The Honourable John Howard MP Prime Minister Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600   Dear Prime Minister In accordance with the provisions of section 44 of the Public Service Act 1999, I present to you the component of my annual report reporting on the state of the Australian Public Service for the year 2004–05. The report incorporates the annual report on workplace diversity required under clause 3.5(2) of the Public Service Commissioner’s Directions. The Australian Public Service Commission will be separately publishing supporting statistical documents, the State of the Service 2004–05 At a Glance, the State of the Service Employee Survey Results 2004–05 and the Australian Public Service Statistical Bulletin 2004–05. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit agreed in 2003 to extend the tabling deadline of the state of the service component of my annual report to one calendar month after the tabling date for agencies’ annual reports. Section 34C of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 requires that you lay a copy of the Report before each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days after the day on which you receive the Report. Yours sincerely   Lynelle Briggs 30 November 2005 Preface Section 44 of the Public Service Act 1999 (the Act) provides that the Public Service Commissioner (the Commissioner) must provide a report each year to the Prime Minister (as the relevant agency Minister) for presentation to the Parliament. The report must include a report on the state of the Australian Public Service (APS) during the year. The State of the Service report draws on a range of information sources. One of its main sources is a survey sent to all APS agencies employing at least 20 staff under the Act. Eighty-two APS agencies, or semi-autonomous parts of agencies, were sent the agency survey in June 2005 for completion. All 82 agencies responded to the online survey. They are listed at Appendix 1. To assist with analysis of data from the agency survey in this year’s report, agencies have been grouped according to size. Of the 82 responding agencies, 21 were classified as large (>1000 APS employees), 26 as medium (251–1000 APS employees) and 35 as small (20–250 APS employees). These size categories are generally consistent with those used by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO).1 Appendix 1 provides information on agencies’ APS employee numbers. The results of an annual APS employee survey provide another main information source used for the report. The employee survey involved a stratified random sample of 6160 APS employees from APS agencies with at least 100 APS employees. A total of 3654 valid responses were received, representing a response rate of 59%. The sample size and number of valid responses allows a number of cross-tabulations with a degree of confidence. Generally, only individual agency results are reported to indicate agencies with good practice; however, as foreshadowed last year, agencies with poor results in some areas have been identified. Portfolio departments and other large agencies are provided with their own individual agency results for internal management purposes. While the size groupings for large and medium agencies are the same for the agency and employee surveys, it should be noted that for the purposes of the employee survey ‘small’ refers to agencies with between 100 and 250 APS employees. Appendix 2 provides information on the employee and agency survey methodologies. The Commission engaged the services of ORIMA Research to assist with the design, delivery and statistical outputs of both surveys. The Commission also engaged the services of the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to advise on aspects of survey methodology. Assistance in the development and pilot testing of the agency survey was provided by employees in a number of agencies including the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), the Australian Customs Service (Customs), Centrelink, the Department of Defence (Defence), the Department of Finance and Administration (Finance) and IP Australia. The report also draws on the results of the evaluation conducted by the Commission during 2004–05 on agencies’ workplace diversity programmes. Appendix 3 provides information on the methodology used for this evaluation. The report has also relied heavily on published reports from parliamentary committees and the ANAO. Input has been sought from central agencies, particularly Finance, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) and the ANAO, and their assistance is gratefully acknowledged. Contributions were also appreciated from Customs, the ATO, the Australian War Memorial (AWM), Centrelink, Comcare, the Child Support Agency (CSA), the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA), the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources (DITR), the Department of the House of Representatives, the Department of the Senate, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA), the National Archives of Australia (NAA) and the Commonwealth Ombudsman (Ombudsman). Associated with the State of the Service Report 2004–05 are two other publications— the Australian Public Service Statistical Bulletin 2004–05 and the State of the Service Employee Survey Results 2004–05. A summary pamphlet, State of the Service 2004–05 At a Glance, has also been prepared. These publications are available on the Commission website at . 1 ANAO, Staff Reductions in the Australian Public Service, Performance Audit Report No. 49, June 1999, Chapter 1 : Overview As Public Service Commissioner, one of my key roles is to respond to issues of public trust in the bureaucracy. Any such response should include fostering the right kind of leadership, providing credible evaluation and benchmarking to underpin strategic responses, and celebrating public sector achievements. The public service’s identity and its reputation are matters of substance. They affect how public servants feel about working in the APS and about their agencies. They affect the readiness of the community to embrace government programmes and initiatives and to trust that government tax-funded services will be delivered fairly. They affect our international reputation. And, in the long run, they affect our ability to recruit quality people into the public service. Public servants should take pride in being part of an important national institution that supports Australia’s democratic system of government, in which we are bound by a common ethos of public service. The work we do makes a significant contribution to the social and economic health of Australia and to the well-being of the Australian community. The environment public servants operate in is complex and challenging. Nevertheless, the Government, the Parliament and the Australian people have high expectations of us. They expect that we will do our duty properly, exercise good judgment, and work efficiently and effectively for outcomes that are in the national interest. In doing so, public servants are supported by the APS Values (the Values) and are required by law to behave at all times in ways that uphold the Values and the integrity and good reputation of the APS. Our Values are fundamental to our identity and to how we are perceived by the community and internationally, and are important in building trust in the APS as an institution. The annual State of the Service report is part of a process of understanding our identity and of building trust in the APS. The evaluation process is not simply about providing realistic data and analysis concerning the state of the APS: the review process itself should become part of building public servants’ trust in the APS and internalising its values. This is because trust is linked intrinsically to how organisations and people behave—their competence, honesty, whether or not they work in the public interest, act on undertakings, listen to others’ views and learn from their mistakes. It is critical that we all listen to what Government, agencies and other APS employees have to say and consider the implications of the data collected each year. Eighty-two agencies provided responses to our survey in 2004–05, and heads of nearly all of the agencies large enough to participate in the State of the Service employee survey (those with at least 100 employees) actively supported the survey process. Public servants have provided us with a more than credible response rate (59%) to confirm the reliability of our data. This level of responsiveness across the public service gives us ground to hope that this annual evaluation process itself is becoming part of the larger picture, building commitment to the APS and its goals, ensuring that the goals themselves are clear and widely understood, and that the public service is accountable. Beyond this, it is important for all of us to increase our understanding of how the APS and individual agencies sit in terms of broader inter-jurisdictional and international benchmarks of organisational performance. This year we have introduced inter- jurisdictional comparisons based on a limited set of shared data items agreed through the Public Service Commissioners’ conference. I am hoping that the number of comparable data items will be able to be extended in future. We have also introduced a practice of referring in the course of our analysis to relevant international developments, in order to present developments in the APS within a broader framework of continuous public administration reform. The intention here is not to suggest that developments either in Australia or overseas should be taken as a template for reform in other jurisdictions. That would be to ignore the different composition of the public services in different jurisdictions, as well as different government philosophies and approaches to public sector management (such as the more devolved and agency-focused arrangements in the APS). Nevertheless, there is value in understanding Australian developments, such as the recent emphasis on whole of government collaboration and e-government, in the context of responses to similar issues by other jurisdictions. While this is far from being a formal benchmarking exercise, and while Australia is often and fairly judged to be a leader in public sector reform, it is worth observing that we appear to be trailing other jurisdictions in a few areas. There may of course be lags between articulated policy and actual implementation in other jurisdictions, just as there are such lags here, but I suspect that in some areas our progress is simply constrained by the resources available to fund it. A significant part of building trust—both public trust and trust in ourselves—is that we recognise the achievements of public sector agencies in the State of the Service report. While many people cite the Palmer report, how many Australians know of our achievements? How many Australians know that the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) has driven the development of the world’s anti-doping code in sport; that DIMIA delivered the biggest migration programme since the 1980s; that Customs has been involved in some of the largest ever detections of illicit drugs and prohibited and restricted goods; or that the DVA is the second biggest insurer of medical services in the country? As part of our State of the Service data collection, we have asked Management Advisory Committee (MAC)1 member agencies to provide us with their own assessment of their major achievements for 2004–05. A number of these are cited throughout this report as case studies; an overview is provided at Chapter 13, ‘Agency Achievements’. 1 The Management Advisory Committee (MAC) is a forum of Secretaries and Agency Heads established under section 64 of the Act to advise the Australian Government on matters relating to the management of the APS. It is chaired by the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C), with the Commissioner as executive officer. Key findings for 2004–05 Thanks to the annual surveys, we now have the foundations of significant time series data sets for both the employee and agency surveys to consider alongside the Australian Public Service Employment Database (APSED) data on trends in demographic and structural change in APS employment. Read together, the trend data sheds considerable light on critical workforce planning requirements in the public service and how to go about addressing them. Maintaining and sustaining the APS workforce It is clear that, following two decades of reform, the nature of APS work has changed. There has been a major reduction in opportunities for low-skilled employment in response to factors such as technological change, corporatisation, outsourcing and the transfer of some functions to other jurisdictions. The APS 1–2 equivalent classifications—52% of the APS workforce in 1980—have fallen to only 5.2% today. The streamlining and broadbanding of classification structures in the APS and the opening-up of APS employment to external competition have seen new recruits to the public service, many with skills and experience in other sectors, typically commencing at the APS 3–4 classifications or higher and advancing fairly rapidly to higher levels. The APS is now a graduate workplace, with APS employees at all levels increasingly likely to hold tertiary qualifications, regardless of whether they are recruited through graduate entry programmes or general recruitment processes—almost half of our workforce has graduate qualifications, as do around two-thirds of new recruits.2 The skills requirements of APS agencies are growing at a time that the labour force is contracting. Older workers are leaving and there are fewer young workers to replace them. It is not surprising, therefore, that the most common workforce challenge identified by agencies in response to our survey was difficulties in recruiting people with required skills, and the second most common challenge was ensuring that employees’ skills and/or knowledge meet agency requirements (see Chapter 8, ‘Managing, Sustaining and Engaging the APS Workforce’). While our skills requirements are expanding against a contracting labour market, many agencies are operating within tight resource constraints. The overall productivity gains required to be made by APS agencies by the current funding arrangements are quite substantial (see Chapter 5, ‘The Values and Workplace Relationships’). A number of small agencies have raised individual concerns about their capacity to maintain competitive pay rates. We tested these concerns through our agency survey against agency quartile rankings for base salary and total reward, and found that while small agencies are consistently at the lower end of the salary scale for most classifications, the pattern is not clear-cut. