Improving policy design and service delivery

Two key responsibilities of the Australian Public Service (APS)—as set out in the APS Values—are to provide frank, honest, comprehensive, accurate and timely policy advice to the government and to deliver services fairly, effectively, impartially and courteously to the Australian public.

In a recent speech,¹ the Prime Minister spoke of the need for the APS to provide high- quality, forward-looking and creative policy advice and deliver high-quality programs and services that put the citizen first.

The Prime Minister also described the systemic challenges faced by today’s APS as:

[B]road in scope; deep in complexity, and confronting us at a time when new global, national and local forces of change are blowing across the shores of Australian public administration ... so complex in their causes, so shifting in their natures, so contentious in the arguments they provoke and so radical in the solutions they demand that they cannot be addressed improving policy design and service delivery with business as usual thinking.

Such problems, he went on to say, ‘require new, collaborative approaches to policy-making ... Above all, they require innovative, urgent and practical policy thinking—great ideas, but also ideas grounded in the real world’.

This chapter looks at measures to improve policy formulation, through a stronger focus on strategic policy development, encouraging more creative and innovative thinking, fostering collaboration, and placing citizens at the centre of policy design and service delivery.

Strategic policy development

To provide some initial context, the following gives a brief overview of the proportions of APS employees engaged in policy and service delivery functions:

• In 2009, the proportion of APS employees working overall in policy functions was 12%, with another 6% engaged in research.
• Around 20% of employees were engaged in service delivery or support functions for service delivery (previously 24%).
• As employees become more senior, they are less likely to be engaged in service delivery and more likely to be engaged in policy development. For SES employees, 38% nominated policy as their key function in the employee survey.
• Policy employees are concentrated in the ACT, while service delivery employees generally work in locations outside of Canberra.

Speaking about his expectations of policy advice from the APS, the Prime Minister said it must firstly be forward looking. As discussed in Chapter 4, ‘shapes strategic thinking’ has been consistently identified as one area requiring attention among senior executives, and particularly for the next most senior levels of public servants.

It appears that individual agencies are adopting strategies to boost their strategic policy capability. This includes establishing new units to focus on strategic policy, finding ways to build a stronger evidence base, ensuring detailed consideration of the choice of policy instruments, and finding ways to capture insights from the frontline.

The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) is taking the lead, and several other agencies have taken specific actions to boost capability in this area.

Building a strong evidence base is another key requirement for boosting strategic policy capability. While policy decisions are typically influenced by more than objective analysis—policy development is most often subject to competing vested and political interests, and can be driven by pressure to act quickly—evidence and analysis play a vital role in informing policy-makers’ judgements.²

Research and evaluation are critical to successful evidence-based policy-making and require employees skilled in quantitative methods and analytical thinking. Agencies need to develop a ‘research culture’. Establishing dedicated evaluation units, achieving a critical mass of researchers and strengthening links with academic and other research bodies, are all integral to this. As the Prime Minister said recently,³ there is a need to break down the walls between places of research and learning and places of policy-making and implementation in order to enhance the quality of public administration and the quality of academia.

Better use can also be made of external contracting, including paying close attention to defining the task and identifying how contractors can best help the APS make good public policy. Monitoring and reviewing the quality of external work is crucial. Ensuring adequate capacity is also dependent on government programs being designed and funded with future evaluation and review in mind.

When asked to select, from a list of 14 actions, the four most important actions that would help their agency prepare for future challenges, 20% of employees selected more strategic policy and research work. The responses ranged from selecting a culture within their agency where leaders engage with and mentor employees (42%) and more effective leadership (42%) to selecting a culture within their agency that supports greater levels of calculated risks being taken (13%). Twenty-four per cent of employees selected closer links between policy design and policy delivery.

Fifty-eight per cent of all employees agreed that their work requires an understanding of national and international trends. As would be expected, the proportions are much higher for SES and EL employees, at 95% and 73%, respectively.

Most employees (95%) who nominated ‘awareness of global context for issues’ as an important capability to remain effective in the APS of the future, thought their agency was supporting and building these capabilities moderately well or better.

In addition to understanding the evidence and their environment, policy-makers also need to think more broadly about the full range of policy instruments available, without necessarily limiting themselves to the types of policy instruments that have been used in a particular area in the past. While each of the main categories of policy instruments has something valuable to offer, they generally have limitations as a stand-alone strategy for government intervention, and no single instrument type works across-the-board. In many cases, better outcomes can be achieved through a well-selected combination of instruments.

