print this page
© Copyright Commonwealth of Australia - Australian Public Service Commission
Home page
> State of the Service reports
> State of the Service Report 2005-06 > Working with the Australian community > Working with external stakeholders > Next: Engaging with the community
‹ Previous page
Last updated: 30 November 2006
Chapter 11: Working with the Australian community
Abbreviations
A list of the abbreviations used in this report is available in the Glossary
Working with external stakeholders
In its activities as a policy maker and also as a provider or deliverer of services and regulator, APS agencies and their employees work with external stakeholders in a variety of contexts. These can range from consultation to active collaboration. Increasingly, the APS is delivering government programmes with and through a range of non-Australian Government bodies. This trend to ‘distributed government’ is a worldwide one. It happens in a variety of ways from outsourced service provision to partnering agreements.
In this environment, the ability to work with partners and/or external stakeholders, irrespective of whether they are from other Australian Government agencies, the community, business, states and territories, or local government is critical. Consequently, the skills and capabilities of APS employees, as well as the policies and protocols employed by agencies to assist in their dealings with external stakeholders, have had to adapt to meet this aspect of APS work.
Agency consultation with external stakeholders
Consultation with external stakeholders can have a positive impact on government policies, programmes and regulation. As Connecting Government pointed out, a targeted approach which identifies areas where greater consultation and communication would be appropriate is likely to be most effective.11
The agency survey indicates that formal consultations on the development of government policy and government regulation,12 and in relation to programme delivery, are widespread across agencies.
Agencies were asked how often they consulted with the following groups: non-government organisations, industry stakeholders, tertiary education and research groups, agencies from state/territory and/or local governments, unions and members of the public about the development of government policy, programme delivery and government regulation. For each option, agencies could respond usually, sometimes, no, or not applicable.
In interpreting the survey results it is important to note that relatively high proportions of agencies identified these questions as not applicable. Thirty-five per cent indicated that formal consultation was not applicable in relation to the development of government policy. Forty-three per cent indicated that consultation was not applicable in regard to government regulation and 15% indicated that consultation was not applicable in relation to programme delivery. The reasons why agencies responded that consultation was not applicable has not been explored. However, it is likely that it is related to the nature of the agencies’ business. For example, agencies concerned primarily with programme/service delivery tend to consult about programme delivery but not about government policy.
Consistent with last year’s results, the survey results show that around two-thirds (62%) of all agencies usually or sometimes consulted with one or more of the specified groups about the development of government policy, and nearly half (45%) consulted five or more groups. The former figure (one or more specified groups) increases to 96% when only agencies that described consultation as applicable are considered.
Consistent with last year’s results, programme delivery appears to trigger greater consultation than policy development, with 85% of all agencies, and all relevant agencies, indicating that they usually or sometimes consult one or more of the specified groups on this issue. Around two-thirds (64%) of all agencies consulted five or more groups.
The use of consultation in the making of government regulation is similar to that for the development of government policy. Fifty-six per cent of all agencies usually or sometimes consulted with one or more of the specified groups about government regulation, and 37% of these agencies consulted five or more groups. The former figure (one or more specified groups) increases to 98% when only agencies that described consultation as applicable are considered.
As was the case in 2004–05, ‘industry stakeholders’ were the key group usually consulted by relevant agencies for the development of government policy, the delivery of government programmes and government regulation (see Figures 11.4, 11.5 and 11.6).
State/territory government agencies were the second key group usually or sometimes consulted by relevant agencies in the development of government policy, the delivery of government programmes and government regulation.
Members of the public are also widely consulted for all three types of activities, but they are less likely to be usually consulted and more likely to be sometimes consulted. The proportion of agencies usually consulting the public about regulation was lower than for the other two types of consultation. NGOs also figure prominently for all three types of consultation. Unions were the least consulted group.
Figure 11.4: Formal consultation with stakeholders on government policy development, 2005–06
Source: Agency survey
Figure 11.5: Formal consultation with stakeholders on government programme development, 2005–06
Source: Agency survey
Figure 11.6: Formal consultation with stakeholders on government regulation, 2005–06
Source: Agency survey
Across all three areas (policy, programme and regulation), the agency survey results show that large agencies were more likely than medium and small agencies to consult with more than one group, and more likely to consult with a wider variety of groups. Examples of consultation processes undertaken by relevant agencies include:
- DAFF’s establishment of a Drought Stakeholder Reference Group, under the direction of the Primary Industries Ministerial Council, as a means for seeking input on the drought and exceptional circumstances policy and assistance measures
- DFAT’s Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), which supports the engagement of industry and represents a new model for public-private sector collaboration. It has already influenced international debate towards a greater focus on technological responses and practical action involving the private sector as an integral partner in addressing climate change.