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that in a tightening labour market small agencies may begin to experience difficulties in matching the market rates for the skills they need. These constraints mean that agencies will have to be more strategic about the measures they adopt to attract and retain the skills they require. We know from a range of sources that agency progress towards systematic and long-term workforce planning has so far been patchy. In its most recent report, Managing and Sustaining the APS Workforce, MAC called for agencies to focus more urgently on the work they have been doing to establish processes for systematic workforce planning—including identifying new skill requirements for policy and programme development—and how they intend to respond to their longer-term resource requirements. Agencies should also be paying attention to how they are going with the employment of those groups now shrinking as a proportion of the APS workforce—younger people without post-school qualifications, Indigenous people and people with a disability. Where it would be of use, agencies should be exploring base-level recruitment pathways such as apprenticeships, traineeships and/or other recruitment strategies targeted at increasing our recruitment of these groups, including looking at how we can improve the diversity of our workforce—especially Indigenous people and people with a disability. However, this is not just about individual agencies. MAC has established an agenda that will engage a number of agencies and the Commission working in their areas of expertise to map out recruitment, retention and development strategies for use by all APS agencies.3 MAC itself will monitor agency progress in implementing effective workforce planning and strategic resourcing initiatives. It is critically important to ensure that we are developing the next generation of leaders to replace the large number of baby boomers who are leaving the public service and will continue to do so over the next two decades. People are getting to senior public service positions much sooner than they once did, and may not necessarily have had the experience and development opportunities that their predecessors did. I am particularly concerned by the relatively low proportion of public servants who felt able to rate their supervisor highly in the area of ‘shapes strategic thinking’ (47% of APS, 52% of Executive Level (EL)1s and 58% of EL2s and above—overall, 48% in 2004–05, similar to the 2003–04 result) (see Chapter 10, ‘Leadership, Learning and Development in the APS’). This is an area on which agencies, members of the Senior Executive Service (SES) and those who want to enter the SES should focus, through, for example, more concentrated policy development work and training. I am worried by our declining rates of interagency mobility. APS-wide workforce data shows that the new generation of public servants at the executive level contains more and more people who have either come straight into the APS from somewhere else, or who have spent 5–10 years working in only one agency. These people often will not have achieved the depth and breadth of understanding of the Values and the Cabinet, judicial, legislative, finance and parliamentary processes, agency-specific cultures, styles of working, people management and other arrangements that make for effective whole of government collaboration. How can they fully appreciate the work demands, issues and requirements of other agencies? Again, I would exhort both agencies and relevant individuals to attend closely to the mobility initiatives being sponsored as part of the MAC strategy. Employee engagement data It is also important to look inwardly as well as outwardly in order to ensure that we are making the best use of the people we have and those we are looking to recruit. Time series data suggests that there has been a slight downward trend in employee data in a number of indicators that cluster around workplace relationships. Compared to 2003–04, public servants were somewhat less likely to feel that merit processes have been applied; less satisfied with the consultative mechanisms in their workplaces; less satisfied with their overall say in decisions that impacted on their work; and less likely to agree with most of the effectiveness indicators describing the impact of their agency’s performance pay system. Situations outside the control of agencies may also have influenced these results, for example machinery of government changes following the election, and the public debate on relationships between the public service and Executive government on several fronts. However, these remain important indicators because, real or otherwise, perceptions have an impact on the level of our employees’ engagement with their work and, through that, with their longer-term productivity. Employee engagement gives us a good understanding of employees’ commitment to their agency, and is an indicator of how hard they work and how long they will stay with their organisation. Overseas research as well as our own State of the Service data suggests that organisational culture and leadership have a much greater impact on employee engagement and productivity than do other factors. This year we introduced a series of questions aimed at establishing employees’ commitment to working in their agencies and for the APS. Most APS employees (60%) identified themselves primarily with their agencies and 40% with the APS as a whole. Most (two-thirds) agreed that they were proud to work in their current agency and significantly more were proud to work in the APS. This is a good result. Not surprisingly, we found that APS employees’ pride in their agency was positively correlated with their views on whether the agency itself had achieved its stated objectives over the last 12 months, and overall, two-thirds agreed that it had. Importantly, the meeting of agency objectives and growth in personal productivity were also positively correlated: those APS employees who thought their productivity had increased markedly or somewhat over the last year were also more likely to agree that their agency had achieved its stated objectives. Those employees who indicated that their productivity had increased in the last 12 months also identified the five key factors that increased their productivity. Most indicated that they had been helped by increased experience on the job. Good working relationships were also very important to them (this result is confirmed in the job satisfaction results). Beyond these two factors, employee data suggests that the manager is a critical conduit in the process of engaging and retaining employees and increasing productivity. APS employees pointed to good working relationships with their managers; access to the information, resources and/or technology they needed to do their jobs; and working to realistic performance expectations—all managerial responsibilities—and to having a manager who encourages and manages innovation. Conversely, poor management was among the top reasons that employees intended to leave the APS. One of the more interesting findings in the area of employee engagement is that only 4% of employees who felt their productivity had improved, rated access to performance-related pay as one of the top five factors that helped to bring about that improvement. Combined with the other results, this result indicates that there are other more important factors than pay motivating APS staff. International research (summarised in Chapter 8) has reproduced this finding though it is important to point out that the research also found financial incentives to be linked to the attraction and retention of employees. A number of critical indicators of employee engagement that have been identified and defined through research are considered at length in different parts of this report, including: * communication * a reputation for integrity * equity and recognition * diversity * access to learning and development.4 As noted above, our data has indicated that there has been a small, but statistically significant, fall in some of these measures. Each of the measures is closely linked to one or more of the Values. I intend to continue to focus on these areas in future reports. 2 The method used to calculate the proportion of employees with graduate or tertiary qualifications includes those with qualifications at bachelor degree and above. It excludes from the denominator those for whom no data was provided by agencies, and those who chose not to provide details of their highest educational qualification. 3 Management Advisory Committee 2005, Managing and Sustaining the APS Workforce, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. See Chapter 6. 4 The Corporate Leadership Council surveyed 50,000 employees worldwide (including in Centrelink) to identify the cultural traits that have the maximum impact on employees’ engagement with their organisations (see Chapter 8). Developments in 2004–05 The 2004–05 financial year has been mixed. The Palmer Inquiry into the circumstances of the immigration detention of Cornelia Rau,5 which was conducted during the period covered by this report and which reported in July 2005, raised a number of serious concerns about the integrity of systems and processes in use in one APS agency. The Comrie Inquiry into the circumstances of the Vivian Alvarez matter,6 which reported in October 2005, opened further issues related to decision-making processes in the application of regulations and after the discovery of errors. It would be a mistake to quarantine the lessons coming out of these reports to a single agency. There are lessons for all of us. We know from the findings of the Palmer report that to establish a culture of integrity and accountability organisations need sound systems and effective processes. This includes administrative systems around information and communications technology (ICT) and finances, but also extends to governance arrangements and human resources (HR) management systems and processes. It is important that these are designed to avoid a silo mentality, that agencies establish meaningful consultation mechanisms, draw on comprehensive and reliable employee surveys, and emphasise performance management arrangements that link back to the business goals in their corporate plans. Where agencies or parts of agencies are turned in on themselves, it is easy to miss a change in the external environment or an opportunity to collaborate for an improved outcome. The findings of the Comrie report take us directly to the dilemma inherent in all regulation. The exercise of regulatory authority has to balance the burdens regulation imposes (taxation, censorship, the denial of liberty, opportunity costs) and the policy outcome sought, and it has to do this within the broader framework of our national institutions. It is one thing to give officials the authority to make decisions that affect peoples’ lives—in Centrelink, ATO and DIMIA, to name a few—but those officials also have to understand the nature of their authority: the broad legislative and constitutional framework from which it derives, its limits, the scope of any discretion and how to exercise it. We are far more likely to get the balance right, especially in hard cases, if individual decision-makers are working within a coherent system of regulatory oversight. Decision-makers in the APS also need to think seriously about the personal responsibility that goes with the authority to make decisions; what the community regards as a public servant’s ‘duty’. What is duty? It is more than just exercising regulatory authority systematically. Duty is about the judgments and actions of individual public servants as they apply their decision-making to individual people. This means that it is a public servant’s duty to alert people in authority, including politicians, if something goes wrong. It is also a public servant’s duty to seek to correct errors and to undo wrong decisions as soon as possible. Senior managers have a vital role to play in establishing a supportive and professional culture and showing decision-makers how to balance Values like fairness and effectiveness, impartiality and courtesy, responsiveness and apolitical professionalism. We know from our data that public servants who believe that senior managers act in accordance with the Values and lead by example in ethical behaviour, report higher overall levels of job satisfaction and higher levels of pride in working for their agency and for the APS. It is imperative that all of us in the APS, and especially its senior leadership, pay attention to what the data in this report and from other sources is telling us, that we recognise that there are complex relationships between seemingly unconnected aspects of our business, and that we work together to achieve the best outcomes that we can for the Government and for the Australian community. I am keen to ensure that our leadership, and in particular the SES, understand their role in promoting a strong common identity across the APS and a confident approach to the duties of public service. To this end, the MAC has recently released a statement for the SES called One APS—One SES.7 I am giving priority to redeveloping our leadership, learning and development programmes. I will be unveiling a new suite of leadership programmes for the SES over the next few months. In 2005–06 the Commission will reinvigorate its EL programmes, focusing on the public service’s core business areas of programme management, regulatory activity, service delivery and policy development. While there have been disappointments this year, with inevitable room for improvement, this report demonstrates that on many fronts the APS is continuing to strengthen its performance. I believe that, as a sector, we need to be reminded of our strengths. In 2004, the APS received a United Nations award for Improvement of the Quality of Public Service Process in the Asia-Pacific region, in recognition of the reforms and achievements of the public service in recent years. We have an enviable record of policy development and service delivery and in minimising corruption. We are innovative and reforming—and we need to keep vigilantly to that. We remain a significant national asset, in both economic and social terms. As we go forward, we need to build on these strengths—to keep challenging ourselves to make further improvements to our organisations, our relationships and our collaborative skills—if we are to remain a world leader in public sector reform. 