For example, the Australian National Tobacco Strategy 2004–09 uses a comprehensive range of policy tools to reduce tobacco consumption, resulting in the effectiveness of the whole package being significantly greater than the sum of its parts. It includes command and control regulation, introduced by the Australian and state and territory governments, that regulates promotion, sale, place of use, and packaging of tobacco products. It also includes economic instruments, such as an excise tax on tobacco aimed at consumers. The resistance that may be generated by these measures (perceptions of curbing personal freedoms and intrusion by the ‘Nanny State’) is offset by a mix of instruments designed to promote attitudinal and behavioural change, including mass media messages encouraging people to quit smoking and advertising the benefits of being smoke-free.⁴

More strategic policy formulation also requires policy makers to understand how policy is implemented at the frontline. Both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of PM&C have called for the APS to link policy creation more closely to program implementation.

Innovative policy development and implementation

The Prime Minister’s call for more creative and innovative policy thinking by the APS is consistent with the government’s broader agenda for innovation. The government sees a role for the APS in leading the national innovation system by example by embracing new and better ways to develop policy, deliver services, and manage information. With this in mind, the government has, among other things, undertaken to:

• Use public procurement to drive research, innovation and technology development by Australian firms—building on the new Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines released in December 2008.
• Take steps to develop a more coordinated approach to Commonwealth information management, innovation, and engagement involving the Australian Government Information Management Office (AGIMO) and other federal agencies.
• Consider options for reforming the Australian patent system to increase innovation, investment and trade; and supporting intellectual property education for researchers and business.
• Use the Commonwealth, State and Territory Advisory Council on Innovation to improve intergovernmental coordination, starting with design and delivery of business programs.
• Increase the use of metrics, analysis, and evaluation to inform policy development and decision-making.

To progress the innovation agenda in the public service, the government established the Management Advisory Committee (MAC) Executive Committee project on enhancing innovation in the public sector, led by the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (DIISR). As part of that project, a discussion paper, Advancing Public Sector Innovation, was released in August 2009 calling for interested parties and individuals to provide written submissions on key issues, with a final report to be provided to MAC in November 2009.

The Australian National Audit Office is also developing a Better Practice Guide for public sector innovation that will provide case studies and information to help public sector agencies and their managers drive innovative practices. A Government 2.0 Taskforce has been established to look at the use of Web 2.0 technologies to increase online innovation in information sharing and public engagement. It too will report to government by the end of 2009.

Governments in other countries, and in other Australian jurisdictions, have also recognised the importance of fostering innovation, both at the national level and in respect of their public services, and are exploring various approaches in order to do so, including putting in place intermediaries or adopting workforce measures designed to promote innovation.

A high level conference comprising leaders from the public, private and research sectors in Canada, for example, recently discussed the role of innovation in improving outcomes for Canadians. The event highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of the country’s existing innovation system, and concluded that, without increased commitment to innovation Canada will be unable to maintain, let alone improve, its prosperity and global impact, and steps must be taken to address this situation. These steps include greater collaboration between sectors, particularly in turning creative ideas into services. The results of the discussions were published in Innovation Nation: Building a Culture and Practice of Innovation in Canada.⁵ Following on from this, a series of roundtables are being held to formulate a blueprint for innovation policy and practice in Canada.

In Victoria, the State Services Authority (SSA)⁶ has been looking at ways to build an innovation culture in the public service. The SSA identified key factors that enable an innovation culture as being:

• demand for innovation (the ‘pull’)
• a supply of workable and communicable ideas (the ‘push’)
• a means of connecting the two
• ongoing ability to learn and adapt.

The SSA suggests that innovation intermediaries may have an important role to play in enhancing innovation in public services, alerting governments to important successful developments, and to the kinds of policy environments that can support them. Innovation intermediaries may be organisations that are within, or closely aligned with, government departments or completely independent entities. The functions of innovation intermediaries have been listed as:

• diagnosis and problem definition
• expert consulting (expertise in innovation processes)
• enabling the sharing of professional experience and reflection
• brokering (matching with partners, creating fertile relationships)
• benchmarking (identifying leading practice in other organisations, sectors and countries)
• change agency (providing coaching, consultancy and training).

Regardless of the approach used, however, some important issues need to be addressed.

Innovation and accountability

In today’s environment, public servants are being asked to be more innovative, yet in many cases they resort to traditional problem solving techniques due to the constraints of a one-size-fits-all accountability and performance management framework.

There is no doubt that accountability to government, parliament and the public is the defining feature of public service. Rules-based accountability systems and standard operating procedures evolved as means of reducing the incidence of corruption, nepotism and waste, and in order to help public servants do their jobs properly. However, the problem today is that rules and procedures can slow decision-making and constrain the choices available to decision-makers when they are confronted by new or unusual circumstances.