Employee dealings with external stakeholders
The majority of APS employees have some form of direct contact with people from different levels of government or external stakeholders (excluding the public); more than three-quarters of respondents to the employee survey indicated that their jobs had required such dealings. Table 11.2 shows that the majority dealt with other Commonwealth agencies, and around one-third dealt directly with state/ territory agencies, industry stakeholders and other contractors or consultants. Of the external stakeholders listed, unions were the group with which employees had the least dealings.
| During the last 12 months, did your job require you to deal directly with people from any of the following levels of government or other external stakeholders? | Yes (%) |
|---|---|
| Commonwealth agencies | 59 |
| State/Territory agencies | 33 |
| Local government agencies | 19 |
| Groups representing communities | 23 |
| Other non-government organisations | 17 |
| Industry stakeholders | 35 |
| Tertiary education and/or research groups | 19 |
| Unions | 8 |
| Outsourced service providers | 21 |
| Other contractors or consultants | 31 |
| Other | 2 |
| None of the above | 24 |
| Source: Employee survey | |
Employees from small agencies were more likely to deal with Australian Government agencies, state/ territory agencies, industry stakeholders and other contractors or consultants than employees from medium or large agencies.
Employees in the ACT were more likely to have direct dealings with other Commonwealth agencies, state/territory agencies, industry stakeholders and other contractors or consultants. Those located outside the ACT were more likely to have direct dealings with local government agencies and groups representing the community.
Not surprisingly, there is a strong relationship between classification and the extent to which employees’ jobs require them to have direct dealings with external stakeholders. This relationship holds for all groups of external stakeholders, except for dealings with local government agencies. Whereas 28% of APS 1–6 employees indicated that their job did not require them to deal directly with any of the external stakeholders listed, this was the case for only 13% of EL employees and 1% of SES employees.
The following sample of employee comments highlights the value of, and issues associated with, consultation with external stakeholders (comments are not necessarily representative).
Effective communication is the key. The stakeholders need to know they are being involved because you value their input—not just because it’s required. If consultation is for forms sake, it won’t be effective and your relationships will be damaged.
I think people from within government understand each other, but it’s so hard to deal with people externally (e.g. NGOs), who don’t understand why/that you can’t be more helpful when faced with a perfectly reasonable position.
Early and effective consultation with industry on matters that affect them needs to be the rule into the future. On the other hand, the APS must not be too influenced by undue corporate influence.
Having a clear idea of what is a realistically achievable outcome from a project or programme and not building up false expectations can help in building stronger stakeholder relationships.
I believe this office has an open and cooperative relationship with external stakeholders and think we are regarded in a positive light in this community.
In 2005–06, DCITA developed the arrangements that required public consultation and constructive interaction between DCITA, ACCC and Telstra. The resulting operational separation framework represents an innovative and proportionate response to a policy problem. It is designed to achieve the same benefits as more interventionist regulatory options, but at a significantly lower level of cost and disruption.
ATO continued to make it easier for people to comply with their tax obligations through education and assistance, including through focussing on those who do not want to comply.
Extent of involvement with external stakeholders
APS employees interact with external stakeholders in a variety of ways, from consultation to active partnerships. In 2006, both agencies and employees were asked about the nature and extent of their involvement with external stakeholders. The survey results for agencies are presented in Table 11.3 and for employees in Table 11.4.
Not surprisingly, the agency survey results revealed that most agencies are involved in working with external stakeholders in a range of ways to various degrees. The most common type of involvement was attending meetings with stakeholders to hear their views with almost all agencies indicating that they often or sometimes undertook this type of activity. The second most common type of involvement, which was also widespread, was manag(ing) contracts, projects and/or programmes in partnership with those stakeholders.