5 M.J. Palmer, Inquiry into the Circumstances of the Immigration Detention of Cornelia Rau: Report, July 2005, 6 Commonwealth Ombudsman, Inquiry into the Circumstances of the Vivian Alvarez Matter, (Report by the Commonwealth Ombudsman of an inquiry undertaken by Mr Neil Comrie), September 2005, 7 Management Advisory Committee 2005, Senior Executive Service of the Australian Public Service: One APS—One SES, Australian Government, Canberra. Chapter 2: Statistical snapshot The past decade has seen considerable change in the structure of the APS. A period of restructure and reduction in size has been followed by some growth. In addition to this, there have been changes in the profile of the APS, with fewer jobs at lower levels, an ageing workforce and an increasing proportion of women. These trends have been evident for some years and, based on the latest data available, are likely to continue. This chapter explores current demographic and labour force patterns of people employed under the Act. The main source of data is APSED, maintained by the Commission.1 APSED contains information about recruitment, mobility and separations for all ongoing and non-ongoing employees. Further detail on the size and composition of the APS can be found in the Australian Public Service Statistical Bulletin 2004–05.2 1 While every effort is made to ensure the integrity of APSED data, the Commission cannot be held responsible for inaccuracies in the data provided by agencies. The Commission undertakes extensive audits of the data, and as a result of these audits, some errors in historical data have been corrected. For this reason, caution should be exercised when comparing data presented in this report with that from earlier years. Most significantly, previously published data on employee numbers may have been revised and therefore may not be directly comparable. Due to different data sources and definitions, there may be variations between the data published here and that published by individual agencies. 2 Conceptual definitions used in workforce analysis are set out in the Introduction and Explanatory Notes to the Australian Public Service Statistical Bulletin 2004–05. Size of the APS Overall employee numbers increased by 1.7% during 2004–05, following a slight decrease of 0.2% the previous year. The increase indicates a return to the growth trend of the four years prior to 2003–04. At June 2005, there were 133,596 employees, compared with 131,396 at June 2004. Figure 2.1 shows the change in total employee numbers from 1990 to 2005. The adjusted line takes account of coverage changes in the APS over the period, by showing the number of employees in those functions that remained in the APS at June 2005. Adjusted for coverage changes, the APS is now larger than it was in 1997, but still smaller than in 1996 before the period of structural change and reduction in size. Figure 2.1: APS employees, 1990 to 2005 Source: APSED Diversity trends Workplace diversity makes a major contribution to capability in the APS, as well as being important to equity in employment. Trends in diversity in terms of sex, race and ethnicity, Indigenous status or having a disability, are particularly relevant to monitoring employment-related disadvantage. Apart from sex, employees in these categories have the option of identifying themselves as belonging to these groups by reporting their status to their agency’s HR area. It is important that employees are given the opportunity to update their personal information, and that agencies then provide that data to the Commission. Last year’s employee survey results showed that only 10% of those employees who were offered the opportunity to provide equal employment opportunity (EEO) data actively chose not to do so. At June 2005, women accounted for 54.9% of total employee numbers. This was a relatively large increase over the previous year (53.8% at June 2004). Figure 2.2 shows changes in the proportion of ongoing employees in the other equal employment opportunity (EEO) groups over the past 10 years. Figure 2.2: Trends in diversity for ongoing employee, 1996 to 2005 Source: APSED The decline in employment for Indigenous Australians and people with a disability, noted in previous years’ reports, has continued this year. Indeed, the proportion of Indigenous Australians fell to 2.2% (down from 2.4% in 2004). During the past year, 48 Indigenous employees moved out of coverage of the Act, but remained in Commonwealth employment. If these employees were still in the APS, the representation rate for Indigenous employees would have been 2.3% at June 2005, rather than 2.2%. Last year we reported that 2.3% of ongoing employees at June 2004 were Indigenous. This year, that proportion has been revised upwards, due to an improvement in the quality of historical data on Indigenous status. As part of the APS Employment and Capability Strategy for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, Indigenous employees have been encouraged to identify themselves to their agency’s HR system and many have done so. Taking this new data into account has meant that numbers for previous years have been revised upwards. Representation of people with a disability fell from 3.9% to 3.8% over the year. Both these groups declined in actual numbers as well as proportionately, despite an increase in overall ongoing employee numbers. For non-English speaking background (NESB1) employees,3 there was growth in both actual and proportional representation (up from 5.2% at June 2004 to 5.3% at June 2005).4 A detailed analysis of diversity in the APS can be found in Chapter 9, ‘Workplace Diversity’. 3 In the absence of alternative measures, the concept ‘NESB’, representing people from a non-English speaking background, is used with APSED. This captures information about first language spoken, place of birth and parents’ language. NESB1, the measure used here, includes people born overseas whose first language was not English. NESB2 has previously been reported in addition to NESB1 and includes children of migrants, including those who were born overseas and arrived in Australia before the age of five and did not speak English as a first language, those who were Australian born but did not speak English as a first language and had at least one NESB1 parent, and those who were Australian born and neither of whose parents spoke English as a first language. Analysis of APSED data has found that this group does not have a substantial disadvantage compared to other workers, and it is therefore not reported on here. 4 The representation of NESB1 employees has increased compared with the level reported last year. This is due to a revision in the calculation of this group’s representation. Previous years’ data has also been revised, so any longitudinal movement is not due to the change in methodology. Ongoing and non-ongoing employees Most of the growth in employee numbers this year was due to the large increase in the number of non-ongoing employees. Ongoing employees At June 2005, there were 123,242 ongoing employees in the APS, a slight increase of 0.8% from June 2004. This increase extended the growth of the previous five years. It was, however, the lowest proportional increase since the return to growth following the period of downsizing in the late 1990s. The growth was entirely due to an increase in the number of women from 65,001 to 66,760, a rise of 2.7% on their representation at June 2004. The number of men dropped from 57,304 to 56,482—a fall of 1.4%. These trends are shown in Figure 2.3. Figure 2.3: Ongoing employees by sex, 1996 to 2005 Source: APSED During 2004–05, women’s representation increased from 53.1% to 54.2%. This was the first year since 2000–01 that women’s representation grew by more than one percentage point in a year. There is wide variation between agencies in the proportional representation of men and women. Further analysis can be found in Chapter 9. The representation of women at higher classification levels also continued to rise: at June 2005, women comprised 33.0% of the SES (an increase from 31.5% at June 2004) and 40.3% of EL employees (up from 39.3% the previous year). The largest increases in ongoing employee numbers were in ATO (up by 1094 or 5.3%) and DIMIA (up by 971 or 22.7%). Part of the increase in DIMIA was due to movement of employees from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services (ATSIS). Smaller agencies that increased in size were the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) (51 or 79.7%), the Office of National Assessments (ONA) (23 or 43.4%), the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia (20 or 35.7%) and the Ombudsman (18 or 22.0%). The largest decreases in ongoing employee numbers were in Defence (641 or 3.5%) and Centrelink (513 or 2.1%). This was the second successive year that ongoing employee numbers fell substantially in Centrelink, after that agency grew by 8.1% in 2002–03. Non-ongoing employees Non-ongoing employee numbers rose significantly this year, from 9091 at June 2004 to 10,354 at June 2005, an increase of 13.9%. This followed a sharp decline during the previous year of 20.4%. Non-ongoing employee numbers increased for both men and women; however, the proportional increase was greater for women (15.7%) than for men (10.9%). Despite this increase, there is still a long-term trend decline in non-ongoing employee numbers. Almost all of the increase in non-ongoing employment was concentrated in the three largest agencies—ATO (up by 605 or 49.4%), Centrelink (up by 384 or 71.2%) and Defence (up by 179 or 22.7%). In 2003–04, ATO and Centrelink accounted for most of the decline in non-ongoing employment when the number of non-ongoing employees fell by 20.4%. Figure 2.4 provides details of non-ongoing employees as a proportion of total employees from 1996 to 2005. It shows that the proportion of non-ongoing employment has generally declined over the decade, despite the growth this year. The representation rate for women has been consistently higher than that for men. Figure 2.4: Non-ongoing employees as a proportion of total employees, 1996 to 2005 Source: APSED As a proportion of total employees, non-ongoing employment rose from 6.9% to 7.7% in the year to June 2005. The proportion of men rose to 6.3% and that of women to 8.9%. Non-ongoing employees are concentrated at lower classification levels, with 71.0% at the APS 1–4 levels, compared with only 41.0% of ongoing staff. Well over half of all APS 1 employees (57.9%) are non-ongoing, as are a quarter of APS 2s (25.4%). The concentration of lower classification employees in the non-ongoing employment category has increased this year, with 34.0% of all APS 1–2 employees employed as non-ongoing, compared with 29.1% last year. The concentration was due mostly to a decline in the number of ongoing employees at these classification levels rather than to strong growth in non-ongoing numbers. It will be interesting to see if this trend persists in future years. As Figure 2.5 shows, the representation of non-ongoing employees at higher classifications is much lower. Figure 2.5: Proportion of total employees at each classification who are non-ongoing by sex, June 2005 Source: APSED While non-ongoing employment grew by 13.1% overall, there was considerable variation across the classification groups, with an increase of 28.8% in the number of non-ongoing APS 3–4s, and 13.8% in the number of non-ongoing SES employees. Women accounted for 63.2% of non-ongoing employees, but are particularly concentrated at lower classification levels. At least 60% of all non-ongoing employees are women at all the APS 1–6 classification levels, with fewer than 50% of non-ongoing employees being women among ELs or the SES. In general, smaller agencies engage a greater proportion of their employees on a non-ongoing basis than do large agencies. The Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency (EOWA) (60.7%), the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) (51.7%), the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) (42.4%) and the Federal Court (40.4%) had the highest proportion of non-ongoing employees at June 2005. Part-time employees At June 2005, 11.3% of ongoing employees were working part-time. This continued the long-term trend towards part-time employment. While part-time work has been growing in the APS, its incidence is well below that for equivalent occupations in the broader public sector (31%) and the private sector (33%).5 Women are still much more likely to work part-time, with 18.0% of women employed part-time compared with 3.3% of men. This year was the first for some time where there was a greater proportional increase in the number of ongoing women working part-time (11.9%) than of men (11.7%), although the difference was very slight. These trends are shown in Figure 2.6. Figure 2.6: Proportion of ongoing employees working part-time by sex, 1996 to 2005 Source: APSED During 2004–05, there was actually a decline in the number of ongoing employees working full-time—a drop from 109,889 to 109,350 (or 0.5%). Female non-ongoing employees are more likely to work part-time than any other group, with over one quarter (26.7%) of non-ongoing women working part-time. For non-ongoing men the proportion was 19.1%. Overall, 23.9% of non-ongoing employees were working part-time at June 2005. Part-time employment for both ongoing and non-ongoing employees is concentrated at lower classification levels, for both men and women. Centrelink continues to be the largest employer of part-time employees in the APS employing 36.3% of all part-time ongoing employees at June 2005. This group accounted for 20.7% of Centrelink’s ongoing employees. Centrelink accounted for most of the growth in part-time employment with 869 more ongoing part-time employees out of an overall increase in the APS of 1476. Part-time work by age Part-time work for women is highest in the 30–44 age group, with 24.5% of ongoing women in this age group working part-time. The proportion is much lower for men in this age group (3.7%) but still somewhat higher than the overall male average of 3.3%. Older workers (i.e. those aged 45 years and over) are less likely to work part-time, with only 2.8% of men aged 45 years and over working part-time, and 13.0% of women. Older workers, however, are more likely to work part-time as they get older (as shown in Figure 2.7). Figure 2.7: Proportion of ongoing employees working part-time by age group and sex, June 2005 Source: APSED The trend towards part-time employment for older workers, highlighted in last year’s report, has continued. During 2004–05, the proportion of ongoing employees aged over 60 who were working part-time rose from 7.1% to 8.2%. This trend suggests a growing awareness within agencies of the importance of providing more flexible working arrangements for older workers. 