ACT (42%) than elsewhere (18%).

There is a mismatch between the policies reported by the 61 agencies providing regular services and advice to Ministers, and the awareness of these policies by the large number of their staff who have had direct contact in the last two years. Table 4.1 shows, for the 14 large agencies for which agency-specific results are available and that reported having these protocols in place, the results from the agency survey and the results from those employees who have had contact with ministerial offices. A sizeable proportion of those employees appear to be unsure about the existence of most protocols agencies report to be in place.

Of the agency-specific results available for 14 large agencies, the proportion of relevant employees (i.e. those who had had contact with ministerial offices in the last two years) who were aware of a requirement for a minimum classification level for signing off a ministerial brief ranged from 63% to 91%, and the proportion of employees who were not sure whether this requirement was in place or not in their agencies ranged from seven per cent to 37%. The large agencies with the highest level of employee awareness were FaCS, Health and DEWR. Overall, this is the measure that employees in large agencies are most likely to be aware of.

Table 4.1 Relevant employees’ awareness of protocols to guide interactions with ministerial offices—employees in large agencies that reported the protocol(s) in place

	Employee survey results (% range)
Measure	Number of large agencies with measure in place (max. 14)	Aware of protocol (%)	Not aware of protocol (%)	Not sure (%)
Requirement for minimum classification level for signing off ministerial briefs	14	63–91%	0–9%	7–37%
Requirement for a minimum classification level for phone contact with ministerial office advisers	2	31–74%	9–26%	17–44%
Requirement that oral briefing to Ministers or Ministers’ staff on key issues is confirmed in writing (including emails or follow-up minutes)	9	22–52%	0–26%	40–61%
Requirement that file notes are routinely made after significant phone calls or oral discussions with Ministers and ministerial advisers	9	30–79%	3–26%	17–55%
Requirement that significant email communications with ministerial advisers be retained	8	39–70%	0–15%	24–58%
Agreed processes for resolving staff concerns that may arise about the nature of requests from ministerial offices	7	12–64%	5–29%	32–59%

Note: The ranges provided are derived from agency-specific employee survey results of (up to) 14 large agencies that reported the protocol(s) in place. They do not include the APS-wide results.

Source: Employee survey

At the APS-wide level, the results indicate that lower level relevant employees are more likely to be unsure about whether such policies are in place compared to the SES. Lack of awareness of an agency protocol is not, of course, of particular concern if there is sufficient depth of understanding of the principles behind such protocols. Some of the comments included in responses to the employee survey provide support in this direction:

Whilst I’m unsure if the agency has protocols in place to handle the interactions mentioned above, at my level I would see that it was a requirement that all of the above was carried out.

While I don’t think my agency has formal protocols on many aspects of interaction with Ministers’ offices, it would be considered good standard practice in the area I work in…to follow these procedures.

I expect file notes or an email to be prepared in my branch on significant contact with advisers but this is not written down anywhere (as far as I am aware).

On the other hand, agencies should not be complacent in interpreting the results of the employee survey. In most cases, lower level employees are probably less likely to have a sufficient grasp of the related principles. Some employee comments are concerning:

I think the lack of formal protocols for communications with the Minister’s office in our agency is appalling. I regard the communications…to be very haphazardly organised.

It would seem that policies or protocols for interactions with Ministers and their offices need to be better promulgated amongst employees, particularly given the large numbers who do in fact deal with the offices. In improving this awareness, it is important that agencies do not cause any misunderstanding by Ministers or their advisers: the policies or protocols should be aimed clearly to enhance the quality of the services provided and to support APS employees in meeting their responsibilities for accountability. They should not impact adversely on timeliness, nor inhibit the provision of proactive and relevant advice.

Challenges in managing the relationship

The three APS Values (apolitical, impartial and professional; openly accountable; responsive to the Government) that define the relationship between the APS and the Government (and the Parliament) usually complement each other. There can sometimes, however, be tensions between them, and APS employees must learn how to achieve an appropriate balance that leaves all three Values being upheld to an acceptable degree.

As any current or former senior officer can attest, such challenges have never been infrequent: the interface between politics and administration has been the focus of public administration literature for at least the last century. They are to be expected in a relationship based on different roles and responsibilities.

The majority of employees (60%) who reported having had contact with their Ministers or ministerial advisers in the previous two years said they had not faced a challenge in balancing these values⁶ period. About one-third of employees said they had had such a challenge in the last two years. This figure is not particularly surprising. However, with many employees dealing with Ministers and their offices, where there are challenges they are being managed by a wide range of employees.

The good news is that the vast majority (67%) of those employees who have been in contact with Ministers or their advisers in the last two years felt highly or very highly confident that they could balance the APS Values appropriately, and only 11% had low or very low levels of confidence. Moreover, of those who reported they had faced a challenge in the last two years, the vast majority (69%) found that the action they took to resolve the challenge(s) was effective.⁵ Fourteen per cent found that the action they took was ineffective and 17% found it to be neither effective nor ineffective.