In relation to the other activities identified, almost three-quarters of agencies indicated that they often or sometimes undertook these activities.
| Activity | Often (%) | Sometimes (%) | Rarely (%) | Never (%) | Not applicable (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attend meetings with stakeholders to hear their views | 79 | 17 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| Negotiate with stakeholders to develop mutually agreed policy positions | 51 | 23 | 6 | 1 | 19 |
| Negotiate with stakeholders to develop mutually agreed implementation processes | 51 | 33 | 4 | 1 | 11 |
| Develop and/or clarify roles and responsibilities of all relevant stakeholders in scoping contracts, projects and/or programmes | 63 | 21 | 5 | 0 | 11 |
| Establish agreed stakeholder contract, project and/or programme deliverables with relevant stakeholders | 61 | 25 | 2 | 0 | 12 |
| Manage contracts, projects and/or programmes in partnership with stakeholders | 61 | 26 | 0 | 1 | 12 |
| Source: Agency survey | |||||
Almost all large agencies reported high levels of each type of activity. Small and medium agencies also indicate a high level of involvement with external stakeholders, but the overall result was slightly lower.
Employees also indicated a range of involvement with external stakeholders. Involvement was highest in traditional areas of contact such as attending meetings with stakeholders to hear their views or managing contracts, projects and/or programmes. Involvement in areas of active participation such as negotiating with stakeholders to develop mutually agreed policy positions tended to be lower.
| During the last 12 months, what was your greatest level of involvement in working with external stakeholders? | Yes (%) |
|---|---|
| Liaising with stakeholders (e.g. arranging meetings, providing and/or collecting information, answering enquiries) | 12 |
| Attended meetings with stakeholders to hear their views | 25 |
| Negotiated with stakeholders to develop mutually agreed policy positions | 12 |
| Developed and/or clarified roles and responsibilities of all relevant stakeholders in scoping contracts, projects and/or programmes | 10 |
| Established agreed stakeholder contract, project and/or programme deliverables with relevant stakeholders | 9 |
| Managed contracts, projects and/or programmes in partnership with stakeholders | 22 |
| Other | 11 |
| Source: Employee survey | |
Framework underpinning the relationship with external stakeholders
Agencies had developed a range of policies and protocols to guide and evaluate interactions with external stakeholders.
The agency survey asked agencies about the use of four types of protocols and policies for dealing with external stakeholders (see Table 11.5). The types of protocols and policies examined here relate to promoting consistent and accurate contract management decisions, safeguarding access to IT systems and protecting sensitive information, measuring and evaluating performance and protecting citizens’ interests in projects managed jointly with stakeholders.
The use of agency policies/protocols was widespread amongst agencies. Around one-third of agencies indicated that they had all four formal measures in place. The most common measure in place in agencies was a policy/protocol to safeguard access to IT systems and protect private and commercially sensitive information. Employees who had contact with external stakeholders also saw this as a widespread process. Nearly three-quarters agreed that when working with stakeholders, processes are put in place to safeguard access to IT systems and protect private and commercially sensitive information.
Three-quarters of agencies indicated that they had a policy/protocol in place to promote consistent and accurate contract management decisions by staff and measure and evaluate overall performance. Employee results were generally consistent, with more than half of relevant employees agreeing that their agency promoted consistent and accurate contract management decisions by employees and that when working with stakeholders, processes are put in place to measure and evaluate the overall performance.
The use of policies/protocols in place to protect citizens’ interests in projects managed jointly with stakeholders was less common. It should be noted, of course, that agencies may protect citizens’ interests via mechanisms other than formal policies and procedures, for example, the inclusion of clauses in contracts. The use of such mechanisms may in part explain employees’ positive views that citizens are, in fact, protected. Nearly two-thirds of relevant employees indicated that they were confident that citizens’ interests are protected in projects managed jointly with stakeholders.
More than one-third of agencies indicated that policies/protocols to protect citizens’ interests in projects managed jointly with stakeholders were not applicable to them. In some cases, it is not clear why agencies have indicated that such policies/protocols are not applicable to them, particularly as it would appear that at least some of the agencies that did so have managed projects where external stakeholders have delivered services to citizens. It may be that citizens’ interests are explicitly protected in the terms of contracts (service standards or formal appeal mechanisms, for example), and therefore policies/protocols to protect citizens’ interests were considered unnecessary. This issue will be explored further in 2007.
| Agency policy/ protocol or action | Agency Survey | Employee Survey | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes (%) | Being developed (%) | No(%) | Not applicabl e(%) | Agree (%) | Neither agree nor disagree (%) | Disagree (%) | |
| Promoting consistent and accurate contract management decisions by staff | 75 | 10 | 8 | 7 | 54 | 19 | 6 |
| Safeguard access to IT systems and protect private and commercially sensitive information | 88 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 72 | 14 | 3 |
| Measure and evaluate overall performance (e.g. outcomes, value for money) | 75 | 8 | 10 | 7 | 53 | 21 | 8 |
| Protecting citizens’ interests in projects managed jointly with stakeholders | 44 | 6 | 14 | 36 | 64 | 17 | 5 |
| Source: Agency and employee surveys | |||||||
Employees were generally very positive about the way relationships with external stakeholders were handled in their agency, as outlined in Table 11.6. This is a very encouraging result.