5 ABS 2002, Census of Population and Housing 2001, ABS, Canberra. Classification structures Table 2.1 compares ongoing employee numbers by classification level as at June 2004 and June 2005. The substantial decrease in the number of ongoing APS 1–2 employees (from 7713 at June 2004 to 6353 at June 2005) indicates a return to the very significant long-term decline at those levels, despite a slight reversal last year. There were increases in both Graduate APS and other trainee classifications, as well as at all classification levels at the APS 6 level and above. Table 2.1: Ongoing employees by classification, 2004 and 2005 Classification 2004 % 2005 % APS 1 1434 1.2 1064 0.9 APS 2 6279 5.1 5289 4.3 APS 3 17344 14.2 17453 14.2 APS 4 27479 22.5 26727 21.7 APS 5 16286 13.3 16168 13.1 APS 6 24806 20.3 25641 20.8 EL1 16527 13.5 17847 14.5 EL 2 9458 7.7 9880 8.0 SES 1899 1.6 2025 1.6 Trainee 271 0.2 379 0.3 Graduate APS 522 0.4 769 0.6 Total 122305 100.0 123242 100.0 Source: APSED In past years, this report has noted the long-term reduction in the number of ongoing employees at the APS 1–2 levels, and the increasing number of employees at higher levels. This is broadly due to changes in the nature of the work undertaken in the APS, changes in job design and the need for a more highly-skilled workforce. This year there is evidence of stronger growth at more senior levels. Compared to June 2004, there was a net reduction in the number of employees at the APS 1–5 levels of 2121 employees. Over the same period, there was a net increase in the number of employees at the APS 6 and EL 1 classifications of 2155.6 When proportions are used to eliminate variation due to changes in the size of the APS over the past 15 years, 2004–05 appears as the first year in which there has been a reduction at every level from APS 1 to APS 5 in comparison with the previous year. Despite the continued growth in women’s representation in the APS, there is still a considerable difference between the classification profiles of men and women, particularly at higher classification levels. Figure 2.8 shows the proportion of men and women at selected classifications. Women outnumber men at all APS 1–6 classification levels, with the proportion of women falling sharply at higher levels. Figure 2.8: Ongoing employees by classification and sex, June 2005 Source: APSED The increase in female representation among ELs and in the SES continues at a faster rate than at lower classifications, as shown in Figure 2.9. In this graph, each number is weighted using the June 1996 total ongoing staff numbers as a base. Weighting eliminates the effects that the change in the overall size of the APS has on representation. The index is given a value of 100 at June 1996, and rises and falls proportionally with the particular group’s change in the weighted number over time. Trends in women’s employment by classification are discussed in detail in Chapter 9. Figure 2.9: Change in the number of women at selected classifications, weighted and indexed, 1996 to 2005 Source: APSED 6 These numbers have not been adjusted to take into account the change in the size of the APS; however, as there was only a very slight increase in the total number of ongoing employees during 2004–05, the shift is still substantial. Mobility within the APS Figure 2.10 sets out how mobility between agencies has varied over the past 10 years. It shows that there was some decline between 1998–99 and 2003–04, before a rise in 2004–05. The transfer rate has mostly been higher than the promotion rate between agencies.7 Indeed, the increase in mobility this year was much stronger for transfers than for promotions. During 2004–05, the transfer rate between agencies was 1.3%, and the promotion rate was 0.7%, compared with 1.0% and 0.5%, respectively, in the previous twelve months. Overall, promotions rose from 12,368 in 2003–04 to 13,044 in 2004–05. Promotions between agencies increased at a higher rate than promotions within agencies, rising from 5.3% of all promotions in 2003–04 to 6.3% in 2004–05. Further details on mobility can be found in the MAC report, Managing and Sustaining the APS Workforce.8 Mobility between agencies is generally higher for women than for men. During 2004–05, the overall mobility rate (including both promotions and transfers) was 2.2% for women and 1.7% for men. Mobility rates are highest for the SES, followed by those for EL employees. In 2004–05, mobility increased in all classification groups. Figure 2.10: Ongoing employees—promotion and transfer rates between agencies, 1995–96 to 2004–05 Source: APSED 7 Transfer and promotion rates are calculated as the number of movements during a financial year, divided by the average of the number of employees at the beginning and end of the period. The terminology of ‘transfer’ and ‘promotion’ have been used in this chapter because they are commonly understood by most APS employees. The terminology adopted under the Act is ‘movement at level’ for transfer between agencies. Promotion is defined as ‘the assignment to the employee of duties at a higher classification than the employee’s current classification (whether or not the employee moves to another agency)’. 8 Management Advisory Committee 2005, Managing and Sustaining the APS Workforce, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Age profile The decline in employment of young people, noted in last year’s report, has continued this year. The number of ongoing APS employees aged less than 25 years dropped to 4967 at June 2005. This was a decrease of 306 (or 5.8%) on the previous year. In absolute terms, there were decreases in all age groups under 45 years, except for the 30–34 age group, with strongest growth in the 55 and over age group. Table 2.2 shows the proportion of employees in 10 year age groups, at June 1996, 1999, 2002 and 2005. Over the decade, the largest increase has been in the 45–54 age group, which increased by 5.3 percentage points. This age group is now almost as large in number as the 35–44 group, and will outnumber it in the next year if current trends continue. This trend has major implications for workforce planning and succession management in agencies. The 55 and over age group has grown steadily over the past decade, particularly in the past few years, rising to over 10% of all ongoing staff at June 2005. Table 2.2: Ongoing employees—proportion by age, 1996, 1999, 2002 and 2005   1996 (%) 1999 (%) 2002 (%) 2005 (%) Under 25 6.3 4.1 4.6 4.0 25-34 29.4 26.6 25.8 25.1 35-44 33.7 33.9 32.3 30.5 45-54 25.0 29.1 29.7 30.3 55 and over 5.6 6.3 7.6 10.1 Median age 39 40 41 42 Source: APSED Figure 2.11 shows how young people’s representation in the APS has changed over the past decade. In the 20–24 age group, the improvement between 2001 and 2003 has completely reversed in the past two years, and the representation of this group is at its lowest level since regular data collection began. For the under 20 years age group, the number of employees is much smaller, and there has been little change in their representation over the decade. Figure 2.11: Ongoing employees—representation of young people, 1996 to 2005 Source: APSED Figure 2.12 shows that, in general, the APS has an older age profile than the Australian labour force, with a significantly lower proportion of young people, and more in the 35–54 age group: 60.8% of ongoing APS employees were aged 35–54 compared with only 45.2% of the labour force. The APS has a lower proportion in the 55 years and over age group, although the gap in the 55–59 age group has narrowed this year. Figure 2.12: Age profile of ongoing APS employees and labour force, 2005 Source: APSED and ABS Employees in the 45 and over age group, who will be eligible for retirement in the next 10 years, account for 40.4% of ongoing employees. In 1996, this group accounted for only 30.5% of ongoing employees. Older workers are more likely to be in higher classifications and, in general, have longer length of service than average. The ageing of more senior ongoing employees over the past 10 years is particularly pronounced; for example, 26.2% of the SES and 17.7% of EL employees were in the 50–54 age group at June 2005, compared with 24.2% and 13.7% at June 1996. The 55 and over age group shows a similar pattern, with the proportion of SES employees in this age group increasing from 10.7% to 17.7% over the decade. The proportion of EL employees aged 55 and over increased from 6.3% to 10.4%. Thus, 43.9% of the SES and 28.1% of EL employees could, if they wished, retire with superannuation benefits within five years. Agencies’ age profiles vary widely. This reflects, in part, the nature of an agency’s functions and classification structures. Those agencies with a relatively high proportion of staff aged over 45 years may face more critical and different workforce planning and knowledge management issues than those with a younger age profile. Figure 2.13 shows comparative age profiles for ongoing employees in selected agencies at June 2005. The graph includes all agencies with more than 1500 ongoing employees, as well as some others with particularly young or old age profiles; for example, ANAO (14.5%), Finance (10.0%) and the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) (9.0%) all have a much higher proportion of their employees aged under 25 years than the APS average of 4.0%. Similarly, some agencies have a much older age profile, with a higher proportion of employees aged 45 years or over, for example, the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) (64.1%), the Bureau of Meterology (BoM) (55.8%) and DVA (55.1%). at June 2005, 40.4% of APS employees were aged 45 years or over. Figure 2.13: Ongoing employees in selected agencies by age group, June 2005 Source: APSED Length of service As at June 2005, the median length of service9 for ongoing employees was nine years. Men have a median length of service of eleven years, compared with seven for women. Figure 2.14 shows the profile of length of service over the 10 years to June 2005. As a proportion of total ongoing employees, the number of those with fewer than five years service has risen from less than one quarter in 1998 (23.0%) to almost one-third at June 2005 (32.7%). This rise reflects the increase in engagements over this period—in the past five years there have been 61,895 ongoing engagements, compared with 39,916 in the five years before that. A substantial proportion of those engaged this year had previously worked in the APS. Further details can be found in the ‘Prior service’ section below. Figure 2.14: Ongoing employees—length of service, 1996 to 2005 Source: APSED 9 Length of service has been calculated differently this year. In past years, only length of service on an employee’s current Australian Government Service (AGS) number has been used. Due to improvements in data quality, from this year length of service will be calculated based on an employee’s complete history (including service as a non-ongoing employee since 1999); for example, an employee who had five years of service, left the APS for two years and then returned for seven years would have a total length of service of 12 years. Previously, this employee would have been recorded as having seven years of service. The impact of this will be an overall increase in length of service, but the data will more accurately represent the relevant APS experience of employees. Location Over one-third (34.9%) of ongoing APS employees are located in Canberra. The proportion increases at higher classification levels; for example, over three-quarters (75.5%) of SES employees are in Canberra compared with only 16.2% of APS 1–2s. Over the past 10 years the proportion of APS employees in Canberra has risen from 31.8% in 1996. Engagements and separations There were 11,424 engagements and 10,482 separations of ongoing employees during 2004–05. Engagements rose by 22.6% over the previous year, and separations rose by 44.2% over the same period. Figure 2.15 shows ongoing engagements and separations as a proportion of all ongoing employees for the past 10 years. Figure 2.15: Ongoing engagements and separations as a proportion of ongoing employees, 1995–96 to 2004–05 Source: APSED Figure 2.16 compares the age profile of engagements and separations during 2004–05 with the age profile of the APS overall. As expected, the age profile for engagements is much younger than for the APS overall. For separations, there are two peaks—in the 25–34 and 50–54 age groups. During 2004–05, 20.9% of those who left were aged under 30 years. For further analysis of ageing trends, see Chapter 9. Figure 2.16: Age profile of ongoing engagements and separations, 2004–05 Source: APSED Engagements The strong growth in ongoing engagements during 2004–05 continued the fluctuating pattern of much of the past decade. The growth was from an unusually low number in 2003–04, and total engagements remained below the level of the previous few years. Figure 2.17 shows the proportion of engagements of ongoing employees by classification for the past 10 years. The long-term fall in engagements at the APS 1–2 levels has slowed, and indeed reversed very slightly. This group’s representation appears to have stabilised at around 10% of total engagements. Most ‘base-level’ ongoing recruitment is now at the APS 3–4 levels or through graduate and other trainee classifications. Engagements at APS 3–4 levels fell proportionally this year; however, engagements at the trainee classifications (including both graduate and other trainees) experienced the strongest growth of any classification level with an increase of 47.6% on the previous year. Trainee classifications rose as a proportion of total engagements from 8.9% in 2003–04 to 10.7% in 2004–05—the only classification group to increase by more than one percentage point. Despite their proportional decline, the APS 3–4 levels still accounted for almost half of all ongoing engagements during the year, more than twice the number of any other classification level. Although data on educational qualifications is incomplete, it does show that the trend for new recruits to also be graduates has increased substantially, from around 25% twenty years ago to around 67% in 2004–05.10 Women accounted for 58.0% of ongoing engagements during 2004–05, almost unchanged from the previous year (57.9% in 2003–04). In the middle management group, ongoing engagements at the APS 5–6 levels experienced relatively less growth (up by only 10.2% compared with the APS average of 22.6%). In contrast, the number of ongoing engagements at EL classifications grew by 31.3%. Engagements to the SES grew by the smallest amount, with an increase of 6.4% over the previous year, with most growth in the SES being through promotion within and between agencies. Figure 2.17: Ongoing engagements by classification, 1995–96 to 2004–05 Source: APSED Mobility between the APS and the wider labour market can be gauged by the proportion of employment opportunities filled by engagements (i.e. from outside the APS) as a percentage of opportunities filled by engagements and promotions. Over the past decade there has been an increase in the proportion of opportunities filled by engagements, from 33.7% in 1995–96 to 47.6% in 2004–05. There has, however, been some variation between classification levels in this trend towards engagement rather than promotion. As noted above, this year there has been an increase in the total number of employees in the APS 6 and EL classifications, and a decline at lower levels. The trend towards filling employment opportunities by engagement rather than promotion is no longer evident at these levels—indeed, the proportion of employment opportunities at the APS 6 and EL classifications filled by engagement has fallen over the past three years. During 2004–05, the number of promotions to the APS 6 and EL 1 classifications rose by 1358. In contrast, the number of engagements at these levels increased by only 285. Ongoing engagements rose in all age groups this year. Figure 2.18 shows changes in the age profile of engagements to the APS over the past 10 years. After several years of decline, engagements in the under 25 years age group seem to have stabilised at just over 20% of all engagements. During 2004–05, the age groups that fell in proportional terms