Go to main text : Contact the Commission : Privacy

Reinvigorating the traditions of Westminster government

examines progress towards maintaining the independence and accountability of the APS. It includes the following chapters:

7. Ethics and integrity

8. Interactions with Ministers and the Parliament

9. Agency governance

Chapter 8: Interactions with Ministers and the Parliament

A strong, professional relationship between Australian Public Service (APS) agencies, Ministers, their offices and the Parliament is central to effective government and Australia’s democratic system. The Westminster system is the broad framework within which these relationships operate. A key goal of the current government is reinvigorating Australia’s Westminster tradition.1 In support of this approach the Government has introduced in 2007–08, among other things, a revised set of Standards of Ministerial Ethics, a Code of Conduct for Ministerial Staff, reductions in the number of ministerial advisers, additional guidance around the involvement of public servants in public information campaigns and new requirement for the approval of government media campaigns. For the first time, the public service provided presentations to all new Ministers and their advisers on their respective roles and responsibilities and the roles and responsibilities of APS employees. Key developments are outlined in this chapter along with information from the employee and agency surveys on agencies’ interactions with Ministers, their offices and the Parliament.

The last time agencies’ interactions with Ministers and the Parliament were examined was in the 2004–05 State of the Service report. It is timely that in an eventful year for such interactions, they are revisited in this report. The year 2007–08 covers a period that includes agencies’ interactions with the previous government in the lead-up to the caretaker period, the caretaker period itself and the period in which agencies were establishing relationships, protocols and processes with new Ministers and new ministerial staff.

The pace and quantity of ministerial and parliamentary business for most agencies has continued to increase over recent years for a range of reasons, including technology and media expectations. ‘There is generally more ministerial correspondence to handle, more briefings for ministers on cabinet and other government business, more parliamentary question responses to prepare, more parliamentary committee questions to research, and more parliamentary papers to draft and table.’2 On top of this, a change of government always increases public service workloads as the new government changes policy directions and implements its priorities.

The Commission published in 2006 a good practice guide, Supporting Ministers, Upholding the Values, to assist agencies to handle, with integrity, the increasing pace and number of interactions with their Minister and ministerial staff. As the Australian Public Service Commissioner commented in launching the guide:

Public servants are neither political advisers nor consultants … We have roles and responsibilities, professional standards and legislative employment arrangements that distinguish us from both of these groups. If we do not understand or keep to those standards, then we have nothing to offer government that is not available elsewhere and the public service has no future.3

Under the Westminster tradition, 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. Many commentators over the last two decades, in endorsing the need for greater responsiveness, have highlighted that the elected government alone has the authority to determine the public interest in terms of policies and programmes, while public servants assist governments to deliver that policy agenda and those priorities. The APS does, however, have a responsibility for protecting the public interest in terms of ensuring the integrity of government processes, including compliance with the law and fair and impartial decision-making in accordance with approved guidelines. It also has an important role to play in providing governments with a longer-term perspective on decision-making and policy-making, including a balanced view of the impact of policy options on the Australian community as a whole, and on the most vulnerable parts of the community.

Interactions wIth Ministers and Ministerial offIces

A good relationship between agencies and Ministers and their offices, where roles and responsibilities are well-understood and respected, forms a foundation of trust that underpins the ability of agencies to be responsive to elected governments and gives the Government confidence in the services it receives from agencies.

Agency contact with Ministers and Ministerial offices

The extent and nature of interactions between APS employees and ministerial staff in 2007–08 is likely to have been influenced by a range of factors, including the lead-up to the 2007 federal election, the caretaker period, the change of government in November and the experience and attitudes of Ministers and ministerial staff in the previous and new governments.

Seventy-seven per cent of agencies reported providing (i.e. monthly or more often) services or advice to Ministers regularly in 2007–08 compared to 72% and 69% of agencies in 2004–05 and 2003–04 respectively. Clearly, there has been a slow upward trend in the number of agencies providing regular services to Ministers and their offices over recent years. All large agencies, 79% of medium agencies and 61% of small agencies reported providing regular services or advice. This represents increases for medium and small agencies, up from 73% and 54% respectively in 2004–05.