Employees’ level of agreement with the statements about the arrangements their agencies have in place for working with external stakeholders ranged from 52% (my agency devotes adequate resources to ensure it can meet its responsibilities to stakeholders) to 72% (when working with stakeholders, processes are put in place to safeguard access to IT systems and protect private and commercially sensitive information). Rates of disagreement were generally low, with, in every case, a larger proportion of respondents choosing to neither agree nor disagree.
| Please rate your level of agreement with the following statements taking into account your experience working with external stakeholders during the last 12 months. | Agree (%) | Neither agree nor disagree (%) | Disagree (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| My agency promotes consistent and accurate contract management decisions by staff. | 54 | 19 | 6 |
| The roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in contracts, projects, and/or programmes are clearly outlined and understood. | 54 | 20 | 8 |
| Decisions relevant to the stakeholder relationship are shared and mutually agreed. | 55 | 23 | 7 |
| I receive appropriate training and/or have access to information that enables me to meet my responsibilities working with stakeholders. | 60 | 22 | 12 |
| My agency builds internal teams who have the skills, knowledge and ability to collaborate effectively with stakeholders. | 59 | 21 | 11 |
| My agency devotes adequate resources to ensure it can meet its responsibilities to stakeholders. | 52 | 24 | 13 |
| When working with stakeholders, processes are put in place to safeguard access to IT systems and protect private and commercially sensitive information. | 72 | 14 | 3 |
| When working with stakeholders, processes are put in place to measure and evaluate the overall performance (e.g. outcomes, value for money) | 53 | 21 | 8 |
| I am confident that citizens’ interests are protected in projects managed jointly with stakeholders. | 64 | 17 | 5 |
| Source: Employee survey | |||
Some employee comments supported the need for a framework to underpin the relationship with external stakeholders (comments are not necessarily representative).
Successful relationships with external stakeholders are founded on trust, shared understanding and appreciation of common objectives. However, a legal framework via MOUs or contractual agreements that clarify goals and performance standards is often necessary to ensure that the Commonwealth achieves value for money for services and activities it supports that are carried out by external stakeholders.
I run a program that uses funding from my agency. Most of these funds go to external agencies. There are little in the way of safeguards and performance monitoring. This is a major flaw.
Employees whose jobs required them to deal directly with external stakeholders were also highly confident that they are able to balance the APS Values of being fair and effective, impartial and courteous in delivering services to the Australian public, and responsive to the Government. Ninety-three per cent of relevant respondents to the employee survey had high (72%) or moderate (21%) levels of confidence that they could balance these values and only 3% had low levels of confidence. SES employees were more likely to have high levels of confidence. When high and moderate levels of confidence are combined the gap between classification groups is substantially narrowed.
The proportion of respondents who reported a high level of confidence among large agencies ranged from 61% to 90%. When high and moderate levels of confidence are combined, the level of confidence ranged from 90% to 99%.
Employees whose jobs required them to deal directly with external stakeholders were also asked if they had faced a challenge in the previous 12 months in balancing the need to be fair and effective, impartial and courteous in delivering services to the Australian public, and responsive to the Government. Around one-third of relevant employees indicated that they had faced such a challenge. More than half (55%) indicated that they had not and 10% were not sure. SES employees were most likely (42%) to have faced a challenge in the previous 12 months. The proportion of employees from large agencies who reported having faced a challenge in the previous 12 months ranged from 18% to 55%.
- Management Advisory Committee 2004, Connecting Government: Whole of Government Responses to Australia’s Priority Challenges, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
- Government regulators in all APS agencies are required to confer with the Office of Regulation Review on the requirement for a regulation impact statement (RIS) for proposals of a regulatory nature. Consultation on a proposal and alternative options should occur when a course of regulatory action is being considered and should occur as widely as possible but at the least, should include those most likely to be affected by the regulatory action.
