print this page
© Copyright Commonwealth of Australia - Australian Public Service Commission
Home page
> Minister > Archive > Speech
‹ Previous page
Ministerial speeches and media releases - Archive
Innovations Conference
The Hon. Peter Reith, MP
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service
Canberra 25 February 1997
REITH: It is very good to see so many people here. The turnout demonstrates a significant interest in issues of public administration. I am delighted to see the overseas delegations which are with us today. Their presence adds significantly to the opportunities afforded by this Conference for the exchange of ideas. In fact, last night I was reading some of the submissions on our Discussion Paper and was particularly interested in those from Canada and Finland. They certainly brought a fresh perspective to what we are looking at here by way of reform.
I welcome all the participants in this Expo-Conference. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the presence of the CPSU picketers out the front, who provided such a vocal and colourful welcome to me. I suppose as they stood out the front they saw themselves as a symbol of protest but I saw them as a contribution to fiscal consolidation as a result of our new guidelines on management's response to industrial action in the public service.
Ladies and gentlemen, public administration is very important, both as an element of the economic activity of the nation and as a contributor to so many facets of our way of life. The way in which a government manages its public service has implications beyond that of the proper administration of the bureaucracy, important though that is. It also says a lot about a government's wider economic agenda, and goes beyond the economic issues and the straight efficiency issues which so often tend to capture the attention of those involved. It goes to such important issues as social policy and other activities of government.
The current Federal Government is a reforming government. We already have a significant number of runs on the board, and we intend to have more on the board by the end of the year. Amongst our objectives for this year is reform of the Australian Public Service.
In my other portfolio of Industrial Relations, we believe the Workplace Relations Act which came into effect on 1 January this year is an example of the Government's reform credentials. We have been saying to the private sector employers and employees that they should now take the opportunities provided by the changes in the legislative framework to improve and further enhance the quality of relationships between employers and employees in those businesses.
Well, it's one thing for politicians to lecture people about how to run their businesses but when it comes to the public sector, the government takes its legislative hat off and puts on that of the employer. I think it is incumbent on us to take the responsibility to work through the prospects for enhanced employee relations in the public service. We are committed to a programme of better government and key elements of this reform agenda include changing the culture and improving the performance of the entire APS.
None of this should be taken to discount the effort or abilities of those who work in the APS. Nothing that we do in the future should be taken to deny the effort that has been made to introduce reforms over the last decade. And nothing which we do in the future should in any way be taken to slight the professionalism and the quality of the people who work in the APS.
I can say that from my own personal experience. We are a new Government, but I must say the experience I had last year with my own Department of Industrial Relations in overseeing the drafting and the introduction of the Workplace Relations Act was a very beneficial one. They did a first class job and I am delighted to be able to say so. And they did a first class job not just in the technical sense of dealing with the instructions and requests that we gave them. It is a politically difficult task to introduce complex changes to the labour market system and the Department brought to bear not just technical skills but a broader understanding of the way in which the system operates.
Now, that is not to say that there isn't room for improvement in the APS. There is, and innovation is the key to that improvement. We are looking to do things better in the future and that is as it should be. And I don't doubt but that the participants at this Expo would agree with that sentiment. I don't think there is a jurisdiction in Australia that is not engaged in the same debate, and certainly many of our international guests would have had experience at first hand of substantial public sector reform.
In terms of specific changes to the APS, we want to eradicate systemic inefficiencies, promote high performance and drive innovation. In pursuit of those objectives, in November last year I released a Discussion Paper which canvassed the inefficiencies and rigidities which bind the Public Service, the outmoded processes which deliver poor outcomes to the Australian community and, importantly, to APS staff themselves.
The Paper noted the scope for significant changes within the Public Service. As a result of the new industrial relations system, the Australian Public Service is now operating in a different environment. The APS will implement the Government's broader strategy of reforming workplace relations and pursue the flexibility and simplicity inherent in the new industrial relations legislation.
I believe the APS needs to reduce hierarchical controls and rid itself of unnecessary processes. It must establish challenging and rewarding workplaces. It must be innovative and put in place appropriate risk management strategies. It must recognise the limitations imposed by poor quality leadership and work to develop its leaders. It must continue to subscribe to fundamental principles of good public service standards and these will certainly be clearly spelt out in the new Public Service legislation.
