related resources

on our site

news

Home page
> About the Commission > Public Service Commissioner > Media archive > Speech
‹ Previous page

Improving Government decision-making

Opening Address to IPAA (ACT Division) Seminar "Improving Government Decision Making"
A S Podger
31 May 2002

Introduction

I am very pleased to be here to open this IPAA Seminar.

IPAA has an important role for public servants and for others involved in public administration

• it is the main professional association for the career Service
• it provides a forum in which controversial issues can be examined professionally and safely
• its activities complement the learning and development programs provided by the Commission and by agencies and others
• I strongly encourage individuals and agencies to join the IPAA and participate in its programs

The topic of today's seminar is "Improving Government Decision-Making". In opening the seminar I wish to draw attention to the context in which decision-making is occurring today, set out some of the framework and principles for decision-making in Government, and identify a few of the challenges that are likely to be canvassed during the morning.

My intention is mainly to raise the issues, leaving others perhaps to be more definite about the solutions.

Context

The current context in which we work has a significant impact on how we make decisions.

Firstly, largely because of technology, the pace of change is greater than in the past, and there is more uncertainty. Change has always been with us, but the speed and power of communications today is requiring individuals and organisations to be more adaptable and agile, and to find new techniques for managing uncertainty.

Whatever the technological developments of the twenty first century, they will be taken up more quickly than ever before. My former Minister, Dr Wooldridge suggested this century will be the century of healing through advances in gene technology and other technologies. He could be right. What is certain is that those developments will be more rapid because of the impact of faster communications on research and technology itself, and will in turn impact on the practice of medicine and a health system internationally with remarkable speed. This is the real meaning of what is known colloquially as the information economy.

Secondly, we cannot hide from competition in international market places. The pressure to do more with less, and to be innovative in meeting demands and finding solutions, will not go away : almost certainly, it will increase.

Drawing these two themes together, medium and longer term sustainability is not just about cost control, but is equally (if not more importantly) about adaptability and innovation.

Thirdly, the public is better informed and better connected. Paradoxically, they may not be as organised as in the past. (Robert Putnam, in his study of American society, has argued strongly that there has been a precipitous drop in civic involvement.) This seems to be fuelling public expectations about the responsiveness of Governments, and continuing the pressure for individual right to participate in Government decision-making. The demand for transparency will not diminish.

A related point is the expectation that everything can be linked to everything else, in real time. Across programs, across agencies, across jurisdictions, internationally. Similarly, that the full wealth of information available can and will be sieved to draw out the relevant parts, which will be used in real time.

Fourthly, the political world is affected by all of this. It too needs to be responsive to all these short term pressures, yet also needs to provide the broader framework within which the nation can be competitive and adaptable. Interestingly the theme about the limits to public power, which was important to the economic reforms of the last twenty years, seems to have moved on to emphasise the importance and legitimacy of the role of Government. This is not just in response to September 11, but a wider appreciation of the importance to markets of stable legal frameworks and a strong social fabric. The Olympics provides an Australian example that precedes September 11.

For the public service, this provides some reinforcement to our role in the democratic system, responsive to the elected Government and openly accountable for its actions. But the challenges of the context in which we now operate are considerable.

Principles of good decision-making

The first principle in my view for good decision-making is compliance with the law.

As I shall explain further in a moment, public servants are bound by the APS Values and Code of Conduct set out in the Public Service Act. They are also bound by the Financial Management and Accountability Act which requires decision-making to be ethical, efficient and effective. The Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act has a similar requirement for those working in Government bodies not covered by the FMA Act and the PS Act.

There is also a body of administrative law, both in statute and from common law, that sets out a range of principles for decision-making, including

• appropriate use of powers exercised by those properly authorised
• provision of reasons to explain and justify decisions, ensuring fairness, transparency, consistency and accountability
• "fair and reasonable" approaches to decisions, and "natural justice" or "procedural fairness" for anyone impacted by a decision.