Innovation, on the other hand, usually involves risk. In the public sector, where there is a high level of scrutiny of how things are done and a resultant aversion to risk-taking, the disadvantages of taking that risk can be perceived to outweigh the possible benefits of success. A key challenge for the APS is to improve accountability in a manner that does not constrain its ability to provide advice and services in an innovative and agile way.

Accountability issues are considered further in ‘Overcoming barriers to collaboration’ below.

Building an innovation culture

To foster more creative policy design the APS needs to build a culture that supports and encourages innovation.

Last year’s State of the Service report found that while employees had a strong desire to work flexibly and to try new ideas, they felt their agency, and the APS more generally, did not provide the best environment for innovation. While more positive indications are evident this year, it appears the APS still has some way to go toward providing a fertile environment for innovation.

Employee perceptions of APS and agency culture when it comes to supporting innovation and flexible working showed some improvement this year. The percentage of employees reporting that the APS discourages risk-taking decreased, 36% agreed (compared to 39% last year) and 23% disagreed (compared to 20% last year). Just over half (54%) indicated that their agency encourages them to examine what they do and find ways to do it better, and 52% agreed that their agency encourages innovation and development of new ideas (17% disagreed). These results are better than last year (when 46% agreed that innovation and new ideas were encouraged and 21% disagreed). However, they still raise concerns about the lack of incentives to pursue innovation and new ideas. Figure 6.1 shows a comparison of employee views on innovation and improving the way things are done.

On the subject of innovation, and consistent with last year’s results, SES employees were considerably more positive than other employees. For instance, 77% of SES employees agreed that their agency encouraged employees to examine what they do and find ways to do it better, as opposed to 54% of EL and 53% of APS 1–6 employees. Seventy-three per cent of SES agreed that their agency supported innovation and new ideas, compared to 55% of EL and 50% of APS 1–6 employees.

Newer employees (those with less than 5 years’ experience) have shown marked improvements in their responses to whether the public service discourages risk taking (39% thought so last year, compared with 33% this year) and whether their agency encourages them to find ways to do things better (57% this year, compared with 52% last year). While these improved results are encouraging, the fact remains that only around half of all employees agreed that their agency encourages innovation and development of new ideas, and finding ways to do things better. Around 30% of employees were ambivalent on these questions. There is room for improvement.

Leadership and innovation

Leaders and managers who provide clear expectations and due recognition of employees’ efforts have a key role in building an organisational culture that encourages innovation.

Last year’s State of the Service report demonstrated a link between effective leadership communication in an agency and an innovation culture. Seventy-one per cent of employees who agreed there was effective communication with senior leaders in their agency also agreed their agency encouraged innovation and development of new ideas. This year’s comparable result was even stronger (74%).

Other gains in this area were achieved in 2008–09. When asked whether their manager encourages and manages innovation, 60% of employees agreed (up from 55% in 2007–08) and only 15% disagreed (down from 17% in 2007–08). Similarly, 53% of EL 2 and SES employees agreed that the SES in their agency encouraged innovation and creativity (up a substantial 10% from 43% in 2007–08).

Looking to the future, the number of employees who nominated an agency culture that supports greater levels of calculated risk-taking as an important action needed in preparation for future challenges declined markedly from 28% last year to just 13% this year, pointing to possible improvement in this area.

Collaborative policy development and implementation

Public services around the world have recognised the need to work with a broad mix of stakeholders to manage complex and interconnected problems of public policy. For the APS, enhancing collaboration is another key element for ensuring better policy-making.

Collaboration across government—using COAG

Taking a whole of government approach means working effectively across APS, state and territory, and local government boundaries. During 2008–09, there was a continued emphasis on using the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) to address new and emerging challenges, including implementing responses to the global financial crisis. In this regard, the Prime Minister called on APS leaders to ‘appreciate that we are in a new era of Commonwealth/State cooperation’.⁹

Significant progress was made through COAG on the priorities agreed in December 2007, which included health and ageing; the productivity agenda, including education, skills, training and early childhood, climate change and water; infrastructure; business regulation and competition; housing and Indigenous reform. Four of seven cross government working groups, established to agree and progress national strategies in these areas, have now been disbanded; their tasks complete.

The Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations (November 2008) also changed the funding arrangements for federal payments to the states and territories. The COAG Reform Council is to monitor and assess the performance of jurisdictions in relation to each of the National Agreements and to report to COAG annually.

During 2009, COAG was used as a key vehicle to support work associated with the rollout of government measures to respond to the global financial crisis. At the February 2009 meeting, new Coordinator-General positions were established to oversee implementation of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. The Coordinators-General have been reporting at subsequent COAG meetings on the plan’s progress.