were the under 25 and 45–54 age groups. The latter group had experienced above average growth during 2003–04. By far, the greatest growth in engagements this year was in the 55 years and over age group, which grew by more than a third. This continues a long-term trend which has strengthened since the removal of compulsory age retirement in 1999. Figure 2.18: Ongoing engagements by age group, 1995–96 to 2004–05 Source: APSED During 2004–05, ongoing engagements were concentrated in the three largest agencies: ATO (1913), Centrelink (1458) and Defence (1130). The growth in engagements during the year was due mainly to large increases in ATO (867 or an 82.9% increase on the previous year) and Customs (up by 376 or 432.2%). Other agencies which increased numbers of engagements were Centrelink (229), CSA (197) and DIMIA (167). Prior service Of the 11,424 ongoing engagements during 2004–05, 1584 had previously worked in the APS as ongoing employees. Of these, over one-quarter (428) were re-engaged by the same agency in which they had previously worked. The median length of service prior to re-engagement as ongoing employees was 7.6 years. A total of 4052 people who were engaged as ongoing employees during 2004–05 had previously worked as non-ongoing employees in the APS. Of these, 3504 were engaged as ongoing employees by the same agency in which they were previously non-ongoing. The median length of service as a non-ongoing employee prior to their ongoing engagement was 1.0 years. These two totals include 684 people who had both non-ongoing and ongoing previous service. A total of 6472 of the ongoing engagements during 2004–05 had no prior experience in the APS.11 Put another way, close to half of those people engaged as ongoing employees during 2004–05 (43.3%) had previously worked in the APS. Separations There were 10,482 separations of ongoing employees during 2004–05, an increase of 44.2% on the 7270 the previous year. This was the largest number of separations since 1999–00. There were increases in most separation types, except for termination of employment. Retrenchments more than doubled, from 604 to 1715, after falling the previous year. Age retirements12 fell proportionally after rising for the past two years. Figure 2.19 shows how the different separation types have varied over the past 10 years. Figure 2.19: Ongoing separations, 1995–96 to 2004–05 Source: APSED Women represented 46.3% of separations during 2004–05, down from 53.0% last year. They were particularly over-represented in resignations (56.4%) and under-represented in retrenchments (36.8%). Variation in the number of retrenchments has been the major factor influencing overall trends in separations during the past decade. During 2004–05, Defence (698) and Centrelink (463) accounted for two-thirds of all retrenchments. Compulsory moves to non-APS agencies were also high this year, with 1236 ongoing employees transferred with the movement of the Australian Protective Service out of coverage of the Act. In total, there were 1361 compulsory moves of ongoing employees to non-APS agencies. Separations by age group for 2003–04 and 2004–05, and the change over the two years, are shown in Table 2.3. The proportion of ongoing employees in each age group at June 2005 is included for comparison. Table 2.3: Separations of ongoing employees by age group, 2003–04 and 2004–05   2003–04 2004–05 % change 2003–04 to 2004–05 Ongoing employees at June 2005   No. % No. %   % Under 20 24 0.3 19 0.2 -20.8 0.1 20-24 476 6.5 602 5.7 26.5 3.9 25-29 1081 14.9 1569 15.0 45.1 10.9 30-34 1106 15.2 1549 14.8 40.1 14.3 35-39 794 10.9 1204 11.5 51.6 14.2 40-44 751 10.3 1183 11.3 57.5 16.3 45-49 645 8.9 950 9.1 47.3 16.2 50-54 1065 14.6 1502 14.3 41.0 14.1 55-59 824 11.3 1133 10.8 37.5 7.3 60 & Over 504 6.9 771 7.4 53.0 2.8 Total 7270 100.0 10482 100.0 44.2 100.0 Source: APSED While the number of separations increased in most age groups, the rise was generally greater for older employees. This is consistent with the continuing ageing of the APS. Interestingly, the largest proportional increase was for those in the 40–44 age group. Figure 2.20 shows the proportion of ongoing employees in the 50–65 years age range that separated through resignation or retirement, for the past 10 years. The sharp rise for 54 year-olds since 1996–97 is most likely linked to the overall reduction in retrenchments since then and to the financial incentive for some members of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS) to resign just before their 55th birthday (the 54/11 effect). The relative decline in age 54 resignations during 2002–03 and the plateau during 2003–04 may be related to the lower exit rates from the CSS during some eighteen months of that period. The number of resignations for age 54 rose again during 2004–05 (as did the CSS exit rates). Figure 2.20: Resignation/retirement rate for selected ages, 1995–96 to 2004–05 Source: APSED 10 The method used to calculate the proportion of employees with graduate or tertiary qualifications includes those with qualifications at bachelor degree and above. It excludes from the denominator those for whom no data was provided by agencies, and those who chose not to provide details for their highest educational qualification. 11 As previous service is, in part, linked through an employee’s name, it is possible that a small proportion of these people who may have changed their name had some prior experience that is not included here. 12 Age retirements includes resignations after age 55. Demography of the SES leadership group The SES constitutes the senior management and leadership group of the APS, and comprised 1.6% of total ongoing APS employment at June 2005.13 This was a very slight increase, compared with the previous year.14 The size of the SES has fluctuated over the past decade, decreasing from 1766 in 1996 to 1561 in 1998. The number at June 2005, 2025, is the largest since the SES was established in 1984. Band 1 SES employees make up the largest proportion at 75.5% of all ongoing SES employees, Band 2 comprise 19.9% and Band 3 comprise 4.7%. Most of the growth in the SES this year was at Band 1 which grew by 102 or 7.2%. The agencies with the largest net increases in Band 1 employees were ATO (up by 34 or 20.2%), DEWR (up by 33 or 73.3%) and DIMIA (up by 16 or 39.0%). The net increase of 33 SES Band 1s in DEWR consisted of 44 new Band 1s and 11 who left or were promoted. Of the 44, 23 were promoted within the department, and nine transferred in due to machinery of government changes. For DIMIA, eight were transferred in due to machinery of government changes and there was one internal promotion. The proportion of women in the SES has increased steadily over the past decade, from 19.3% in 1996 to 33.0% in 2005. As is the case for the overall APS, women are concentrated at lower levels: 81.3% of SES women are at Band 1 compared with 72.6% of men, 15.7% are at Band 2 compared with 21.9% of men, and 3.0% are at Band 3 compared with 5.5% of men. Figure 2.21 shows the changing age profile for the SES over the past 10 years. The shift indicates an ageing of the SES workforce, consistent with the ageing of the APS overall. Since 1996, the proportion of ongoing SES employees aged less than 45 years has fallen from 32.8% to 28.1%, while the proportion aged over 50 years has risen from 34.9% to 43.9%. Figure 2.21: Age profile for ongoing SES employees, 1996 and 2005 Source: APSED The age profile for female SES is younger than for males: 35.8% of female SES are aged less than 45 years compared with 24.3% of male SES. Table 2.4 indicates that over one-third of SES Band 1s (38.5%) are aged 50 years or over. For Band 2s, over half are in that age group (55.5%). Band 3s have an even older age profile, with over three quarters (80.0%) being over 50. Currently, 78 SES employees (comprising 3.9% of the SES cohort) are aged 60 and over. This compares with 61 or 3.2% at June 2004. In line with their younger age profile, women comprise a substantially lower proportion of the SES in older age groups. Table 2.4: Ongoing SES employees by age group, sex and level, June 2005   SES 1 SES 2 SES 3 Total % who are female   M F Total M F Total M F Total No. %   30-34 24 13 37 1 0 1 0 0 0 38 1.9 34.2 35-39 89 64 153 7 2 9 0 0 0 162 8.0 40.7 40-44 172 133 305 31 25 56 6 2 8 369 18.2 43.4 45-49 293 151 444 77 36 113 7 4 11 568 28.0 33.6 50-54 250 127 377 91 23 114 30 9 39 530 26.2 30.0 55-59 124 49 173 65 15 80 24 3 27 280 13.8 23.9 60 & Over 33 6 39 25 4 29 8 2 10 78 3.9 15.4 Total 985 543 1528 297 105 402 75 20 95 2025 100.0 33.0 Source: APSED 13 Data for the SES includes employees grouped with the equivalent SES bands under the Public Service Classification Rules 2000. Data also includes inoperative SES. 14 The increase was from 1.55% to 1.64%, and when rounded to one decimal place there is no change. Key chapter findings The APS returned to a period of growth this year, with much of the increase due to a rise in non-ongoing employees. In the past few years, variation has been due mostly to growth or contraction in the three largest agencies—Centrelink, ATO and Defence. The feminisation of the APS, evident for many years, appears to be accelerating. Despite this growth, women are still concentrated at lower classification levels. The ‘typical’ new starter in the APS is now a 32 year-old with graduate qualifications,15 who is at the APS 3 level and more likely to be a woman than a man. The decline in employment of young people, noted in last year’s report, continues to be of concern. In contrast, the trend towards increased employment of older workers seems to be growing each year. With an ageing workforce, especially in the SES leadership group, and a projected tightening of the labour market, agencies still face the challenge of succession management and planning for the future workforce. 15 The method used to calculate the proportion of employees with graduate or tertiary qualifications includes those with qualifications at bachelor degree and above. It excludes from the denominator those for whom no data was provided by agencies, and those who chose not to provide details of their highest educational qualification. Chapter 3: The Values and relations with the Government and the Parliament Public servants, Ministers and parliamentarians operate under the law within a democratic political system in which there is ultimate accountability of governments to the Australian people through the electoral process. Ministers and governments as the elected representatives of the Australian people determine and define the public interest through government programmes and policies. The APS advises the Government and implements its programmes and policies, and has clear responsibility to protect the public interest in terms of ensuring compliance with the law and promoting due process for administrative decision-making. It also has a vital role in providing a longer-term perspective to decision-making and policy development. Three of the Values are central to the relationship between the APS and the Government and the Parliament: * The APS is apolitical, performing its functions in an impartial and professional manner. * The APS is openly accountable for its actions, within the framework of ministerial responsibility to the Government, the Parliament and the Australian public. * The APS is responsive to the Government in providing frank, honest, comprehensive, accurate and timely advice and in implementing the Government’s policies and programmes. This chapter explores these Values in practice in relation to several important aspects of the accountability and governance framework underpinning the work of public servants. Specifically, the chapter examines aspects of agencies’ and employees’ interactions with the Government and the Parliament, including dealings with Ministers and ministerial offices. It also addresses employees’ experience of an important accountability issue— record keeping. Relations with the Government As mentioned above, the Values require that APS employees be responsive to the Government, and also apolitical and openly accountable. A related requirement of the Code of Conduct (the Code) is that APS employees maintain appropriate confidentiality in dealings with Ministers and their offices—a critical factor for a relationship built on trust and cooperation. Both the agency and employee surveys explored aspects of the relationship between the APS and the Government. The key results of both surveys are presented below. Responsiveness to Ministers To monitor how agencies are meeting their obligations of responsiveness to Ministers in terms of providing frank, honest, comprehensive, accurate and timely advice and services, the agency survey again asked agencies to advise on the quality control and evaluation measures they use. Most agencies providing regular services to Ministers include in their portfolio budget statements target measures of the level and quality of those services, against which they report performance in their annual reports. This report does not attempt to summarise those performance results but to assess in general terms the adequacy of the quality control and evaluation measures being used, as reported in the agency survey. Fifty-nine agencies reported providing regular (i.e. monthly or more frequent) services or advice to Ministers. Large agencies (100%) are much more likely to provide regular services or advice than medium (73%) or small (54%) agencies. These results are similar to last year’s. Consistent with last year’s results, all 59 agencies providing regular services or advice reported having at least one quality control measure1 in place, while 49 agencies indicated that they had at least one evaluation measure2 in place during 2004–05. Also consistent with last year’s results is that 90% of relevant agencies this year reported having three or more formal measures in place to ensure quality or evaluate the quality of services provided. The most common quality control measures reported were the specification of a minimum classification for signing off ministerial briefs and a central function for the quality assurance and coordination of written material to and from Ministers’ offices (both were reported by 97% of relevant agencies). Over half (61%) of relevant agencies reported having a policy in place requiring that telephone contact with ministerial advisers be limited to certain classification levels. The most common evaluation measure was some form of internal peer review to evaluate ministerial advice (64% of relevant agencies). The other measures reported were the use of a formal rating system to collect ministerial feedback (44%), a formal requirement that oral feedback is collected from ministerial staff (27%) and a formal requirement that oral feedback is collected from the Minister (22%). Agency survey responses indicate that the use of quality control and evaluation measures in the APS has varied somewhat over the last three years. While overall the use of quality control measures has remained steady, the results show that there has been an increase in the proportion of agencies