Home
› The Values and relations with the Government and the Parliament
› Relations with the Government › Relations with the Parliament › Record keeping
Record keeping
The Values set out in the Act provide that the APS is openly accountable for its actions, within the framework of ministerial responsibility to the Government, the Parliament and the Australian public. The maintenance of effective record keeping systems allows agencies to demonstrate that due process has been followed in actions and decisions. It also helps agencies to achieve business goals by ensuring that necessary corporate information is available and accessible as required. Furthermore, effective record keeping assists employees to meet their specific obligations to Ministers, the Government and the Parliament.
Record keeping has attracted substantial attention in recent years, both in general reports such as those published by the ANAO, and in the context of specific cases of concern such as the Magnetic Resonance Imaging Services case,10 A Certain Maritime Incident,11 and this year in the Palmer report.12 Record keeping in the APS has been affected by greater public scrutiny through administrative law reform and parliamentary oversight over the past few decades, and also by increased emphasis on achieving results. While administrative law reforms, including the Freedom of Information Act 1982,13 have generally led to improvements in public administration, the risk that these reforms may inhibit formal record keeping needs to be recognised. In addition, technology has also had a major impact on record keeping practices.
In September 2003, the ANAO tabled the second in a series of audits on record keeping.14 It concluded that, although all agencies audited had taken active steps to improve their record keeping frameworks and practices, their record keeping policies, systems, and procedures were at different stages of development.
The following section draws on information from the 2005 employee survey, as record keeping questions were not included in the 2005 agency survey—questions examining record keeping issues are planned for inclusion in the 2006 agency survey. Unfortunately, the employee survey results for this year point to a slight decline in overall record keeping capability compared to last year. There continues to be evidence that a more strategic approach to records management and training is still required in some agencies.
Record keeping capability
The survey results show that most employees believed their agency placed a priority on effective record keeping, with the majority (87%) of employees agreeing that their agency considered good record keeping practices to be very important. This result is consistent with previous findings. Employees from medium (90%) and large (87%) agencies continue to be more likely to have agreed than those from small (72%) agencies. Agency-specific results available for the 21 large agencies showed considerable variation (68% to 98%) in the proportion of employees who agreed that their agency considers good record keeping practices to be very important. The three agencies with the highest level of agreement were CRS, Centrelink, and the Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) (where results ranged from 93% to 98%).
This year the proportion of employees who agreed that they had received appropriate training and/or had access to information that enabled them to meet their record keeping responsibilities was similar to last year (67% in 2004–05 compared to 69% in 2003–04). Nevertheless, this proportion in 2004–05 (67%) remains significantly lower than the proportion of employees who agreed that their agency considers good record keeping practices to be very important (87%). This disparity is consistent with previous years’ findings and was reflected in some of the comments provided by employee survey respondents, for example:
My agency recognises the need to keep good records but to me does not adequately resource such ideals. Any training to date has been grossly inadequate for someone in my capacity.”
“My agency takes record keeping very seriously at the level of principle, however there is insufficient training provided to meet these standards, nor is there enough emphasis placed on the criticality of this in everyday practical situations. ”
“The integrity of the record keeping is also an issue of great importance and of late this has seen recent emphasis placed on it, in my section at least. ”
“Record keeping is considered very important, however I have not received training in maintaining records. 
employee survey
Employees working in medium (72%) and large (67%) agencies were more likely than those in small (59%) agencies to agree that they received appropriate training and/or had access to information that enabled them to meet their record keeping responsibilities. Agency-specific results available for the 21 large agencies showed large variation in the level of agreement (41% to 85%), with four agencies (CSA, CRS, the Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH) and Finance) recording significantly higher levels of agreement than the APS average (where results ranged from 75% to 85% compared to the APS average of 67%).
A minority (16%) of employees in 2004–05 indicated that they had not received appropriate training and/or had not had access to necessary information. This was slightly higher than last year’s result (13%).
For the first time, this year’s employee survey asked employees whether their agency provided adequate equipment, facilities and/or storage to enable them to meet their record keeping responsibilities. Overall, 76% of employees agreed that their agency did provide such facilities, while 12% disagreed. Employees working in medium (79%) agencies were more likely to agree that their agency provided such facilities compared to those working in large (75%) or small (72%) agencies. The level of agreement in the 21 large agencies with agency-specific results available varied greatly from 49% to 88%. The three agencies with the highest level of agreement were CRS, DEST and ABS (where results ranged from 84% to 88%).
Although the employee survey did not ask any direct questions about the actual time available and/or the resources required to maintain adequate standards of record keeping, many respondents took the opportunity to comment on this issue. Given the level of commentary provided by employees surrounding resource implications and record keeping, further examination of this issue would be worthwhile in next year’s survey.
Record keeping is an important part of the APS. However, good record keeping is the first area to suffer when other work pressures are great. There needs to be a better way to store records—e.g. electronically—or the storage of records needs to become a career structure of the APS —e.g. filing clerk. ”
“Sometimes work pressures make it difficult to meet record keeping responsibilities. ”
“Adequate record keeping is very time consuming, and it is simply not possible to keep up with work demands and also maintain records when the phone keeps ringing and people are queuing up behind you seeking urgent input to ministerial briefings etc.
employee survey
10 ANAO, Magnetic Resonance Imaging Services—Effectiveness and Probity of the Policy Development Process and Implementation, Performance Audit No. 42, May 2000, <http://www.anao.gov.au>
11 Senate Select Committee on a Certain Maritime Incident, A Certain Maritime Incident, October 2002, <http://www.senate.aph.gov.au>
12 M.J. Palmer, Inquiry into the Circumstances of the Immigration Dentention of Cornelia Rau: Report, July 2005, <http://www.minister.immi.gov.au>
13 The Freedom of Information Act 1982 provides a mechanism for the public to access information about the operations of departments and government authorities.
14 ANAO, Recordkeeping in Large Commonwealth Organisations, Performance Audit Report No. 7, September 2003, <http://www.anao.gov.au>
