Home page
> About the Commission > Public Service Commissioner > Speech
> Management Advisory Committee
> Media
‹ Previous page

Building the reputation of the Australian Public Service

Comcover’s 2006 Senior Executive Forum

When our Risks become Public: The Challenging Nature of Reputation Risk Management

Presentation by Lynelle Briggs, Australian Public Service Commissioner, 31 August 2006

I am very pleased to be here this morning to talk on risk management and in particular, reputation management. There would be few, if any, public or private sector managers over the last 20 years who have not accepted risk management to be as essential as budgeting, marketing and project development, and Comcover can be proud of its important role in this recognition in the APS. What is more recent is the emphasis we are all now placing on reputation.

My agency, the Australian Public Service Commission is currently refining our own risk management framework. One of the most common consequences identified by the different groups as they identify risks is the potential threat to the Commission’s reputation = how we look.

Most of us working in government are only too aware of the risks and the difficulties we face in managing our image in a very “information rich” world where any bad news spreads fast—much faster than our achievements.

Even last month while the Australian Government successfully co-ordinated the movement of large numbers of Australian citizens out of Lebanon in what was effectively a war zone many thousands of miles away, the media focussed on the minor hiccups—“the double booking” and individual claims that the response was not instantaneous.

This morning I want to reflect on reputation and what it means to the APS. This naturally leads in to the challenges facing the public service in maintaining our reputation, and how we can best manage risk and maintain a reputation for delivering high quality outcomes for the Australian community.

The importance of reputation for the APS

I am on the record as saying that the Australian Public Service is the best public service in the world. I believe we compare well against most measures of government and public sector performance.

We have a good reputation; by this I mean that the APS generally has a good name and a good standing in the community, and a particularly good standing overseas. It’s a shame that that very high international standing is not always recognised locally and that we sometimes let our reputation down.

The APS’s integrity and reputation should be acknowledged as tangible assets. This is because how we’re seen and perceived affect people’s belief in our competency, our trustworthiness, and the quality of the services we deliver. They also affect what Ministers think of us, and how seriously they accept our advice.

What the community thinks of us affects how well we operate and how well we can deliver outcomes for the Government and the Australian community. Our reputation:

affects the readiness of the community to embrace government programmes and initiatives, and the take up rate of the services that public servants delivers;
it affects our relationship with the Government and ultimately whether the Government continues to trust the APS to deliver core government services;
it also affects our international reputation;
it affects how our staff feel about working in the public service and in their agencies, and how engaged they are with the work they do; and
it affects our ability to recruit quality people, which is increasingly important as the labour market tightens.

I could go on, but the point is that our identity and reputation are matters of substance and can, and do, impact directly on almost everything we do.

Community interaction with the public sector

Our reputation in the general community is influenced by changes in the environment in which we operate. Community expectations of the public sector have changed. The community now expects, and deserves, smooth seamless service delivery – in other words, they want easy and simple access to government services.

Nevertheless, the answers to the really tricky problems facing governments today are not easy. They challenge our best researchers and policy makers and are usually multi-faceted with long lead times before policy responses take effect. But we are expected to implement responses at a much faster speed than previously; there is an increasing emphasis on providing an instantaneous response.

Against this background, I believe that the public service is more open and accessible to business and the community, and more accountable than it has ever been. Our capacity to build and sustain a reputation of quality and responsiveness in an environment of such high expectations is inevitably challenging.

The need for strategies to build and maintain reputation to form an integral part of our risk management frameworks has never been higher.

Damage to reputation

Any discussion of reputation and risk management has to acknowledge that a number of high profile incidents have resulted in a degree of damage to the reputation of some individual APS agencies, and to the public service more broadly.

We can remember incidents in Defence over the last few years, including the Senate report into military justice; the debate over defence spending on the submarines; and, more recently, the sad situation arising from the death of an Australian soldier in Iraq.

We can also recall the aged care problems highlighted by reports of kerosene baths and other abuses in aged care facilities.

There has been community debate over the abolition of ATSIC and ATSIS, and concerns over service delivery to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

DFAT is in the media, with the Cole Inquiry’s scrutiny of the AWB and speculation over the extent of involvement of Government members and APS employees.

Centrelink is facing scrutiny as it takes action against staff who have ignored its strong requirements for the protection of the privacy of individual records.