Despite the increase in the proportion of agencies providing regular services to Ministers, the proportion of staff reporting that they had had direct contact with the Minister and ministerial advisers fell in 2007–08 (to 17%) compared to that in previous years (20% in both 2003–04 and 2004–05). Direct contact with the Minister is less common (seven per cent of employees) than contact with ministerial advisers (16%). As expected, SES employees were much more likely to have direct contact with Ministers and ministerial advisers (82%) compared to ELs (30%) and APS 1–6 employees (12%).

Of those employees who had direct contact with ministerial advisers, 20% reported that the contact was weekly or fortnightly, while a large majority reported ad hoc contact (73%). Those employees who reported having had contact with Ministers or ministerial staff were asked about the sorts of matters that the contact entailed. Table 8.1 summarises employees’ responses.

Table 8.1: Types of matters upon which relevant APS employees came into direct contact with Ministers and/or their advisers, 2003–04, 2004–05, 2007–08^(a)

	Relevant employees (%)
Type of matter	2003–04	2004–05	2007–08
(a) Multiple response questions—proportions will not add up to 100%. (b) Other contact involved a degree of contact due to the change of government, including visits to agencies by new Ministers, facilitation of support services. There was also some informal, personal contact at agency events and official functions. Source: Employee survey
Provision of advice (e.g. policy, legal, programme delivery)	58	52	50
Provision of purely factual information (e.g. programme-related information)	57	54	47
Provision of public affairs support for the Minister (e.g. preparation of speeches, draft media releases)	30	32	24
Parliament-related functions (e.g. tabling of documents, possible parliamentary questions, correspondence)	32	28	27
Constituent issues (e.g. electorate briefing, individual constituent matters)	25	19	19
Administrative arrangements (e.g. arranging travel or meetings)	16	17	17
Other(b)	4	8	8

The consistent downward trend for the provision of advice, factual information and public affairs support and for parliament-related functions all suggest a possible lessening of reliance on the APS in these areas by Ministers and their offices. This may be a function of the growth in ministerial advisers between 1996 and 2007 (see Table 8.2) and the stock of knowledge built up by Ministers and advisers in the previous government. It could also reflect the effect of the caretaker period and the impact of the period of lower activity while new ministerial offices were staffed and established. It may also be that the ready availability of information online makes it quicker and easier for advisers to source some types of factual information for themselves. This downward trend is evident for the different classification groups. APS 1–6 and EL 1–2 employees reported less direct contact in these four categories while SES contact was relatively stable for policy advice and factual information but trending down for public affairs support and parliament-related functions.

Table 8.2: total government personal staff and numbers of ministerial advisers, 1995–2008

Year	Total personal staff	Ministerial advisers(a)
(a) This figure excludes all secretaries, administrative assistants and executive assistants/office managers as well as Parliamentary Secretary and other non-ministerial advisers. Sources: (b) Department of Finance and Administration. Estimate based on paper files. (c) State of the Service Report 2003–04. (d) Department of Finance and Administration tabled at Senate Estimates 2007–08. See <http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/ committee/fapa_ctte/estimates/>
May 1995(b)	323	172
May 1996(b)	293	181
May 2004(c)	392	258
May 2007(d)	470	299
May 2008(d)	340	218

The steep reduction in 2008 in the numbers of government personal staff and ministerial advisers can be attributed to the Government’s policy of reducing ministerial adviser numbers to either 1996 levels or by a factor of 30%. The size of ministerial offices can have a direct effect on the frequency and type of interactions with the APS. However, the nature of this effect is difficult to predict: larger staff numbers could indicate more self-sufficiency within ministerial offices or they can create more contacts as larger numbers of advisers seek more advice from APS employees. It is generally considered in the APS that large numbers of ministerial staff have created confusion about roles and responsibilities and some duplication of public service roles, rather than providing a complement to them.

New code of conduct for Ministerial staff

On 1 July 2008, a new Code of Conduct for Ministerial Staff 4 came into effect. Much of it is similar to the APS Code of Conduct (the Code) but it has some significant differences, particularly around how ministerial staff should work with APS employees. Of significance are the requirements to:

• acknowledge that ministerial staff do not have the power to direct APS employees in their own right and that APS employees are not subject to their direction
• recognise that executive decisions are the preserve of Ministers and public servants and not ministerial staff acting in their own right
• facilitate direct and effective communication between their Minister’s department and their Minister
• make themselves aware of the APS Values (the Values) and the Code which bind APS and Parliamentary Service employees.