For example, the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act identifies a number of improper uses of powers that should be avoided. APS employees must not:

• take account of an irrelevant consideration in exercising a power,
• fail to take account of a relevant consideration in exercising a power,
• exercise a power for purposes other than that for which it was conferred,
• exercise a discretionary power in bad faith,
• exercise a discretionary power at the discretion of another person,
• exercise a discretionary power in accordance with a rule or policy without regard to the merits of the particular case,
• exercise a power that is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have so exercised the power,
• exercise a power in such a way that the result is uncertain, or
• exercise a power in a way that constitutes abuse of power

Most agencies also administer program legislation which may include specific requirements for decision-making; administrative reviews may also have clarified those requirements and set of body of common law governing decision-making,

Ministers must also, of course, abide by the law, and public servants are obliged to advise Ministers on their legal responsibilities. This requirement is highlighted in the Prime Minister's Guide on Key Elements of Ministerial Responsibility.

Apart from these legal requirements, there is a growing body of material on good administrative practice. Sources include ANAO reports and better practice guides, Management Advisory Committee reports, Commission guides and reports, Ombudsman's reports and externally-driven research and evaluation such as from the National Institute for Governance.

Let me highlight a few of the themes coming from such material in recent years.

A major theme is the importance of evidence, and systematic information support, along with proper record-keeping. Let me quote from the Auditor-General, Pat Barrett:

"The level and standard of documentation considered necessary to support an administrative process is always a matter of judgement for management as part of an organisation's control environment. Nevertheless documentation is important for an agency to:
• demonstrate it has taken all reasonable steps to identify and manage risks;
• provide assurance to management that the administrative processes are adequate and have integrity;
• record significant events and decisions;
• be able to review its decisions and processes thereby identifying strengths and weaknesses in the process, drawing out lessons for the future;
• in some circumstances provide support for the Commonwealth's position in the event of a legal challenge; and
• meet its accountability obligations to the Government, Parliament and other stakeholders

The level and standard of documentation needs to match the circumstances. However, it would be expected that both the level and standard of documentation would increase as the consequences of decisions and actions increases".

The first point mentioned by the Auditor-General relates to risk-management. This has been a theme of ANAO reports for some time, and of other proponents of improved management. Risk management is not entirely new : the Service has a long tradition in its policy advising of identifying options and the pros and cons of each, and in its program management of building in robustness, and a degree of redundancy, to handle unusual situations.

But the pressure for a more systematic approach to identifying risks and their management is more recent. It is a response to more rapid change and greater uncertainty, and the impact of increased productivity through reduced layers of redundancy eg just-in-time processes. Agencies are increasingly developing high level risk assessments linked to their corporate plans, and targeted risk management strategies around their major programs and projects. Typically, these plans identify the importance of such issues as workforce planning, succession management, relationship-building and communications, and underline the need for good processes, information and evaluation.

One of the great lessons from the 1960's and 1970's was the importance of evaluation. In the 1980's there was a concerted effort to be more systematic about evaluation, with requirements for Cabinet Submissions to identify evaluation plans, and to refer to evaluation reports, with any new policy proposal. While those process rules have gone, the Outcomes/Outputs structure is intended to promote in a similar way regular assessments of program and policy effectiveness, and of administrative efficiency.

Over the last ten years, there have also been increasing attempts to evaluate policy advising. Mike Waller's 1992 paper provided a useful evaluation framework focussing on the inputs, the processes and thirdly the outcomes. Not surprisingly to me, his emphasis was mostly on inputs and processes, covering:

• the management culture,
• the skills and motivation of the staff, and
• the information systems;

and then covering processes such as:

• consultation with stakeholders
• internal and cross-agency consultative arrangements, and
• the working relationship with the Minister and the office (including timeliness and succinctness of advice)

Meredith Edwards has put particular emphasis on the external processes, suggesting the need for more direct involvement by stakeholders (customers, the industry, the public), and the need for officials to contribute to the building of coalitions, and to the development and implementation of communication strategies as a significant element of decision-making and public administration. I shall return to this shortly.