And of course, there were the mistakes that gave rise to the handling of Cornelia Rau and Vivian Alvarez by the then Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and which were highlighted in the subsequent Palmer and Comrie reports.

There have of course been incidents in other departments, and I do not mean to single out the agencies I have mentioned for particular attention today. The problems that have been highlighted in all of these cases are not necessarily isolated to individual agencies, and for all of us in the APS I think there is a need to recognise “there but for the grace of God go I”.

I don’t mean to excuse our problems, but I think it is important that we recognise that we are only human – we make mistakes and we make wrong assumptions; sometimes our processes let us down; we may not always know the right thing to do in any given circumstances; and we are often under pressure due to resourcing shortfalls, short timeframes, or bosses who don’t help us enough to do our jobs properly.

The sad fact, though, is that it can take years to repair damage to reputation caused by a high profile failure in an organisation. These incidents can fundamentally destabilise agency culture and the ability to achieve business objectives. We can recover, but along the way there is inevitably dissatisfaction, resentment and uncertainty among our staff, clients and other key stakeholders.

I have to be frank; the APS is not a perfect institution. But I must stress that the APS is not alone—the private sector has its One-tels, its HIHs, and its National Australia banks.

I do not believe that recent ‘scandals’ are evidence that the APS is fundamentally unsound. However, we do need to acknowledge the extent of these problems and their impact on our reputation.

Unfortunately problems in any one APS agency reflect upon us all.

As managers, we need to learn from past mistakes and to use our risk management processes to minimise the extent and impact of new incidents that can damage our reputation. When things go wrong in other agencies, we should reflect upon the implications for our agency; when managing our own agencies, we should watch out for the unexpected surprise or the hidden time bomb, as well as the more obvious risks. The better each agency manages risk, the better the overall reputation of the APS.

I believe that the APS does learn from, and respond to, its mistakes. Unfortunately, responses to problems such as the major reforms in the new DIMA are not always as newsworthy as the problems themselves. Similarly, we hear little of the ongoing achievements of the APS.

Last year in my annual State of the Service report to Parliament, I included a chapter on agency achievements to provide a more balanced view of the APS. Some of these do stand out and do receive some public attention. The APS responses to the Bali massacre and the Asian Tsunami, for example, were exemplary, in terms of both planning and execution.

Others are quiet achievements which underpin the social fabric. These include our success in strengthening Medicare, introducing education reforms and delivering Australia’s migration programme. Celebrating these achievements is an important way of adding to the reputation of the APS. Perhaps more of us should do more to get the word out there through local radio, newspapers and TV?

Building a reputation

While I want to stress the importance of reputation, looking back over the development of the APS since Federation, I think it’s pretty safe to conclude that building a reputation was never a stated objective for the public service. Rather, the reputation of the APS as a solid, reliable and effective institution has been a by-product of the work of the public service in two main areas:

firstly, the efficient delivery of programmes and quality outcomes for the community in a diverse range of areas such as health, income support and transport infrastructure;
and secondly, meeting the needs of government effectively, by implementing the policies of the government of the day and providing frank, comprehensive and accurate advice, in what is increasingly a contestable environment.

APS reform sgenda

Reflecting back I believe that the administrative and financial reforms of the last thirty years have contributed significantly to the reputation of the APS.

The 1974 Coombs Royal Commission into Australian Government Administration marked a water-shed in administrative thinking and reform. It recommended far-reaching changes to the structures and direction of public administration.

Coombs has been a catalyst for, and has strongly influenced, public sector reform since that time.

Today’s more open APS is a product in many respects of the Coombs legacy. For example, the APS was one of the world’s pioneers of freedom of information and privacy legislation in the public sector.

The reforms of the 80s and 90s took a different approach. We have seen for example:

the devolution of management responsibility, subject to improved accountability for performance; and
reforms focusing on improved efficiency, ranging from the efficiency dividend, to market testing and contracting out of some functions, with an increased focus on the core role of the APS.

More recently, there has been a focus on the effectiveness and appropriateness of agency governance structures in line with the recommendations of the Review of the Corporate Governance of Statutory Authorities and Office Holders or, as it is now more commonly known, the Uhrig report.

These reforms have contributed to the APS’s reputation by improving efficiency, strengthening accountability and improving responsiveness to the government and the community. While some were initially viewed as controversial, if we had failed to undertake these reforms the APS would be much less relevant to today’s Australia.