having a policy in place requiring that phone contact with ministerial advisers be limited to certain classification levels (from 43% to 61% of relevant agencies). As Figure 3.1 shows, there is no clear pattern in the use of evaluation measures over the last three years. There has, for example, been a steady downward trend in the use of oral feedback from ministerial staff (from 38% to 27% of relevant agencies), yet the use of peer review has fluctuated over the three years. Figure 3.1: Quality control and evaluation measures for services to Ministers, 2002–03 to 2004–05 Source: Agency survey This year’s agency survey also asked those agencies that collected formal ministerial feedback via some form of rating system about the criteria they used and the agency’s overall rating result for 2004–05. Of the 26 agencies that used some form of rating system to seek formal ministerial feedback, the criteria these agencies were most likely to use were quality of material (88%) and timeliness (81%). When the overall satisfaction rating in 2004–05 for the 26 agencies was examined, just under half reported that their overall rating was 100% satisfactory (23%) or 95–99% satisfactory (23%). A further 23% of relevant agencies reported that they were not sure what their overall rating was, while an additional 23% outlined that an overall satisfaction rating was not applicable. The remaining 8% of relevant agencies reported that their overall satisfaction rating was either 80–89% or 70–79% satisfactory. Previous State of the Service reports suggested that more effort by agencies was needed to obtain regular feedback from Ministers and their staff. Unfortunately, this year’s results show that even fewer agencies are obtaining such feedback. It may be that the figures reflect in part greater stability amongst Ministers and senior public servants in recent years, and reduced pressure from Ministers for further service level improvements or from agencies for clarity about their assessed performance. Even if this is so, regular feedback from Ministers and their staff remains an essential element of any strategy to improve service, and there are risks in complacency. APS agencies seeking guidance in this area are encouraged to refer to the ANAO’s better practice guide on managing parliamentary workflow, which stresses the need for regular feedback.3 The guide is intended to assist agencies in managing ministerial and parliamentary support arrangements. Agency policies and protocols Most agencies also report having explicit policies on record keeping in relation to interactions with ministerial offices. Almost all (93%) relevant agencies report that they have protocols requiring that hard and/or electronic copies of significant email communication with advisers be retained on file. Seventy-one per cent of relevant agencies require that oral briefing to Ministers or advisers be followed up by written briefing where appropriate, and 69% of relevant agencies require that file notes be made after significant discussions with Ministers or advisers. Figure 3.2 shows that over the last three years there has been an overall trend toward agencies having such requirements in place. Figure 3.2: Agency record keeping requirements, 2002–03 to 2004–05 Source: Agency survey The survey also asked agencies whether they had certain measures in place to assist employees in their dealings with ministerial offices. In response, 56% of relevant agencies reported having agreed unwritten processes in place for resolving staff concerns that may arise about the nature of requests from ministerial offices. This year six agencies reported having written processes of the same kind—up from only one agency in 2003–04. In addition to these processes, 39% of relevant agencies indicated that they provide training for relevant employees in interacting with ministerial offices. Generally, these results are consistent with those reported last year. Further discussion of the level of awareness of agency protocols amongst employees is included later in this chapter. Employee contact with ministerial offices According to this year’s employee survey results, 20% of APS employees had been in direct4 contact with Ministers or their advisers in the previous 12 months.5 This is consistent with last year’s result and confirms that interaction with Ministers and their advisers throughout the APS is occurring on a wide scale. Seventy-three per cent of SES employees, 35% of EL employees and 15% of APS 1–6 employees reported having had direct contact with Ministers and/or their advisers in the last year. Contact was far higher in departments (31%) than other agencies (13%), and in the ACT (33%) than elsewhere (14%). These results are all consistent with the findings reported last year. Relevant employees were asked a question about the types of matters upon which they came into direct contact with Ministers and/or their advisers. Consistent with last year, respondents indicated that most of the contact was related to the provision of advice and factual information. It can be seen in Table 3.1 that the variation in the types of matters upon which employees came into contact with Ministers and/or their advisers has remained largely consistent over the last two years. Nevertheless, this year there was a significant decrease in the proportion of relevant employees who had come into direct contact with Ministers and/or their advisers in relation to providing advice and constituent issues. This decrease may be partially affected by the introduction of the Local Liaison Officers (LLO) programme by the Department of Human Services (DHS) in February 2005. The LLO programme was established to provide faster and more coordinated support for Senators and MPs when constituents raise issues with them concerning any DHS agency (Centrelink, Medicare Australia, CSA, CRS Australia (CRS), Australian Hearing and Health Services Australia (HSA)). Table 3.1: Types of matters upon which relevant employees came into direct contact with Ministers and/or their advisers, 2003–04 and 2004–05   Relevant employees (%) Type of matter 2003–04 2004–05 Provision of advice (e.g. policy, legal, programme delivery) 58 52 Provision of purely factual information (e.g. programme-related information) 57 54 Parliament-related functions (e.g. tabling of documents, possible parliamentary questions, correspondence) 32 28 Provision of public affairs support for the Minister (e.g. preparation of speeches, draft media releases) 30 32 Constituent issues (e.g. electorate briefing, individual constituent matters) 25 19 Administrative arrangements (e.g. arranging travel or meetings) 16 17 Source: Employee survey Overall, 34% of relevant employees had had direct contact in relation to at least three of the above types of matters; 26% had had direct contact over two types of matters and 40% over one type of matter. SES employees are much more likely to have direct contact over multiple matters (65% of relevant SES employees had had contact in relation to at least three matters compared to 47% of relevant EL employees and 23% of relevant APS 1–6 employees). These results are consistent with those reported last year. Also consistent with last year’s findings were the substantial differences in the types of matters dealt with when location was taken into account. Relevant employees in the ACT, for example, were much more likely than those outside the ACT to have come into direct contact with Ministers and/or their advisers in relation to advice (56% compared to 48%), factual information (58% compared to 49%), Parliament-related functions (47% compared to 13%) and public affairs support (40% compared to 13%). However, this year location was not related to the likelihood of relevant employees having had direct contact in relation to constituent issues (in 2003–04, relevant employees outside the ACT were much more likely to have had direct contact over constituent issues). For the second consecutive year, relevant employees working in departments were more likely than those working in other agencies to have had direct contact over all types of matters other than providing advice (both around 52%) and constituent issues (both around 19%). As outlined above, the employee survey results confirmed that SES employees were generally more likely to deal directly with Ministers and/or their advisers than APS 1–6 employees. It is worth noting, however, that direct contact in relation to advice and factual information was still high for relevant APS 1–6 employees. Just under half (44%) of relevant APS 1–6 employees who had been in direct contact with Ministers and/or their advisers in the last 12 months had done so in relation to the provision of advice (compared to 62% of relevant EL employees and 81% of relevant SES employees). This finding is consistent with that of last year. Figure 3.3 shows the variation by classification for 2004–05. Figure 3.3: Nature of relevant employee contact with Ministers and/or advisers by classification level, 2004–05 Source: Employee survey Overall, the employee survey results confirm those reported last year, and show that one in five APS employees had been in direct contact with Ministers and/or their advisers during the last 12 months. They also confirm that where direct contact had occurred it was overwhelmingly in relation to matters of substance (such as the provision of advice and factual information) rather than administrative support and, particularly for more senior employees, was more likely to be in relation to multiple types of matters than a single type of matter. Notwithstanding the lack of historical data, this level of interaction is almost certainly far greater than in the past. The extent and nature of contact between APS employees and ministerial offices is likely to be related to increased expectations from the public and the media around communication and responsiveness, with developments in ICT creating expectations in the media (and elsewhere) of an almost instantaneous access to a plethora of information. These developments, in turn, have been among the key drivers of the steady increase in the number of advisers over the last twenty years.6 The increasing reliance of government on advisers and the extent to which APS employees now interact with them requires that advisers and relevant APS employees share a common understanding of, and respect for, the necessarily different roles and responsibilities of the political and administrative arms of government. Alongside this there is a need to ensure that all APS employees are not only aware of, but understand and can readily access, any specific requirements concerning their interactions with ministerial offices including the guidelines on official conduct7 and agency protocols. Employee awareness of agency protocols Agencies apply various policies and practices to manage their interactions with Ministers and their offices to ensure the provision of quality services, to manage workload efficiently and to meet their statutory obligations, including those arising under the Act and financial legislation. These policies and practices may be set out in formal written requirements or applied in less formal ways; in both cases agencies have an obligation to ensure that employees understand their responsibilities and agency expectations. As has been highlighted in previous reports, substantial proportions of relevant employees (i.e. those who have had direct contact with Ministers and/or their advisers in the past year) were unsure of whether their agency had specified protocols in place to guide employees’ interactions with Ministers’ offices. This year, for example, 37% of relevant employees were not sure whether their own agency had a protocol in place requiring that significant email communications with advisers be retained. The level of awareness of agency protocols for relevant employees is shown in Figure 3.4. Figure 3.4: Relevant employee awareness of agency protocols, 2004–05 Source: Employee survey Clearly, some protocols by their very nature are more likely to have a reasonably high profile among employees likely to be in direct contact with Ministers and/or their advisers. Mandatory requirements around process issues, such as minimum classification level sign-offs on written briefings, for example, are more likely to be known to employees than agency protocols or practices for dealing with specific issues as they arise (e.g. processes for resolving employee concerns about the nature of requests from ministerial offices). However, as Figure 3.4 indicates, very significant proportions of relevant employees (up to 65%) were not sure whether their agency had certain protocols in place, and this is a matter of concern. It is of even greater concern that there does not appear to have been any improvement in the level of awareness of agency protocols amongst relevant employees over the last two years. While Figure 3.4 provides a useful representation of APS-wide results, the data on which it is based does not enable the analysis to reflect whether or not an agency does in fact have the protocol in place. Examination of large agency results of the employee and agency surveys, however, can provide statistically reliable evidence of relevant employees’ awareness of protocols relative to whether those protocols are actually in place. As Table 3.2 highlights, there continue to be substantial proportions of relevant employees working in agencies that have protocols in place who are either not aware or unsure about the existence of such protocols. This level of uncertainty is disturbing, especially regarding the protocol requiring that oral briefing to Ministers or Ministers’ staff on key issues is confirmed in writing (including emails or follow-up minutes). Nine large agencies reported in the agency survey that they had this protocol in place and yet between 37% and 66% of relevant employees working in those nine large agencies were not sure whether their agency had such a protocol. Table 3.2: Relevant employees’ awareness of protocols to guide interactions with ministerial offices—employees in large agencies that reported the protocol(s) in place, 2003–04 and 2004–05       Employee survey results (% range) Agency Protocol Year Number of large agencies with protocol in place Aware of protocol (%) Not aware of protocol (%) Not sure (%) Requirement for a minimum classification level for signing off ministerial briefs 2004–05 15 52–96 0–8 4–48 2003–04 12 69–99 0–7 1–27 Requirement for a minimum classification level for phone contact with ministerial office advisers 2004–05 3 13–26 28–35 46–52 2003–04 2 23–32 28–33 41–44 Requirement that oral briefing to Ministers or Ministers’ staff on key issues is confirmed in writing (including emails or follow-up minutes) 2004–05 9 24–63 0–20 37–66 2003–04 3 27–39 16–23 44–55 Requirement that file notes are routinely made after significant phone calls or oral discussions with Ministers and ministerial advisers 2004–05 10 30–65 6–20 28–61 2003–04 6 31–62 9–26 25–45 Requirement that significant email communications with ministerial advisers be retained 2004–05 13 47–75 1–12 19–48 2003–04 