A Coordinator-General for Remote Indigenous Services has also been appointed, with responsibility for eliminating bureaucratic blockages and red tape, as well as making sure services are delivered in remote communities.

Coordinated arrangements have continued to be relied on to underpin implementation of the Closing the Gap strategy for Indigenous Australians, including providing support for the Northern Territory Emergency Response. New Government Business Managers have played an important leadership role in coordinating Australian Government work at the community level and in enabling stronger local engagement in implementing government reforms.

Additional initiatives to improve collaboration across government

Other collaborative arrangements have been put in place to support activities across a range of different government agencies.

MAC agencies were asked to report on initiatives undertaken to improve collaboration across government. The responses (a sampling of which are highlighted below) indicated a strong recognition of the importance of collaborative approaches in meeting future challenges and that a range of initiatives are underway to aid information sharing and improve collaboration.

Agency consultation

Consultation is an integral part of any type of collaboration. The extent to which agencies consult with external stakeholders (i.e. outside their home department) in government policy development, program delivery, and regulation is a good indicator of progress towards more collaborative government. Interaction with non-government stakeholders is discussed in ‘Agency experience of working with external stakeholders’ and ‘Employee experience of working with external stakeholders’ below. This analysis focuses solely on reported interactions with other APS agencies and other levels of government in Australia.

As in previous surveys, agencies were asked whether they consulted formally with other APS, state and/or territory and local government agencies when developing government policy, program delivery and regulation. Figure 6.2 compares the 2008–09 results for all three areas with last year’s results.

The results suggest minor changes in levels of regular consultation by agencies since last year. However, consultation with local government agencies has increased across the board.

Collaboration in service delivery

Agencies also reported on delivery of services to the public in collaboration with other government agencies, including state and territory and local government agencies. Seventy- six per cent of all APS agencies indicated delivering services in collaboration with other government agencies. Fifty-seven per cent of small agencies, 78% of medium and all large agencies reported operating this way.

Employee experience of collaboration across government

Working with other government agencies has become an integral part of work for many APS employees. Most such interactions are among SES and EL employees, and in 2008–09:

• 72% of SES and EL employees reported that during the last 12 months, their job required them to deal directly with people from other Australian government agencies (78% in 2006–07)
• 35% reported that their job required them to deal directly with people from state or territory public service agencies (38% in 2006–07)
• 12% reported that their job required them to deal directly with people from local government agencies (11% in 2006–07).

While these figures generally represent a fall in previously recorded levels of interaction, it is clear that working across agency and jurisdictional boundaries is an important component of work at senior APS levels.

In aggregate, the results for 2008–09 suggest that just under one-fifth of employees interact with other government agencies. However, this is likely to be an under-representation of the total extent of intergovernmental interactions as it does not include interactions within the APS 1–6 levels.

Although contact is widespread among SES and EL employees, participation in formal intergovernmental and multi-agency forums is much lower. In 2008–09, only 38% of these employees participated in formal whole of government structures, 6% in COAG working groups, 24% in other cross-jurisdictional working groups, and 21% in ‘long lasting joint teams that blend functions across portfolios’.

Overcoming barriers to collaboration across government

To comprehend the quality of interactions across government, and to understand some of the impediments to working in this way, SES and EL employees who had been involved in cross-agency forums were asked a series of questions on their own agency’s support for participation in cross-agency and intergovernmental forums. Table 6.1 sets out SES and EL employees’ responses and compares them to responses from 2006–07.

Consistent with 2006–07 results, employees this year were most positive about the ability of EL and SES employees, and other key employees in their agency, to collaborate effectively with other APS agencies (although to a lesser degree than in 2006–07).

Also consistent with the 2006–07 results were areas where employees considered agency systems least supportive of collaborative work; they were in ICT, financial and accountability arrangements, and the adequacy of rewards and recognition. Only 27% of SES and EL employees, who had dealt directly with people from other public service agencies during the last 12 months, agreed that current financial and accountability arrangements usually facilitated whole of government work. A further 28% said these arrangements rarely did so (compared with 22% in 2006–07).

Employee comments provided through the 2008–09 survey amplified these concerns, referring to, for example, incompatibilities driven by:

• different program foci and different stages of ICT development or renewal in agencies
• difficulties in sharing information due to information privacy or ICT issues
• collaboration with other agencies being restricted to very senior levels, leading to inefficiencies and misunderstandings
• lack of commitment to whole of government approaches by middle management.

Another important disincentive for supporting cross-agency outcomes is the practice of rewarding employees for their individual or team results rather than for any cross-agency outcomes, which are both more difficult to achieve and less valued in the current incentive structure.