APS Values and Code of Conduct

One of the most significant reforms in terms of building reputation was the introduction of the Public Service Act 1999. The Act codifies the APS Values, and, through the Code of Conduct, sets behavioural standards for all APS employees. This is essential in today’s more devolved public sector environment.

At the heart of the Values are principles of good public administration. Our ability to abide by these principles affects the confidence the public has in the way public servants implement government policy objectives. The Values help protect the APS against inefficiency and poor performance, but also against politicisation, fraud, corruption, inequality and the inability to conduct business confidently.

The Values only work if they are more than an inspirational statement of intent. APS agencies need to embed these Values in their every-day operations, including their risk management frameworks. Agency heads and SES employees must promote and model the Values, and all APS employees must observe the Values and the Code of Conduct.

One of my functions as Public Service Commissioner is to promote the APS Values. One concept that I find very effective in bringing home the importance of the Values, is that of an APS employee’s duty. Until recently, doing our duty tended to mean doing things according to rules and guidelines. Today it means much more. It means using a more flexible and thoughtful combination of skills to work effectively with others and across government, and to take responsibility for one’s actions and behaviours, including not hiding our mistakes.

Dealing with serious challenges

The shortcomings identified by Palmer and Comrie, and in other incidents that have damaged the reputation of the APS, have provided me the impetus to consider how the APS can best ensure that it is responsive, efficient and worthy of respect. One approach to managing risk in these situations is to establish indicators that allow us to monitor the health of organisations.

In the public sector, work on detecting signs of unhealthy or failing organisations and identifying prevention strategies is in its infancy. More information is generally available from audits, inquiries or reviews that examine incidents after they have occurred than on work identifying signs of impending problems. In conjunction with my State and Territory counterparts, I have started some work in this area.

From our preliminary research, we have already identified some areas that are central to the health of a public sector organisation including leadership, corporate governance, capability and relationship building. All of these areas need to feature in risk management planning and are central to the reputation of the APS.

Leadership

Leadership is critical to the outcomes the public sector must achieve for the Government and the Australian community. Effective leadership allows us to deal with the complexity, risk and uncertainty that characterises the modern public sector environment. It is essential if risk management planning is to be embedded in the culture of agencies.

A healthy APS organisation needs a leadership team that is strong, diverse and talented. They must be respected, seen as enthusiastic, and display visible commitment to the APS Values. APS leaders must acknowledge the potential for problems, be open to constructive criticism, and accept responsibility for remedying the problems.

There are some ‘risky’ leadership and management situations associated with unhealthy organisations that we need to avoid and which should feature in most APS agencies’ assessment of risk. These include:

a lack of depth in the management team;
leadership that is not open to alternative views;
a silo approach, with leaders defending their own territory and approaches;
leaders not clearly articulating the direction and goals of the organisation, leading to a disconnect between leaders and middle managers and other staff; and
leaders failing to recognise relevant changes in the external environment or keeping abreast of changing political and community expectations.

One of my roles as the Australian Public Service Commissioner is to promote a strong leadership culture in the APS. My portfolio secretary colleagues and I are promoting the concept of an APS wide cadre of professional senior executives with common capabilities, shared common values, common ethical standards and a common commitment to development and collaboration. Such an approach can minimise the risks inherent in poor leadership.

Corporate governance and change

Effective leadership is directly related to a second issue central to managing risk and our reputation—that is, effective corporate governance.

The lessons of Palmer have emphasised the need for integrated systems and processes for finance, human resources, and information technology aligned to our business needs. We need to focus on accountability and leave no doubt about who has responsibility for what.

A healthy agency is also willing to adapt to change of all kinds. Change is an inherent part of the modern world. In the past we have adapted to computers replacing typing pools, the steady increase in electronic communications, the contestability of policy advice, and differing community expectations. Currently we are responding to challenges such as e-government, electronic record keeping, and adopting integrated whole-of-government approaches.

We need effective systems in place to cope with these challenges. However, these will not help us if leaders and managers fail to use the processes in place or fail to recognise what is happening across their agency. Some of the things that should be sending out ‘warning bells’ and should be addressed in agencies’ risk assessment processes include:

change that is initiated by crisis management, rather than by regular and systematic analysis within the agency;
poor resource management and ineffective allocation of resources to business needs;
financial overspending and underspending;
inadequate corporate planning and business plans;
a really bad ANAO or Ombudsman report;
ineffective information management;
signs in the media or in Parliament of an unresponsive organisation; and
a lack of staff and stakeholder surveys.