These aspects of the expected behaviour of ministerial staff were emphasised in presentations by the Australian Public Service Commissioner, together with the then Secretary of PM&C, to the new Ministry in December 2007. Senior staff from the Commission, PM&C and Finance also provided a series of briefings for ministerial staff, as part of their mandatory induction training. These presentations covered the role and responsibilities of the APS and the ethical framework within which it operates, including the Values and the Code.

The formal clarification of the roles and responsibilities of ministerial advisers at the start of a new government should assist agencies and ministerial offices in their dealings with each other, and help to avoid situations where public servants are challenged in balancing the values of responsiveness and being apolitical and accountable.

The quality and evaluation of services provided to Ministers and ministerial offices

The agency survey presented a list of measures relating to quality control, recordkeeping and the evaluation of ministerial services and advice, and asked agencies whether they have these measures in place. Most agencies reported using a range of measures, although a number of agencies noted that they did not have any formal measures in place to guide and evaluate services and advice as their parliamentary workflow was conducted either through their portfolio department or was of such low levels that formal measures were not needed. A small group indicated that their independent status made measures of this nature unnecessary.

Agency quality control measures

Table 8.3 sets out the processes that agencies providing regular services or advice to Ministers used for quality control purposes. The results suggest a consolidation in the quality control of information that agencies are providing to ministerial offices. The proportion of agencies reporting requirements for a minimum classification level for signing off ministerial briefs (96%) is similar to that in 2005, slightly up on the 2004 result. Sixty-two per cent of agencies report having a requirement for a minimum classification level for phone contact with ministerial advisers. This is a similar result to that in 2005 but markedly higher than the result in 2003–04.

Table 8.3: Agency quality control measures, 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2007–08

Agency protocol	Year	% of agencies with protocol in place(a)
(a) Percentage of agencies that provide regular (i.e. monthly or more often) services/advice to Ministers Source: Agency survey
Requirement for a minimal classification level for signing off ministerial briefs	2003–04	95
	2004–05	97
	2007–08	96
Requirement for a minimal classification level for phone contact with ministerial advisers	2003–04	47
	2004–05	61
	2007–08	62

Table 8.4 presents data on the range of awareness levels of these protocols among staff who have direct contact with Ministers and their offices in large agencies that had the protocol in place. The level of awareness among relevant employees of the requirement for a minimum level for the signing-off of briefs was relatively high (ranging from a low of 66% to a high of 91%). The level of awareness about a minimum level to handle phone contact with ministerial advisers was significantly lower (ranging from 15% to 32% of employees). Given the potential for problems with information quality, and for misunderstandings to arise between agencies and ministerial offices via phone contact between ministerial staff and agency employees at more junior levels, agencies with protocols in place to manage this issue need to regularly communicate their existence and requirements to employees. It is advisable to include such information in agency induction packages for employees, especially the SES, who have direct contact with ministerial offices.

Table 8.4: employees’ awareness of quality control measures, 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2007–08

		Aware of protocol (% employees)(a)
Agency protocol	Year	Low	High
(a) Results include only those employees who, in the last 12 months, have had direct contact with Ministers and/or ministerial advisers. (b) The results include only those large agencies (more than 1,000 employees) that report having this protocol in place and that had statistically valid results from the employee survey (12 agencies in 2003–04, 15 agencies in 2004–05 and 10 agencies in 2007–08). (c) The results include only those large agencies (more than 1,000 employees) that report having this protocol in place and that had statistically valid results from the employee survey (2 agencies in 2003–04, 3 agencies in 2004–05 and 4 agencies in 2007–08). Source: Agency and employee surveys
Requirement for a minimal classification level for signing off ministerial briefs(b)	2003–04	69	99
	2004–05	52	96
	2007–08	66	91
Requirement for a minimal classification level for phone contact with ministerial advisers(c)	2003–04	23	32
	2004–05	13	26
	2007–08	15	32

Recordkeeping measures

Another group of formal measures designed to guide APS employees’ interactions with ministerial offices relates to recordkeeping. This includes written confirmation of oral briefings, file notes of significant conversations and the filing of significant email communication. Table 8.5 gives the proportions of agencies reporting these measures. The most common measure is to ensure that email communication is retained (91%), a similar result to that in 2004–05, but significantly up on the 2003–04 result. The other measures have been stable at around 70% for both 2004–05 and 2007–08. It is of concern that these rates are not higher, given the importance of such recordkeeping for accountability and in avoiding communication misunderstandings.