Table 6.1 Employee experience of agency initiatives to support collaborative government activities

Initiative	% EL and SES employees who experience (often or usually) 2007	% EL and SES employees who experience (often or usually) 2009
(a) The definitions of ‘cross-agency forums’ were not identical for 2006–07 and 2008–09. Source: Employee survey
Agencies' information and communications technology (ICT) systems are sufficiently compatible	38	29
Financial and accountability arrangements facilitate whole of government work	29	27
Your agency's performance management system adequately recognise/reward whole of government work	32	35
Other agencies are willing to collaborate to achieve whole of government outcomes	52	53
SES employees in your agency collaborate effectively with other APS agencies	67	58
EL employees in your agency collaborate effectively with other APS agencies	78	71
Key employees in your agency have the necessary capabilities to work effectively with other APS agencies	77	71

The State of the Service report has for some time identified the existence of systemic issues that have the potential to constrain progress in using whole of government and more collaborative approaches, to underpin policy design and service delivery.

The Commission’s recent publication, Delivering Performance and Accountability, considered whether less traditional ways of working are constrained by current accountability and performance management arrangements, and concluded that they need refining to allow for more flexible approaches and provide more scope for APS employees to take acceptable risks in pursuit of innovation.

Moves are already underway to address these challenges through reform of financial and performance management arrangements. As well, the Advisory Group on Reform of Australian Government Administration has identified improved performance measurement as an issue under consideration.

Under Operation Sunlight, the government has emphasised improved transparency of public sector budgetary and financial management, including consistency of financial reporting across government agencies and through introduction of program-level reporting in the 2009–10 Federal Budget.

An additional outcome of Operation Sunlight is that the Department of Finance and Deregulation (Finance) is expected to include, in its advice to agencies, support for ensuring individual SES employees’ performance agreements have regard to achieving relevant outcomes, outputs and Key Performance Indicators as reported.¹⁰ Better alignment of individual performance management arrangements, including to underpin cross-agency outcomes, is likely to help ameliorate some of the cultural issues employees identified in terms of poor support for whole of government and collaborative initiatives.

Through Finance’s Strategic Budget Reviews, it also has the capacity to assess how cross- agency initiatives are being implemented; for example, reviews of Climate Change and of Grants Administration have been undertaken.

Whether employees consider themselves—and their fellow employees—as being primarily attached to the APS more broadly, or to individual agencies, is important for ensuring effective collaboration. As reported in Chapter 4, when asked whether they consider themselves part of a broader APS-wide leadership group, 39% of SES employees said ‘definitely’, 44% ‘somewhat’ and 17% ‘no’. The proportion of those who did not consider themselves part of a wider group increased from around 10% in 2007–08 to the current figure of 17%.

APS and EL employees were also asked whether they considered the SES in their agency to be part of the wider APS leadership group. These employees have consistently produced lower positive views about this than have the SES themselves. Nonetheless, consistent with the trend identified in the SES responses, the proportion of these employees reporting ‘no’ has increased, up four percentage points from last year and down 2 percentage points on those reporting ‘definitely’ from 2007–08. This is also consistent with the trends noted with respect to collaboration across government where the proportion of SES and EL employees reporting that the SES collaborate effectively with other APS agencies has fallen from 67% in 2007–08 to 58% in 2008–09.

A similar question was asked of all employees—that is, whether they consider themselves to be primarily an APS employee or an employee of their agency. Forty-one per cent of employees identified as primarily APS employees, while 59% identify more strongly with their own agency. These results have been consistent over five years and offer a reliable indication of how employees view themselves in terms of their employer. They also indicate that efforts to promote ‘one APS’ may have had limited traction.

Executive Level employees, much more than either SES or APS employees, continue to align themselves with their agency rather than the broader APS. This year, 63% of EL employees identified as primarily employees of their agency, while only 57% of APS employees and 51% of SES did so. These results have been consistent over some years, and are of concern given the key role of EL employees in designing and delivering government policy, as well as in fostering agency culture and comprising the key group from which future leaders are drawn.

Agency experience of working with external stakeholders

Working with a range of stakeholders outside government is important for strengthening policy formulation and service delivery.

Agencies were asked to provide details on the extent and type of consultation they undertook with external stakeholders. Specifically, they were asked whether they consulted formally with other external stakeholders on development of government policy, program delivery and government regulation. Figure 6.3 compares the results for all three areas with last year’s data.

Consultation with external stakeholders on program delivery is the most common type of consultation undertaken. The stakeholder group most frequently consulted was industry, followed by non-government organisations, such as community groups, environment groups and charities. The data also shows an increase in consultation on policy with members of the public between 2007–08 and 2008–09. Other, less frequently consulted groups, not shown in Figure 6.3, are international organisations and peak and professional bodies.