We also need a robust approach to reinforce the APS Values and a strong sense of professionalism and ethics in our workforces. This includes action to promote and ensure adherence to the Code of Conduct. Measures to guard against inappropriate accessing of citizen’s private information are critical in this regard to support public confidence in the service.

While corporate governance processes must support our business objectives, it is important that they do not become an end in themselves. We must be conscious of the risk to our performance and our reputation if our corporate governance does not adapt to changes in the agency and external environment.

Capability

In an environment of constant change, the capability of the APS to respond to current and future challenges becomes even more important. The APS needs the right people with the right capability in the right roles at the right time.

It would be difficult to discuss challenges in the area of building capability in the APS without mentioning the changing labour market. This is a significant risk area for both the public and private sectors.

The Management Advisory Committee report, Managing and Sustaining the APS Workplace, highlighted the demographic challenges facing Australia and their potential impact on the APS.

In Australia, we face a labour market supply shortage as the supply of new entrants to the employment market contracts, at the same time as the baby-boomer generation retires. This will create particular problems for the APS—given the specialist skills we need; the concentration of a sizeable proportion of our labour force in Canberra; and the generally lower level of remuneration of senior staff compared with equivalent staff in the private sector. Already there are signs of skill shortages in specialist areas such as accounting, economics, and information technology and this is only expected to worsen.

Managing this situation so that it does not affect our capacity to achieve our objectives, and ultimately our reputation with the Government and the community, will be a continuing challenge. We need much more extensive and thoughtful work force planning. Agencies will need to make sure they have the strategies in place to develop and retain high quality employees. Part of the challenge will be for APS agencies to ensure they are competitive, and offer attractive salary packages.

We can in part manage the risk of skill shortages by marketing the APS and its individual agencies as an exciting place to work. Here we can build on our comparative advantages, such as the diversity of work experience, the capacity to “make a difference”, our increasing emphasis on training, and our access to flexible working conditions.

Reputation works both ways. If we do not have a good reputation, we will not attract the right staff. But if we don’t have the staff to perform the work, our reputation will suffer.

Building relationships

While strong leadership, effective governance and capability will need to feature in all agencies’ risk management frameworks, the APS must continue to work at building effective relationships with the Australian community as a whole, as well as particular groups within it. The community now expects a greater say in the development and implementation of policies and programmes. Involving others and considering alternative points of view is an essential part of an effective approach to risk management.

In attempting to put citizens at the centre, we are seeing increased consultation through a variety of means, including user surveys, opinion polling, feedback via the internet, ‘customer’ advisory panels , and so on. A greater emphasis on consultation and engagement adds value to policy and programme delivery and helps the Government achieve outcomes that improve the well-being of the community. It doesn’t hurt our reputation either.

One word of caution here. The community must be able to see that their input is valuable and considered. If they believe their input disappears into a bureaucratic black hole, there is a risk that the APS’s reputation in terms of responsiveness and effective communication will be seriously undermined. Efforts at engaging more directly with the community need to be targeted to where they will have the most impact, and we need to act on the input we receive.

We also need to strengthen our ability to work with other partners. Increasingly, we are delivering government programmes covering different jurisdictions and through a range of non-government bodies. Our success as a public service in this environment, and our reputation, will depend on how well we manage an increasingly diverse and complex web of relationships.

Conclusion

The challenges for the APS in building and sustaining its reputation for quality, effectiveness and integrity in this increasingly complex environment are difficult, but not insurmountable. Despite some publicised deficiencies, the overall quality of the APS and its ability to deliver is better than any time in our history.

Maintaining our reputation needs to be an important part of the APS’s approach to risk management. Our reputation is only as good as the service we deliver, both to the Government and the community. Managing risk through effective approaches to leadership, governance, capability and relationship building all contribute to the overall protection of our reputation.

We are aiming not for perfection, but for credible organisations that can be trusted to pursue quality outcomes and to take action when we do get things wrong.

Striving for excellence is what the Australian Public Service is all about. Risk management is part of that.

We cannot lose sight of the fact that reputation matters. It is central to our capacity to deliver outcomes for the community. A risk management framework that ignores the importance of reputation is destined to fail.

Start of page