Table 8.5: Agency recordkeeping protocols, 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2007–08

Agency protocol	Year	% of agencies with protocol in place(a)
(a) Percentage of agencies that provide regular (i.e. monthly or more often) services/advice to Ministers Source: Agency survey
Requirement that oral briefing to Ministers or Ministers’ staff on key issues is confirmed in writing (including emails or follow-up minutes)	2003–04	62
	2004–05	71
	2007–08	71
Requirement that file notes are routinely made after significant phone calls or oral discussions with Ministers or ministerial advisers	2003–04	70
	2004–05	69
	2007–08	70
Requirement that significant email communications with ministerial advisers be retained	2003–04	80
	2004–05	93
	2007–08	91

The ranges of relevant employee awareness of these measures among large agencies with statistically significant results are set out in Table 8.6. This reveals a relatively high level of awareness among employees who have regular contact with their Minister and ministerial office, of the need to retain email communications (between 56% and 80%). However, employees’ awareness of the protocols governing the need to confirm in writing the details of oral briefings, discussions and significant phone calls is relatively low and has fallen since 2004–05. These results indicate a continuing need for agencies to implement these recordkeeping measures as well as to actively promote them to relevant employees. Given that accountability is a key APS Value, agencies should be making further efforts to ensure that their recordkeeping, particularly in this regard, is both accurate and comprehensive.

Table 8.6: employees’ awareness of recordkeeping protocols, 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2007–08

		Aware of protocol (% employees)(a)
Agency protocol	Year	Low	High
(a) Results include only those employees, who in the last 12 months, have had direct contact with Ministers and/or ministerial advisers. (b) The results include only those large agencies (more than 1,000 employees) that report having this protocol in place and that had statistically valid results from the employee survey (3 agencies in 2003–04, 9 agencies in 2004–05 and 5 agencies in 2007–08). (c) The results include only those large agencies (more than 1,000 employees) that report having this protocol in place and that had statistically valid results from the employee survey (6 agencies in 2003–04, 10 agencies in 2004–05 and 6 agencies in 2007–08). (d) The results include only those large agencies (more than 1,000 employees) that report having this protocol in place and that had statistically valid results from the employee survey (8 agencies in 2003–04, 13 agencies in 2004–05 and 6 agencies in 2007–08). Source: Agency and employee surveys chapter
Requirement that oral briefing to Ministers or Ministers’ staff on key issues is confirmed in writing (including emails or follow up minutes)(b)	2003–04	27	39
	2004–05	24	63
	2007–08	27	45
Requirement that file notes are routinely made after significant phone calls or oral discussions with Ministers or ministerial advisers(c)	2003–04	41	54
	2004–05	30	65
	2007–08	31	62
Requirement that significant email communications with ministerial advisers be retained(d)	2003–04	43	87
	2004–05	47	75
	2007–08	56	80

Evaluation measures

Agencies were asked to report on the sorts of formal measures they had in place to evaluate the quality of services provided to Ministers and their offices. Table 8.7 shows the proportions of agencies with these measures in place in comparison to those in previous years in which data was collected.

Table 8.7: Proportions of agencies with formal evaluation measures in place, 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2007–08

Formal measure	2003–04 (%)	2004–05 (%)	2007–08 (%)
Source: Agency survey
Formal ministerial feedback is collected via some form of rating system (for example, a rating scale for such criteria as timeliness, quality of analysis and accuracy)	47	44	41
A requirement that oral feedback is collected from Ministers	22	22	26
A requirement that oral feedback is collected from ministerial staff	33	27	33
Some form of internal peer review is undertaken of written briefing material	80	64	77

Twenty-eight of the 69 agencies (41%) that provide regular (monthly or more often) services/advice to Ministers indicated that they collected formal feedback via a rating system. This represents a decline in the use of this measure compared to that in previous years. Although all large agencies report having regular contact with ministerial offices, less than half (46%) report collecting feedback via some form of rating system, largely because these systems have been dispensed with for time saving reasons. Indeed, the data in Table 8.7 suggests a trend away from rating systems towards oral feedback and reliance on some form of internal peer review in order to ensure the quality of briefing materials provided to Ministers.