8 43–87 5–21 8–49 Agreed unwritten processes for resolving staff concerns that may arise about the nature of requests from ministerial offices 2004–05 9 16–29 6–24 53–71 2003–04 10 21–33 0–20 48–78 Agreed written processes for resolving staff concerns that may arise about the nature of requests from ministerial offices 2004–05 2 8–32 6–32 61 2003–04 0 NA NA NA Note: The ranges provided are derived from agency-specific employee survey results of up to 15 large agencies in 2004–05 (and 12 large agencies in 2003–04) that reported the protocol(s) in place. They do not include the APS-wide results. Source: Agency and employee surveys Clearly, agencies need to do more to ensure that employees are aware of agency protocols in place to support their interactions with Ministers and their advisers. There will inevitably be situations in which employees are uncertain about how to respond to a request from the Minister or an adviser: sometimes their concerns will be entirely legitimate; and sometimes the concern may reflect a misunderstanding of the request or inappropriate protection of a previous policy or practice. Public servants must be responsive to government, but they are also required to be apolitical and accountable, and to comply with the law. Agencies should establish whether there are particular issues that present challenges to their staff from time to time and recognise that these issues might call for more specific guidance in addition to that available from the Commissioner or from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C). This is not to suggest that every agency practice or policy should be set out in detail in writing; however, relevant employees should be made aware of agency protocols (whether written or not) and where they can turn for support and advice. In 2003, the Commissioner released APS Values and Code of Conduct in Practice,8 a guide developed to assist APS employees to understand the practical application of the Values and the Code in both common and unusual circumstances, and to assist agency heads to establish policies and procedures that promote the Values and ensure compliance with the Code. The parts of that guide that bear on interactions with Ministers and their advisers should be familiar, and readily accessible, to all employees who may become involved in those interactions. To provide APS employees with further guidance in interacting with Ministers and their advisers the Commission has developed a good practice guide, ‘Supporting Ministers, Upholding the Values’. The Commission expects to release this guide in 2005–06 and anticipates examining the uptake of the better practice guidance outlined in this publication in next year’s report. More generally, relations with the Minister and their office are likely to be managed better—consistent with the Values and any agency policies and practices—if there is a culture of open discussion within the agency that can shape the approach employees take in particular situations, and give confidence that they will exercise good judgment consistent with the Values. A strong leadership role must be played by senior managers in this respect. Employees faced with difficult situations, and inexperienced employees, need to be able to discuss the problems, without fear, with more senior managers and/or a central area of expertise and support, rather than be left to make decisions on their own and feel isolated. The benefits of seeking guidance should not be underestimated; and exist for employees at every level. Some comments about agency protocols from the employee survey highlight some of the issues employees are currently facing in their agencies. Though I know of no protocols for recording dealings with advisers, I do so to protect myself. This is a growing part of the job and there needs to be a lot more done on this to protect APS officers and the APS Values we are employed to uphold. Advisers are political and often want to amend briefing to give it a political slant. Holding a good line against advisers’ requests to compromise ‘frank and fearless’ advice depends more than anything on SES being prepared to sign off on good quality briefs and resist pressure to compromise. ” “I keep records of my involvement and work for the Minister and their staff. However, I have not seen, nor been made aware of, any Departmental protocols to guide interactions with ministerial offices. ” “You can have all the protocols you want, but if the Minister’s office wants something you give it to them … In previous jobs I had been told by my SES to NOT put things on email so there was NO record of it. employee survey The evidence suggests that agencies need to put further effort into promulgating and actively supporting policies or protocols on employees’ interactions with Ministers and their offices. The consistency and strength of the survey evidence of the last three years suggests that this should be a priority for the APS. Challenges in managing the relationship Consistent with previous reports, two-thirds (67%) of employees who had been in direct contact with Ministers or their advisers in the last 12 months reported that in the job they were working in they were highly or very highly confident that they could balance the Values of being apolitical, impartial and professional, responsive to the Government and openly accountable appropriately. A further 22% of relevant employees had moderate levels of confidence, and 10% had low or very low levels of confidence. Consistent with last year’s results, relevant employees’ confidence across the APS is related to several factors, including: * classification level (confidence is high amongst the SES and APS 1–6 employees, with ELs more likely to report low levels of confidence than employees at other levels) * location (employees located in the ACT are much more likely to report low confidence and much less likely to report high confidence) * type of agency (employees working in departments are much more likely to report low confidence and much less likely to report high confidence than employees in other agencies) * level of familiarity with the Values (employees who were highly familiar with the Values were more likely to have high or very high confidence levels compared with employees who had moderate or low levels of familiarity with the Values) * views on whether their immediate manager acts in accordance with the Values (employees who disagreed that their immediate manager acts in accordance with the Values had the lowest levels of confidence) * views on whether the most senior managers in the agency act in accordance with the Values (employees who agreed that the most senior managers in the agency act in accordance with the Values were much more likely to have high levels of confidence and much less likely to have low confidence) * views on whether senior managers in the agency lead by example in ethical behaviour (employees who agreed that senior managers in the agency lead by example in ethical behaviour were much more likely to have high levels of confidence and much less likely to have low confidence) * overall job satisfaction (employees with low job satisfaction were more likely to report low confidence and vice versa) * levels of pride in working for the agency and the APS (employees who were proud to work in their agency and/or the APS were much more likely to have high levels of confidence compared to employees who were not proud to work in their agency and/or the APS—who were more likely to report low levels of confidence) * whether employees had faced a challenge in balancing the Values (employees who had faced a challenge were more likely to report low confidence and less likely to report high confidence) * awareness of agreed written and unwritten processes in place in their agency for resolving employee concerns that may arise about the nature of requests from ministerial offices (employees who were aware that such processes were in place in their agency were much more likely to have high or very high confidence levels compared with employees who reported that such processes did not exist in their agency). For the 15 large agencies with statistically valid employee survey responses, employee confidence levels varied widely (this finding is consistent with last year’s). The proportion of relevant employees in these large agencies with high or very high levels of confidence varied from 45% to 82%; and low or very low confidence ranged from 0% to 23%. Also consistent with the findings of previous reports, is that the majority of employees (61%) who reported having had contact with their Ministers or ministerial advisers indicated that they had not faced a challenge in balancing the relevant Values of being apolitical, impartial and professional, responsive to the Government and openly accountable. Thirty-three per cent (35% in 2003–04) said they had faced such a challenge in the last 12 months and 6% (5% in 2003–04) were not sure. Whether or not relevant employees had faced a challenge in balancing the relevant Values when dealing with Ministers and/or their offices was related to several factors, including: * classification level (EL and SES employees were more likely than APS 1–6 employees to have faced a challenge) * the type of matter being dealt with (employees dealing with administrative arrangements were less likely to have faced a challenge than employees dealing with other types of matters) * views on whether their immediate manager acts in accordance with the Values (employees who agreed that their immediate manager acts in accordance with the Values were less likely to have faced a challenge) * views on whether the most senior managers in the agency act in accordance with the Values (employees who agreed that the most senior managers in the agency act in accordance with the Values were less likely to have faced a challenge) * views on whether senior managers in the agency lead by example in ethical behaviour (employees who agreed that senior managers in the agency lead by example in ethical behaviour were less likely to have faced a challenge) * level of pride in working in the APS (employees who were not proud to work in the APS were much more likely to have faced a challenge compared to employees who were proud to work in the APS). Consistent with last year’s findings, of the agency-specific results available for the 15 large agencies, results varied widely. The proportion of relevant employees in these agencies that had faced a challenge ranged from 12% to 52%. Comments from the employee survey reflect a strong desire to make the relationship work well. I have received lots of information as part of induction courses … I believe balancing ‘responsiveness’ and impartiality will always be difficult. As a general rule, I feel able to refer instances where information requests seem too political to my supervisor. ” “In my experience, Ministerial advisers generally understand and respect the apolitical nature of the APS, and the advice we give. From time to time, there may be some pressure to change or ensure advice reflects the political position of the Minister, but generally this can be managed by clearly stating reasons for the advice. ” “Have had more ‘on-the-job’ training. There has been much communications of managers about dealings with the Minister’s Office and what and how it can be done better. employee survey Agencies should take an active approach to ensuring that employees likely to deal with Ministers or their advisers have the confidence to manage the challenges that inevitably arise—after all, dealing with challenges is part of managing any relationship. As indicated above, employees likely to interact with Ministers or advisers should be assured of ready and reliable support from those around them and have confidence that their immediate and most senior managers act in accordance with the Values. This is very much a leadership responsibility, requiring open engagement with employees down the line about the judgments being made by both leaders and others in the agency. In addition, clear policies on procedures and protocols support a close relationship of trust and mutual respect between senior managers and Ministers and their advisers. 1 In the agency survey, quality control measures were ‘central coordination function for the quality assurance and coordination of written material to and from the Minister’s office’, ‘policy/protocol on minimum classification level for signing off ministerial briefs’, and ‘policy/protocol on minimum classification level for phone contact with ministerial advisers’. Agencies were also asked to specify other measures in place. 2 In the agency survey, evaluation measures were ‘formal ministerial feedback is collected via some form of rating system’, ‘requirement that oral feedback is collected from Ministers’, ‘requirement that oral feedback is collected from ministerial staff’, and ‘some form of internal peer review is undertaken of written briefing material’. Agencies were also asked to specify other measures in place. 3 ANAO, Better Practice Guide on Managing Parliamentary Workflow, April 2003, 4 ‘Direct’ was defined as contact in person, by telephone or email. 5 Coding of an open-ended response option in a subsequent question about the type of matters upon which respondents had direct contact with Ministers and/or their advisers involved the removal of responses considered irrelevant (e.g. where the response was not related to the question, where comments indicated that contact was marginal such as at an all-staff meeting or non-work related such as social contact). The removal of these irrelevant responses brought the overall result down from 21% to 20%. 