Confidence in balancing these Values does not appear to be related to age, gender, location (i.e. inside or outside the ACT), the size of the agency employees work for (i.e. small, medium or large) or the type of agency (department or otherwise). Confidence is correlated with some other factors, including:

• classification levels (confidence is highest amongst the SES, and is also reasonably high amongst junior staff (APS1–4)—perhaps because their contacts are more straightforward; EL staff are more likely to report low confidence than staff at other levels)
• whether employees had faced a challenge in balancing the Values (employees who had faced a challenge were less likely to have high confidence and more likely to have low confidence)
• overall job satisfaction (employees with a low overall job satisfaction rating were much more likely to have low or very low confidence and vice versa)
• familiarity with the APS Values (employees who reported being fully familiar with the APS Values were much more likely to be highly or very highly confident and much less likely to have low or very low levels of confidence when compared with employees who reported being familiar but not fully familiar with the APS Values)
• views on whether the most senior managers in their agency act in accordance with the APS Values (employees who reported that the most senior managers in their agency do not act in accordance with the Values were more likely to have moderate, low or very low than high or very high levels of confidence)
• views on whether their immediate manager acts in accordance with the APS Values (employees who reported that their immediate manager does not act in accordance with the Values were more likely to have moderate, low or very low than high or very high levels of confidence)
• awareness of agreed processes in place in their agency for resolving staff concerns that may arise about the nature of requests from ministerial offices (employees aware that such processes were in place in their agency were much more likely to have high or very high confidence levels compared with employees who were unaware or who thought that such processes did not exist in their agency).

Amongst the 14 large agencies, employee confidence levels varied. The proportion of employees in these large agencies with high or very high confidence levels ranged from 47% to 74%; and low or very low confidence ranged from seven per cent to 18%.

Whether or not an employee had faced a challenge of this nature does not appear to be related to their gender or the size of the agency they work for (i.e. small, medium or large). There was, however, a correlation between experiencing this situation and some other factors, including:

• location (employees who work in the ACT are more likely to have faced a challenge than those who work outside the ACT)
• classification level (SES were more likely to have faced a challenge than APS and EL level employees)
• nature of the agency (those in departments were more likely to have faced a challenge than those in other agencies)
• overall job satisfaction (employees with a low overall job satisfaction rating were more likely to report they had faced a challenge of this nature and vice versa).

Of the agency-specific results available for the 14 large agencies, results varied widely with no obvious pattern. The proportion of employees in these large agencies who reported having faced a challenge of this kind ranged from 23% to 48%.

The most common approaches employees reported using to deal with a challenge of this nature were:

• seeking advice from a supervisor (78%)
• seeking advice from a peer (66%).

Other approaches adopted included:

• seeking advice from a manager other than supervisor (48%)
• discussing with ministerial adviser (46%)
• referring to written guidance from agency (39%)
• seeking advice from agency’s corporate area (29%)
• taking decision without reference to others or written guidance (25%)
• referring to written guidance from APS Commission (18%).

Employees were asked to rate the effectiveness of the approaches they adopted to deal with challenges in balancing the relevant APS Values. The most effective approach was ‘taking decision without reference to others or written guidance’, with 84% of employees who used this approach rating it as ‘effective’ or ‘very effective’ and just 0.1% rating it as ‘ineffective’. The ratings of other approaches were:

• seeking advice from a supervisor (71% rating it as ‘effective’ and 14% rating it as ‘ineffective’)
• seeking advice from a manager other than supervisor (71% rating it as ‘effective’ and 16% rating it as ‘ineffective’)
• discussing with ministerial adviser (65% rating it as ‘effective’ and 12% rating it as ‘ineffective’)
• seeking advice from a peer (64% rating it as ‘effective’ and 11% rating it as ‘ineffective’)
• referring to written guidance from agency (58% rating it as ‘effective’ and 19% rating it as ‘ineffective’)
• referring to written guidance from the APS Commission (57% rating it as ‘effective’ and eight per cent rating it as ‘ineffective’).

It seems clear that when faced with challenges of this nature employees tend to seek advice from those around them and that generally this advice is regarded as being effective in resolving the challenge.

The challenge for agencies is to ensure that employees likely to deal with Ministers or their advisers have the confidence to manage the challenges that inevitably arise, and that they have available ready and reliable support from those around them and confidence that their immediate and most senior managers act in accordance with the Values. In addition, clear policies on protocols and a close relationship of trust and mutual respect between senior managers and Ministers and their advisers are essential prerequisites in this environment.

 

1 Please note that differences between questions in the 2001–02 agency survey and the 2002–03 agency survey may account for some of the variation.

2 This year’s results include agency responses to a question about formal requirements for oral feedback as well as information provided by agencies on less formal oral feedback arrangements.

3 A Behm, L Bennington and J Cummane, ‘A value-creating model for effective policy services’, Journal of Management Development, vol. 19, no. 3, 2000, pp. 162–178.

4 ANAO. Better Practice Guide on Managing Parliamentary Workflow. April 2003

5 A summary index was created from the results of the question in the employee survey on effectiveness of the action(s) taken to resolve challenges. The index ranges from zero (respondent considered that all types of action were very ineffective) to 10 (considered that all types of action were very effective). An index of 5 translates to a respondent considering, on average, that actions were neither effective or ineffective in resolving the challenge. For all relevant respondents to the employee survey the percentage with an effectiveness rating over 5 was 69%. The majority of respondents (67%) indicated that they took three or fewer types of action.

6 The employee survey question was ‘in the past 24 months, have you faced a challenge in balancing the need to be apolitical, impartial and professional, responsive to the Government and openly accountable (as per the APS Values) in dealing with Ministers and/or Ministers’ offices?’