We have views on the problems and challenges that are currently facing public administration. The Government has involved APS staff and the community in garnering ideas. As such, the Discussion Paper is as much a prompt as it is a guide to the Government's reform agenda. It is certainly not a detailed blueprint of the Government's reforms. The Paper did, however, canvass those changes necessary to achieve better government through improved public administration.
The Public Service and Merit Protection Commission and the Department of Industrial Relations have undertaken a extensive consultation programme on the Discussion Paper, beginning in December last and continuing through to this time. This programme has involved APS staff, state government representatives, private sector consultants, academics and basically anybody with constructive views.
This process has drawn upon the lessons and experiences of others and certainly both the successes and failures, particularly within the Australian jurisdictions, have been instructive. So far, the consultation process has involved something like 100 individual focus groups in all capital cities and in some regional areas, involving in all around 1500 people. I personally have been involved in a number and have had very good discussions with APS staff in Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra - including on one occasion meeting bringing in staff from regional areas - Townsville and the like. They confirmed that the Discussion Paper had posed many of the right questions and that we were generally on track.
What struck me forcibly in these discussions was that while some participants had reservations about some prospective changes, most seemed genuinely convinced that there had to be a better way of doing things.
I intend, as time and the Parliamentary calender permit, to attend some further focus groups. 1 recently invited Senator Kernot to join me in a discussion group in Brisbane with public servants. I look forward to sitting down with her and talking through the issues which face public servants. Of course, the response of the Senate to our prospective legislation will be important.
I have also met with the ACTU and representatives of the public sector unions. There have been over 200 written submissions to the Discussion Paper, including on the Internet and including formal submissions from APS agencies and unions, from wide range of people in Australia and as I mentioned earlier, from overseas. The majority of responses have been from individual staff. Generally the responses have supported the need for change and recognised that the Discussion Paper highlighted many, if not all, of those matters which were seen as impediments to proper performance by public servants.
This really can only be a precis, and is not in any particular order of priority, but I thought it might be useful to relay some of the issues that were raised with me during these discussions.
First, the need to develop a separate APS best practice model, including how best to accommodate private sector work practices, taking into account differences in public sector and Parliamentary accountability requirements. That actually did generate quite a lot of discussion. I suppose the most common comment was "you have got realise is that the public sector is not the private sector". Some of those that I spoke to wanted a reassurance on this score.
Let me say to those interested in this particular issue that we do see the difference. What we are saying though, in a very practical way, is where the private sector has adopted a more efficient practice, why shouldn't we adopt it in the public sector if it is appropriate to do so? Quite frankly, it is as utilitarian as that. If someone has got a sensible view about how to do something then why would you turn your eyes away from such a proposition?
The second issue generally discussed was the question of the performance culture in the APS. It was summed up by someone who said the most common question they were asked was "Why wasn't I told?". A too common question, as it was put to me, reflecting inadequacies in managers who weren't prepared to discuss with staff the problems that should have been brought to the attention of the employee so that they could benefit from a constructive comment.
There was a lot of talk about the need for better performance management arrangements dealing with both good and poor performers. Certainly the comments made to me show the frustration that the APS is not adequately capable of dealing with under performers. One personnel manager said to me that they spent 90% of their time dealing with the 1% of those in that particular organisation who were under performers. That is unfair to the people who are good performers, who really should be getting the support which it was his job to give them, and unfair on the system overall as it represents a missed opportunity to do better in its personnel and human resources management.
Third, many felt that the rules in respect to unfair dismissal should be the same as in the private sector and within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Commission.
I suppose flowing from the perceived difficulties in human resource performance management, there was a sense of need for guidance from both the Government and from within the APS on what actually was the core business of the APS and how the culture of the APS should change to utilise the flexibility provided for by the new employment framework.
Fifth, the need for greater flexibility in recruitment processes was a common issue raised with me. I was intrigued at the number of agencies which had effectively set up their own recruitment schemes to avoid the rigidities of the existing system.
Sixth, risk management, flexible employment arrangements and remuneration - specifically the issue of how greater flexibility in these areas would affect mobility or the continuation of a "career service".
Seventh, it was often said to me there was too much focus on red tape in the Service. Many examples were provided to me of practical ways in which you could cut back legislation and process. Often mentioned in this context were the admdinistration of the existing leave provisions such as carers leave and sick leave. And I sense that these are issues for line managers and supervisors rather than for human resources departments.