Employee experience of working with external stakeholders

Previous State of the Service surveys asked all employees about their experience of working with external stakeholders. This year, the survey focused on SES and EL employees, as much of the more complex liaison and negotiation is done at these levels. As a result, findings from this year’s survey cannot be directly compared to previous findings, which include APS level employees in the results. Table 6.2 shows the proportions of SES and EL employees who report working with various external stakeholder groups.

Table 6.2 Proportions of SES and EL employees working with external stakeholder groups

External Stakeholder	% of respondents
Source: Employee survey
Industry stakeholders	48
Other contractors or consultants	47
Tertiary education and/or research groups	26
Outsourced service providers	24
Groups representing communities	20
Other non-government organisations	20
Citizens	20
Unions	9
None of the above	25

The results demonstrate a high level of interaction between APS agencies and nongovernment external stakeholders for this group. Employees are working directly with ‘industry stakeholders’ (48%) and ‘other contractors and consultants’ (47%). This group also reports significant interaction with citizens (20%), noting, however, the scope of such interactions could span responding to citizen correspondence, rather than a direct exchange of views in person.

There appears to be a connection between higher levels of job satisfaction and higher levels of interactions with external stakeholders. Eighty-three percent of employees with higher levels of interactions with external stakeholders reported high levels of job satisfaction.

Employees who reported working directly with external stakeholders were asked to indicate the types of interactions they were having. Figure 6.4 demonstrates the level of different types of interactions.

As would be expected, the main types of interactions were liaising and attending meetings with stakeholders. However, substantial contact was also reported relating to negotiation on policy positions and issues; developing and clarifying roles in contracts, programs and projects; and agreeing stakeholder contract, project and program deliverables. These types of interactions suggest significant collaboration among APS agencies and external stakeholders.

Figure 6.5 sets out relevant employee responses to selected agency objectives in working with external stakeholders to examine how successful collaborative activities have been.

Despite achievement of outcomes in a relatively high number of cases, there may be some value in agencies looking for further opportunities to share information and to involve stakeholders, within the limits of government confidentiality and their capacity to support such involvement.

Building capability in this area may also be of value. Sixty-two per cent of employees identified the ability to ‘nurture internal and external relationships, facilitating cooperation and partnerships’ as the third most important capability they need to remain effective in the APS of the future. The ‘ability to survive and deliver in a rapidly changing environment’ was ranked first (73%), leadership and management skills second (65%), and the ability to harness information and opportunities fourth (56%).

Commenting on the sorts of things that would improve their ability to engage with external stakeholders, SES and EL employees focused particularly on the need for resources to carry out this function effectively and the authority of employees involved in interactions to make decisions on behalf of the agency. Some of the specific issues raised included the challenge for regional employees of engaging an agency’s head office in local issues, the need for middle managers to put into practice the messages about valuing external relationships espoused by senior management, and the difficulties presented by a lack of funds for interstate travel to meet with stakeholders.

Other comments noted the difficulties in releasing some information, the effects of agency culture on the ability or willingness to work with external stakeholders, and a need for greater coordination in and among APS agencies when working in this way.

Focusing on citizens

During the past year, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of PM&C and the former Australian Public Service Commissioner have publicly outlined the importance of placing the citizen at the centre of policy design and service delivery. In its mid-term progress report,¹¹ one of the ways the government committed to preparing Australia for the challenges of the future was through ‘implementing a new way of governing that is more open, accountable and in touch with the community’. The Prime Minister called for public servants, from portfolio secretaries in Canberra to frontline workers across the country in agencies such as Centrelink, to work tirelessly to put the citizen at the heart of everything they do.¹²

Globally, public administration over the last 20 years has been making a concerted effort to improve the relationship between governments and citizens. The objectives may differ—to strengthen democracy, to enhance accountability, or to improve service delivery—and the drivers have differed, as has the role of the citizen—from user to collaborator to partner. What has not changed is the focus on putting the citizen at the centre.

As a leading public administration academic has noted, ‘endowing citizens with a voice to articulate their values and their preferences in relation to the issues that most affect them will likely remain a central tenet of any public sector reform in the 21st century’.¹³

Work done for MAC has identified a number of principles that would guide agencies in pursuing more citizen-centred approaches, namely:

• a commitment to excellence in service delivery
• a detailed understanding of citizen needs and expectations, which should inform service design and delivery
• easy access to services
• collaboration and partnerships between agencies, across governments and with the private and community sectors to improve the quality of services for citizens
• common standards across agencies with respect to business processes and supporting infrastructure
• the public service being held accountable for achieving outcomes for citizens.