For whole-of-government or Cabinet decision-making there are also some important rules for public service advisers, including:

• our role is to ensure informed decision-making, not to "win"
• "no surprises"
• facts should be agreed beforehand, along with the way of expressing disagreement on the advice

Values Framework

Before moving on to the key challenges, let me try to link these principles and good practices into a broader framework for Government decision-making.

One of the major responses to the increased pace of change for the Service has been the shift away from central prescriptive rules of operation, to a principles-based Public Service Act. The APS Values set out in the Act provide the enduring framework within which APS Agencies operate, with considerable freedom to establish their own detailed procedures.

In my last speech to IPAA a few weeks ago, I tried to present the APS Values in a practical way to highlight their relevance to our relationships with Government, with the public and in the workplace, and how they define the APS as an institution of government.

Today I'd like to highlight how they also provide a high level framework for decision-making.

The key Values for decision-making are:

1. the APS is apolitical, performing its functions in an impartial and professional manner

4. the APS has the highest ethical standards
5. the APS is openly accountable for its actions, within the framework of Ministerial responsibility to the Government, the Parliament and the Australian public
6. the APS delivers services fairly, effectively, impartially and courteously to the Australia public ...

11. the APS focuses on achieving results and managing performance

I would also highlight some of the APS Code of Conduct provisions

1. an APS employee must behave honestly and with integrity ...
2. an APS employee must act with care and diligence...
3. an APS employee ... must treat everyone with respect and courtesy
4. an APS employee ... must comply with all applicable Australian laws...

Key words here are impartial, professional, ethical, accountable, fair, effective, courteous, honesty, integrity, compliance with the law.

The ethical emphasis is important. The public which has vested power and authority in public servants rightly expects that power and authority to be exercised in the highest ethical manner.

Challenges

The first challenge I would like to highlight relates to Meredith Edwards' emphasis on the need for — and indeed an increasing expectation of — involvement by stakeholders in Government decision-making.

Agencies and Ministers are using a range of techniques, including focus groups, consultative committees, open inquiries, ad hoc panels and even negotiation processes.

A critical requirement, however, is to maintain a clear line of formal accountability, through Ministers, to the Parliament, and to the public. Decision-makers must have legal authority and be held accountable.

The public pressure to be consulted and involved is driven in part by the public being better informed and educated, but also by the technology that allows them and the media to be more immediately involved.

This has also added another major dimension to decision-making — the management of communications more generally.

Good decision-making, particularly when it relates to major policy, requires communication strategies these days to be developed in parallel with the advice. The effectiveness of a program or policy initiative can be enormously influenced by the quality of the communications strategy.

For an apolitical, professional public service, the challenge is to focus on the objectives of the program or initiative, and the communication activities necessary to achieve those objectives and to avoid being drawn into partisan political activity. In 1994, Mike Waller drew attention to some of the balancing we need to do here, noting our professional obligation to avoid commenting on policy, including selling policy, but our equally professional responsibility to manage programs and initiatives effectively, and to explain programs and policies.

Another challenge I would like to mention relates to the issue of evaluation, including of policy advice.

A professional Public Service has much to contribute to good policy by way of publicly accessible evaluation, performance reporting and statistics. I regard it as vitally important that the emphasis on evaluation of a decade or more ago is not lost.

I am aware of growing interest in several Agencies in enhancing their decision-making capability through better evaluation and research, by developing a stronger framework for future policy advising and program management. Strategies include shifting the role of Departmental Management Committees away from administrative resource allocation, to strategic management, and on to strategic policy and capability issues. Some are using internal policy forums, others are using background policy publications. In some areas, there are more formal Government-endorsed approaches such as the White Papers on Defence and Foreign Relations, the Intergenerational Report and the recent Auslink plan announced by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services.