6 For more detailed information regarding the increase in adviser numbers see: Australian Public Service Commission, State of the Service Report 2003–04, 2004, 7 Australian Public Service Commission, APS Values and Code of Conduct in Practice: A Guide to Official Conduct for APS Employees and Agency Heads, 2003, 8 Australian Public Service Commission, APS Values and Code of Conduct in Practice: A Guide to Official Conduct for APS Employees and Agency Heads, 2003, Relations with the Parliament This year’s agency survey asked agencies to report on the measures they had in place to ensure that SES employees understand their rights and responsibilities in relation to the Parliament. All of the 77 agencies that reported having some or all of their SES employees appear before parliamentary committees indicated that they had at least one measure in place to ensure that SES employees understand their rights and responsibilities. The great majority (86%) of these agencies indicated that they had three or more measures in place. The most common measures reported by agencies with SES employees appearing before committees were learning through attendance and observation (96% of relevant agencies), self-nominating attendance at training courses or presentations (95%) and internal briefing of employees prior to attendance (92%). The results indicate that the APS has shifted its focus slightly over the last three years. Figure 3.5 shows that generally there has been an increase in the proportion of agencies relying on the measures outlined below to ensure SES employees understand their accountability obligations to the Parliament. Figure 3.5: Agency measures to ensure SES employees understand parliamentary accountability, 2002–03 to 2004–05 Source: Agency survey Consistent with the slight improvement this year in the proportion of agencies using training as a means of equipping their SES employees, information on overall training attendance at courses on parliamentary accountability run by the Department of the Senate, the Department of the House of Representatives and the Commission shows that attendance at such training has also improved slightly this year. Table 3.3 shows that over the last five years attendance at relevant training courses has fluctuated; however, overall attendance continues to be well below the figure recorded in 2000–01. The overall decrease in attendance since 2000–01 can be largely attributed to the high number of participants in the ‘accountability, rights and responsibilities’ course in that year. This course was designed by the Commission in 1998–99 in response to an Order of the Senate regarding the training of SES officers in their accountability, rights and responsibilities to the Parliament. The high level of uptake in 2000–01 reflects agencies’ commitment to ensure that all new SES officers and those officers who had not attended in the previous year received training in their accountability, rights and responsibilities to the Parliament. The Commission also deals with the accountability framework in its ‘Orientation to the SES’ training course but not in as much depth as in the ‘accountability, rights and responsibilities’ programme. The orientation course was redeveloped during 2004–05 as a three day ‘SES Orientation’ course specifically aligned with the capabilities identified in the ILS. It includes the governance requirements for senior executives and explores the relationships with Ministers and the executive arm of government. During 2004–05, a total of 67 participants attended the SES orientation course. Chapter 10 includes a more general discussion of leadership development. Table 3.3: Attendance at parliamentary accountability training, 2000–01 to 2004–05 Course Year Attendance Accountability, rights and responsibilities (a) 00–01 189 01–02 68 02–03 42 03–04 16 04–05 0 (not run) Preparing to appear before a parliamentary committee (b) 00–01 44 01–02 19 02–03 13 03–04 10 04–05 11 Parliament, privilege and accountability (c) 00–01 53 01–02 108 02–03 75 03–04 25 04–05 125 Senate committees (d) 00–01 58 01–02 0 (not run) 02–03 46 03–04 66 04–05 57 About committees (e) 00–01 106 01–02 30 02–03 119 03–04 99 04–05 60 Total attendance at above courses 00–01 450 01–02 225 02–03 295 03–04 216 04–05 253 Notes: Courses are generally open to APS and other Commonwealth employees. (a) The Public Servants’ Accountability, Rights and Responsibilities course run by the Commission, which is open to SES and EL employees, addresses rights and responsibilities as well as the procedures and expectations of parliamentary committee members. NB: This course was not conducted in 2004–05. (b) The Preparing to Appear Before a Parliamentary Committee course run by the Commission is open to SES and EL employees. It builds upon the Public Servants’ Accountability, Rights and Responsibilities course. (c) The Parliament, Privilege and Accountability seminar run by the Department of the Senate is open to SES employees and focuses on the accountability of public servants to the Parliament. (d) Senate Committees is a seminar run by the Department of the Senate, which provides a detailed examination of the structure and operation of the Senate committee system. It is aimed at those who may be required to write submissions for committees, to appear as witnesses before committees, or to monitor the progress of committee inquiries. NB: This seminar was not conducted in 2001–02. (e) About Committees, a seminar run by the Department of the House of Representatives, provides detailed information on all aspects of committee work, including types of committees and how they conduct their investigations. Sources: (a) and (b) Australian Public Service Commission; (c) and (d) The Department of the Senate; (e) The Department of the House of Representatives The employee survey asked SES and EL employees whether they had ever received formal training in accountability, rights and responsibilities to the Parliament. One-quarter (24%) of SES and EL employees reported that they had received training in this area at some time during their career (67% of SES). When asked about training on this issue in the last 12 months, 16% of SES and EL employees had received such training (11% of SES). To establish a clearer picture of the need for training, SES and EL employees were asked whether they had appeared before a parliamentary committee during 2004–05, with 5% indicating that they had (37% of SES had). More importantly, of those who had appeared before such a committee in 2004–05, 37% of relevant SES and ELs had not received any training in accountability, rights and responsibilities to the Parliament at any time during their career (25% of relevant SES). Those who had appeared before a parliamentary committee in 2004–05 were asked how well-equipped they felt they were to appear before the committee. Overall, three- quarters of relevant SES and EL employees felt well-equipped to perform before the committee (80% of SES). The remaining quarter of SES and EL employees felt that they were reasonably equipped to perform before the committee (20% of SES). Overall, these results are largely consistent with those reported in 2002–03.9 Previous State of the Service reports suggested that agencies have not been giving sufficient attention to training their SES employees in parliamentary accountability. Evidence outlined above points to a slight improvement in the overall focus on training by agencies and future reports will monitor whether this upwards trend continues. All new SES employees and relevant EL employees should undertake appropriate and adequate training. 9 The questions that examine parliamentary accountability were not included in the 2004 employee survey. 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, 11 Senate Select Committee on a Certain Maritime Incident, A Certain Maritime Incident, October 2002, 12 M.J. Palmer, Inquiry into the Circumstances of the Immigration Dentention of Cornelia Rau: Report, July 2005, 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, Key chapter findings This year’s employee survey results confirm previous findings that a significant proportion of the APS has direct contact with Ministers and/or their advisers on a range of matters and that direct contact is occurring at levels below the SES. The results also confirm that not only is the interaction extensive, but it is also overwhelmingly in relation to matters of substance (such as the provision of advice and factual information). They also confirm that interaction is not uniform across the APS and that some APS employees are much more likely to deal with ministerial offices on certain matters than others. It is pleasing to report for the third consecutive year that, generally, confidence is quite high about upholding the Values, and relationships with Ministers and their offices would appear to generally be operating effectively and be based on trust. It is important nonetheless that agencies ensure that all their employees likely to come into contact with Ministers or their advisers have the capacity to manage the challenges that inevitably arise on occasions, and that they have available ready and reliable support from those around them. It is concerning to report for the second year in a row that substantial numbers of employees involved with Ministers and their advisers are not aware of their agency’s protocols—and they should be. The large variation between agencies in this respect is also of concern. While each agency and its employees will have particular operating circumstances and types of challenges, they should draw on the Commission’s forthcoming publication, ‘Supporting Ministers, Upholding the Values’ which also incorporates key material from the already released publication, APS Values and Code of Conduct in Practice: A Guide to Official Conduct for APS Employees and Agency Heads. Agency survey results indicate that the record keeping capability of the APS continues to improve in relation to interactions with ministerial offices, as agencies place a higher priority on record keeping systems, protocols, awareness and training. However, from a broader perspective, the employee survey results for this year indicate a slight decline in the record keeping capability of the APS compared to 2003–04. Chapter 4: The Values and relationships with the public For most members of the public, the APS is the face of the Australian Government. While the APS has played an important role in implementing policies and programmes since Federation, the nature of its relations with the public has been influenced by dramatic changes as a result of changing policy imperatives, changing expectations of the Australian community and changes in the economic, social and strategic circumstances of the country. The APS’s relations with the public are governed by the Values and the Code. These set out principles which apply to how the APS delivers services and the behaviour required of its employees. The Values, as set out in the Act, provide for an APS where APS employees deliver services to the public fairly, effectively, impartially and courteously, and are sensitive to the diversity of the Australian public. The Values also provide for an APS that has the highest ethical standards and is openly accountable. The Code requires APS employees to treat everyone with respect and courtesy and without harassment when acting in the course of employment. Employees must behave honestly and with integrity and with care and diligence in the course of APS employment and must also comply with all Australian laws. Increasingly, the focus of service delivery is on a whole of government approach— with an emphasis on a connected public service that seeks to be more responsive to the needs of the Australian public, providing seamless services and increasing efficiency and effectiveness in service delivery. Rising community expectations for easier access to government in terms of prompt, efficient and effective customer service and the integration of service delivery (accessible and provided at a time and in ways that suit the way citizens live their lives) are a key driver for this new approach. It is not feasible for the State of the Service report to assess the overall quality of services provided to the public: each agency is responsible for reporting on its performance in this regard. This chapter instead focuses on the commitment and capacity of the APS to provide high-quality services, and effective means of ongoing service delivery. In doing so, it includes some material on the quality of key services, and evidence on the quality of administrative decision-making as it affects the public. This chapter covers the issues of public consultation and the extent to which consultation on government regulation and policy and programme development is used in the APS. It also addresses how agencies are improving service delivery—particularly through feedback mechanisms available to service users, employee training and the implementation of service charters—and how service delivery is being measured. Changes in service delivery as a result of new technology are considered, together with the progress made in implementing the Australian Government’s e-government agenda. The chapter also highlights issues of administrative decision-making and service delivery raised by independent review agencies. The chapter draws on data from the agency and employee surveys, specific agencies’ own service user surveys, international developments, data from the Australian Government Information Management Office (AGIMO), from ANAO performance audits, and from published and unpublished material provided by the Ombudsman. International developments A study released by Accenture in April 2005, Leadership in Customer Service: New Expectations, New Experiences,1 has concluded that, despite having invested billions of dollars moving services and information resources online, governments around the world (22 countries are covered in the report) are still struggling to meet citizens’ growing expectations of better customer service. In a departure from its previous reports, Accenture has gone beyond measuring the extent to which governments offer services online to investigating their ‘leadership in delivering real and expanded customer service’, namely, the value they bring to their citizens through four key aspects of ‘leadership in customer service’: a citizen-centred perspective; cohesive multi-channel services; fluid cross-government services; and proactive communications and education. Key findings were that, although most citizens are eager to embrace a new generation of services, governments are falling short in delivering them. Fifty-five per cent of citizens, for instance, believe government is being effective when it acts as a single, seamless entity that can remember all the details of a citizen’s previous contact with it. The study found that e-government offerings across the board are well-advanced, with an average service maturity breadth of 91%. Service maturity breadth focused on services online which identified that countries are approaching saturation point in terms of services they could put online and that to make future advances governments will need to focus on a much broader vision. However, the study also found that all countries could do more to realise the broader goal of ‘leadership in customer service’. In fact, the overall average customer service maturity score was just 39%, when the four key aspects of ‘leadership in customer service’ are considered. Only Canada had an overall customer service maturity score of more than 50%. All countries surveyed experienced a drop from the previous year’s overall e-government maturity scores, which measured solely the level to which the government had developed an online service delivery presence. 1 Accenture, Leadership in Customer Service: New Expectations, New Experiences, April 2005, Public consultation and communication The MAC report, Connecting Government, put a strong emphasis on the importance of public consultation. It argued that the very nature of Australia’s participatory democracy means that meeting the APS’s responsibilities for comprehensive policy advising and effective implementation of government policies and programmes is a two-way exercise, which requires the APS to have increasingly sophisticated professional skills and techniques in communication and consultation.2 The MAC report also emphasised that APS agencies need to recognise that the engagement of people and organisations is an increasing feature of whol