These principles are consistent with the findings of a recent study released in the United Kingdom, Putting Power in People’s Hands: Learning from the World’s Best Public Services,¹⁴ which identifies a number of factors that lie behind the ‘power shift’ that can change the relationship between citizens and state, and frontline and centre around the world.

The three principal ways in which the agenda to put citizens at the centre is progressing across the APS are: engaging citizens in design and delivery of policy and services, which is leading to collaboration in service delivery; giving citizens a greater voice through social inclusion; and measuring how satisfied citizens are with the quality of the services they receive from government.

Citizen engagement

Centrelink and Medicare Australia have already made significant strides in delivering frontline services focused on the customer, and more recently the e-Government Strategy  has enabled citizens to lodge tax returns and complete the Census online, and use a portal to link their online log-ins for Medicare Australia, Centrelink and Child Support Agency services.

The current review of Australia’s taxation system¹⁵ is a good example of citizen engagement in policy formulation. The chair of the review, Dr. Ken Henry, stated at the outset that he wanted to approach issues from the perspective of citizens. Public participation meetings were held across Australia, with over 50% of submissions received, responding to a discussion paper, coming from individuals. These have been analysed and summarised, and released as part of an ongoing process that will continue up until the government receives the report and takes its decisions.

Many other agencies provided examples of how they are engaging with citizens and the community to improve the quality of service delivery.

The Prime Minister has demonstrated the government’s commitment to engaging with the community, through initiatives like the Australia 2020 Summit (the Prime Minister released the government response to the summit during 2009) and Community Cabinet meetings, which give people in the community an opportunity to meet Cabinet members in person and ask questions directly about issues that are important to them.

The increasing use of ICT provides further opportunities for agencies to engage and involve citizens and communities in innovative ways. The Prime Minister’s website was redesigned during the year and is a good example of how social networking tools, such as live web chats, blogs, twitter and video footage can be used to inform and engage visitors to the site.

This year, agencies were asked whether they officially use social media and networking tools in engaging with external stakeholders. Twenty-six agencies reported doing so. Of these, 54% reported using Facebook in that context, as well as You Tube (50%), Twitter (38%) and My Space (11%).

Agencies were also asked about guidance provided to employees in the use of these tools. Approaches varied from specific protocols being issued or being developed to a reliance on existing policies on email and Internet usage, or reliance on interim protocols for online media participation issued by the Commission in December 2008, and recently updated.

These online tools are likely to play an increasing role in future interactions between the APS and the community, and it is important for agencies to explore and harness their potential benefits. Some associated risks need to be managed; for example, once online material is in the public domain, agencies have little control or influence over how it might be used or modified. These issues are discussed further in Chapter 8.

While several agencies noted that the use of these tools is in the early or trial stages and it was too soon to meaningfully gauge how effective they are, a number of agencies indicated they had already achieved positive results.

For example, ATO reported using Twitter as an intelligence-capturing tool, which proved successful in monitoring community acceptance of new policy campaigns. DBCDE hosted an online blog in December 2008 to facilitate public consultation on its consultative draft paper on Digital Economy Future Directions, which attracted 2,041 contributions from the public. DBCDE received 110 formal online submissions to its Digital Economy Future Directions consultative discussion paper.

AGIMO, a business group of Finance, undertakes a range of activities designed to improve the online access of citizens to government services and resources. One report of particular relevance is Interacting with Government: Australians’ Use and Satisfaction with e-Government Services—December 2008.¹⁶ This is the fourth report in a series of annual reports that monitor the level of community satisfaction with, and uptake of, APS e-government services. When the first study was released in 2005, overwhelmingly, Australians made contact with government in person. In 2008, the Internet was the most   common way people last made contact with government. While the Internet is an integral way of delivering government services, governments need to recognise that channel choice is driven by convenience. Agencies must appreciate that while security is an underlying issue for people, convenience is the dominant factor influencing the choice about how and when to contact government. Governments still need to provide telephone and in-person channels as well as the Internet.

The Government 2.0 Taskforce has been formed against this backdrop of increased interest by the APS and governments worldwide in the potential uses of public sector information and online engagement. In the United States, President Obama made online engagement a theme of his 2008 election campaign and has indicated his desire to take a similar approach to government itself. In the United Kingdom, the Brown Government’s Power of Information Taskforce has recommended sweeping reforms to how the civil service publishes, manages and engages with information. There are similar developments in other jurisdictions.¹⁷

The Government 2.0 Taskforce will provide a final report on its activities to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation and the Cabinet at the end of 2009.