Eighth, the question of flexibility in working time arrangements was raised. It was perhaps best put to me by a young woman from the Tax Office who said that while she recognised the steps the Tax Office had already taken to improve flexibility she thought that they could go further. For her, it was really important because both she and her husband worked in the Tax Office and they wanted better arrangements to better balance their work and family responsibilities.
We know, not just from discussions on the reform paper and the APS, but generally throughout the community that balancing work and family responsibilities is one of the great challenges facing so many families today. And I certainly think that there is more that we can do in the APS that would give people those opportunities.
Ninth, there was a comment from a number of people to the effect of "don't shoot the messenger". They said that for all the talk about the reform of structures, the Government should never hesitate to recognise the fact that there are good people in the APS. Now that is good advice to any minister, it is advice I certainly accept. It is important in our relationships with people that we do give due recognition to the very good people that we have.
And I must say that I met some tremendous people in those discussion groups, young and not so young. I said to Peter Shergold that he must have hand picked the participants in the focus groups to ensure that the Minister got a good view of the world. He assures me that they don't have professional groupers to attend the focus groups and of course I accept that assurance. I can say honestly to you that I have really met some people who have tremendous commitment to what they are doing, and they were very open with me. Sure I can sense some frustration with some things that we might be doing as well. But what was heartening was that people were saying "well there are things we can do, lets get on and do them".
There was also some discussion about the concept of individual contracts and in that context, some discussion about the Australian Workplace Agreements. You could put that issue under the heading of job security, which is an issue that people will raise with you whether in the APS or in the private sector. The point about AWAs is that they can be a vehicle, and may be for the APS - perhaps for SES areas or niche areas of APS operations - by which one can to cement direct relationships between employers and employees and their terms and conditions.
But some people think that an AWA is simply an agreement at the end of which you fall off the precipice. I make a point that it's simply is a means of negotiating terms and conditions and at the expiry date of the Australian Workplace Agreement, as with a Certified Agreement today, the parties then sit down and negotiate further terms and conditions.
From the Government's perspective we are keen to move ahead, after the Discussions Paper and consultation stage with the reform process. We see three parts to the approach, the industrial, managerial and legislative.
The industrial approach reflects the fact that the existing APS agreement expired in December and there is a need to put further arrangements in place.
The managerial approach reflects the fact that we need to improve accountability and devolve responsibility when appropriate. And the legislative approach, is to completely rewrite the Public Service Act 1922.
One of these legislative issues which does need to be considered is that of external review. There was quite an interesting debate on this issue recently in the Senate Committee hearing with a number of luminaries involved including Jack Waterford of the Canberra Times, which is one of the sponsors today, Doug Lilly who is from the CPSU who presumably is one of the sponsors outside, Professor Patrick Weller and Peter Shergold and others.
Of course we do want a more devolved system, but without prejudging the usseu I can see the argument for a form of external review. The Merit Protection Review Agency has advanced an Ombudsman model. I was very pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the details of that proposal with them only recently. If we are to have an external review process then I believe there would be much to commend the concept of a more streamlined approach than that which currently obtains today the MPRA. I think the MPRA has effectively acknowledged that. Such a streamlined approach, with the emphasis on reviewing the overall procedures and circumstances rather than individual outcomes, is certainly one option. This approach has worked in other jurisdictions, which indicates it is good practice, whilst at the same time it slashes red tape and prevents agencies retreating into rich and complex processes to defend themselves. This is a key issue and I'll be very interested to have further comments as we prepare the legislation.
Ladies and gentlemen, identifying and implementing positive changes to the APS is the way ahead. Innovation is a key to a successful implementation of such a programme of reform. The beneficiaries of such reform are of course the taxpayer, who impose an obligation on government to ensure value for the dollars which we raise by way of taxation. They are the recipients of Government services, to whom an efficient delivery of government services is most important. And lastly and certainly not least, the beneficiaries are those who work in the APS for the same range of mixed motives we all work, but whose motives certainly include the desire to make a contribution to the community at large.
I believe this Expo-Conference will have a role in this general reform process. I want to thank all the participants for their interesting contributions and conclude by congratulating all those associated with a very successful organisation of this event.