Defence is a particularly interesting case, where the public service monopoly on advice has continued for longer than elsewhere. The Government used the Peacock process to engage with the public a few years ago and, more recently, established the Australian Strategic Policy Institute to provide an alternative source of advice.

These various approaches provide a useful menu to consider. All are based upon a more systematic consideration of external factors — social, economic, technological, environmental as well as political — to help frame possible longer term directions and risks, to test assumptions and to build the information and skills needed for future advising. The aim is to avoid the risk of short-term or ad hoc advice, and to look for opportunities to address longer-term challenges in the advice provided to Government.

Good approaches here go beyond pure analysis, and I would draw attention to the importance of leadership capabilities such as strategic thinking and communicating with influence. There is a need for good links to academic institutions and to the increasingly professional bodies that interact with consumers, industries and other stakeholders, and for broader approaches to environmental scanning.

It is also important to bear in mind both the advantages of independent evaluation, and the need to apply evaluation to assist the elected Government to meet its policy objectives and to pursue its political philosophy.

The challenge of record-keeping that ANAO keeps drawing attention to needs to be mentioned again this morning.

We are all finding difficulty in appropriately recording decisions, and the basis for them, including the advice given and the risk assessment involved. Yet the technology is there which should make this easier.

Part of the challenge is linking electronic communications and data to paper records. But increasingly, I suspect, advisers are utilising personal record systems (eg diaries and notebooks) that are convenient given the busyness of their schedules, but are failing to transmit them into notes for file or other formal advice to relevant officials. Without returning to the bad-old-days of pen-pushing bureaucrats, we do need to re-learn the benefits of proper records and good file-keeping.

The last challenge I wish to mention is the whole-of-Government challenge. For good reason, Governments have promoted devolution in recent decades, and letting the managers manage. Program budgeting and the more recent Outcomes/Outputs framework have delivered substantial gains in program effectiveness and efficiency. The increasing challenge of the 1990's and now the 21^st century is how to hang onto those gains, while making the most of opportunities for cross-program, cross-agency, and cross-jurisdictional collaboration and coordination.

The Management Advisory Committee is examining this in the context of IT architecture and governance, with a view to facilitating future opportunities for interoperability where that could deliver better services to individuals or to industry or to regions etc.

There are also interesting initiatives in Welfare Reform, in Indigenous health, education and employment, and in environment, as well as in the current high profile areas of security and border protection, where cross-agency coordination is essential.

There remain challenges here for decision-making in terms of good governance and transparent accountability. Lessons from recent experience do need to be documented to provide guidance on good practice.

Conclusion

I hope I have provided some useful background on the enduring principles of good decision-making in Government, and identified some of the more important challenges for the future.

I wish you well in your deliberations today.

Bibliography

Australian National Audit Office 2000 Magnetic Resonance Imaging Services—effectiveness and probity of the policy development processes and implementation, (Audit Report no. 42 1999—2000, ANAO, Canberra.

Edwards, Meredith 1992 'Evaluating Policy Advice: A Comment', Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 51, no. 4, December, pp. 447–9.

National Institute for Governance 2001 'Policy, Players and Politics: The Policy Development Process' (Twilight 2001 Seminar series 4), Canberra, National Institute for Governance. (On the web at: http://governance.canberra.edu.au/)

Putnam, Robert D 2000 Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon & Schuster, New York.

Uhr, John & Mackay, Keith (eds) 1996 Evaluating Policy Advice: Learning from Commonwealth Experience, Federalism Research Centre & Department of Finance, Canberra.

Waller, Mike 1992 'Evaluating Policy Advice', Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 51, no. 4, December, pp. 440–6.

Start of page

Australian Public Service Commission   A-Z index   Privacy, legal & copyright   Contact us
This page can be found at www.apsc.gov.au/media/podger310502.htm