Social inclusion

Giving citizens a greater voice, combined with greater responsibility, is one of the government’s Principles for Social Inclusion. For the APS, this means providing opportunities for citizens and community groups to identify their needs and give feedback about the design and delivery of policies and programs. Detailed feedback from users and community members and genuine and inclusive consultation are important sources of information to improve policy settings and service delivery.

A social inclusion approach promotes partnerships between all levels of government, business and third sector organisations (non-profits and charities) to produce multifaceted and coordinated responses to entrenched disadvantage.

Publications such as the Principles for Social Inclusion and the Social Inclusion Policy Design and Delivery Toolkit are designed to guide APS employees on how the agenda applies to their work and encourage a greater focus on the needs of disadvantaged groups and places.

Several agencies have also established specific work areas to focus on progressing the social inclusion agenda. The Commission has also been exploring ways of supporting the social inclusion agenda. During 2009, the Commission staged its EL Leadership Network Annual Forum event on the topic of New Leadership, Fresh Approaches—Advancing the Social Inclusion Agenda.

Measuring citizen satisfaction

Over the last decade the APS has focused on improving the quality of service delivery in all areas where it interacts with the public. This has included introduction of a requirement that all APS agencies with public contact embrace service charters. Seventy-two per cent of agencies reported having a service charter in place while 19% reported it was not applicable, as they had no public contact.

Measuring the quality of services is a key factor in improving them. Eighty-four per cent of agencies that had public contact reported identifying quantifiable performance indicators or service standards for the quality of services they provided to the public (73% last year). Ninety-seven per cent of these agencies report against these indicators and standards in their annual reports and 98% report to internal management structures. Ninety-five per cent of these agencies report to internal service delivery units/teams and 65% report as a component of a balanced scorecard or equivalent approach.

Agencies with public contact also use a range of public feedback mechanisms (see Figure 6.6). The most popular feedback mechanisms are liaison with peak bodies (95%), complaints/feedback website link (92%), survey(s) of service users (84%), and complaints/ feedback phone hotline (83%).

Agency consultation with stakeholders on different activities is well entrenched in the APS. Groups consulted included non-government organisations, industry stakeholders, tertiary education and research centres, other APS agencies, state and territory governments, local government, unions and members of the public.

Most agencies that collect feedback from the public have mechanisms to ensure it is fed into service delivery improvements (see Figure 6.7). Similar to last year, relevant agencies were most likely to integrate feedback into decision-making processes to improve programs/ systems; 82% of relevant agencies reported doing so often.

While service delivery agencies themselves are collecting feedback, there is not yet a coordinated approach across the APS to sourcing feedback from external stakeholders, such as the Kiwis Count Survey in New Zealand, aimed at assessing New Zealanders’ views of public sector service delivery. This issue has also been raised as a matter for consideration in the discussion paper issued by the Advisory Group on Reform of Australian Government Administration.

Key chapter findings

Policy formulation and delivery in the 21st century takes place in an increasingly challenging, complex and interconnected environment. If the APS is to rise to future challenges, it must aspire to be the best public service in the world, characterised by provision of high-quality, forward-looking and creative policy advice and delivery of high-quality programs and services that put the citizen first.

Critically, it must enhance the quality of policy advice to government, fostering innovative, urgent and practical policy thinking.

This year’s employee survey results reflect a positive shift towards closing the gap between employees’ willingness to be innovative and how well their agencies are supporting them in this regard. While these improved results are encouraging, the fact remains that only around half of all employees believe their agency encourages innovation and development of new ideas, and finding ways to do things better. Around 30% of employees were ambivalent on these questions. Clearly, the APS is still a long way from having a culture of innovation.

To meet future challenges the APS will also need to adopt more collaborative approaches to policy-making and service delivery. While a decrease in the reported level of cross- government collaboration taking place was evident, there appears to be significant effort directed at working with other government partners and engaging with other key groups of stakeholders.

However, individual employees continued to identify some issues as constraints on their ability to work well in a whole of government context. In particular, still perceived as relatively poor were agency support through ICT, the performance and accountability framework, and individual performance management systems that adequately recognise and reward whole of government work.

Agencies reported on a variety of measures to boost information sharing across the APS and with other stakeholders, as well as implementation of cross-agency initiatives to underpin the government’s reform agenda.

Agencies also reported continuing high levels of consultation with external stakeholders, most frequently in relation to program delivery.

Service delivery agencies are continuing to improve delivery of frontline services focused on citizens. This is supported by the e-Government Strategy and there is scope for agencies to further coordinate their efforts to realise this goal. Moving to a stronger citizen focus across policy formulation and service delivery has been identified as a key priority in the discussion paper issued by the Advisory Group on Reform of Australian Government Administration.

NEXT » Working more efficiently in a tight fiscal environment