In the case of agencies who reported having a formal rating mechanism for ministerial feedback in their annual report for the previous year,5 an analysis was conducted of whether this information was reported publicly. Only 11 of the 28 agencies reported on the quality, timeliness or general satisfaction of Ministers with agency briefs, submissions, correspondence and responses to questions from Parliament. These ranged from simple statements such as ‘the Minister expressed high levels of satisfaction’ and ‘the Minister’s Office was generally satisfied’ to more quantitative reports like ‘briefings were consistently rated four out of five for timeliness and quality’ and ‘the department achieved a 90% satisfaction level for all ministerial items’.

Three agencies indicated that their ministerial offices discouraged the use of such formal rating methods. However, in these circumstances, it may still be possible to gather oral feedback from ministerial advisers and to use internal peer review from within the agency.

Given the importance of establishing effective relationships with Ministers and their offices, underpinned by high-quality services and advice, and the resources that agencies expend in providing services to Ministers, it is important that more agencies establish mechanisms to evaluate the quality of their outputs, including how satisfied Ministers are with their services. the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) Better Practice Guide, Agency Management of Parliamentary Workflow, provides some useful guidance on the collection and reporting of performance data in this area.6

Challenges in managing the relationship with Ministers and ministerial offices

Focus groups of APS employees conducted for the Commission’s 2006 good practice guide, Supporting Ministers, Upholding the Values, identified certain situations and types of work where APS employees are more likely to face a challenge in balancing the need to be apolitical, responsive and accountable:

• prior to the caretaker period, as an election approaches, as well as during the caretaker period
• when discussing advice with Ministers’ offices on disbursement of grants or appointing statutory office holders
• when responding to requests from Ministers’ offices for revised briefing materials
• in response to requests for electorate-based briefings
• supporting Cabinet processes
• supporting Budget processes
• recordkeeping (including handling freedom of information requests)
• responding to parliamentary questions and questions on notice.

The employee survey asked employees who had contact with Ministers or their offices whether in the past 12 months they had faced a challenge in balancing the need to be apolitical, impartial and professional, responsive to government and openly accountable. Twenty per cent reported that they had faced such a challenge in 2007–08. This finding is significantly lower than the one-third of employees who had reported facing the same challenge in 2004–05 and 2003–04. SES employees were much more likely to report facing this challenge (31%) than ELs (21%) and APS 1–6 employees (18%), although there was no difference between ACT and non-ACT-based staff.

Possible factors behind the large decline in those employees who reported facing a challenge in balancing the Values in 2007–08 compared to 2004–05 include: the lower proportion of employees who report having direct contact with Ministers and ministerial advisers in 2008 (17% in 2007–08 compared with 20% in 2004–05); and the significant fall in the number of ministerial advisers under the new government. It is also likely that the Commission’s activities in this area (for example, the release of Supporting Ministers, Upholding the Values and the presentations to new Ministers and ministerial staff following the November 2007 federal election), as well as the new government’s requirements for its Ministers and advisers have enhanced employees’ confidence in balancing these Values. These recent initiatives have also improved ministerial staffers’ understanding of their roles and responsibilities in interacting with public servants. The awareness-raising prior to the introduction of the new Code of Conduct for Ministerial Staff in July 2008 may have also had some impact.

Not surprisingly, the type of contact APS employees had with Ministers and their offices affected whether they were likely to face a challenge in balancing the Values. Generally, these were broadly consistent with the situations identified in the Commission’s good practice guide as being more likely to pose challenges for APS employees. An additional situation evident from the employee survey results has been identified, however, in which employees are required to provide public affairs support to Ministers. Employees who reported having contact in regard to the provision of public affairs support (e.g. preparation of speeches and media releases) were the most likely to report facing a challenge (30%).

Employees who had contact with regard to parliament-related functions (e.g. possible parliamentary questions and correspondence) also had experienced relatively high levels of challenges (29%). Employees least likely to report having faced a challenge were those having contact in relation to administrative arrangements (e.g. arranging travel or meetings) (16%). Of those employees in contact in relation to the provision of advice (e.g. policy, legal or programme delivery) or purely factual information (e.g. programme-related information), 23% and 26% respectively reported facing a challenge.

Whether employees reported facing a challenge also varied with the main type of work employees perform. Highest levels of facing a challenge were reported by those working in service delivery (26%) and policy roles (24%). Lowest levels were reported by those doing corporate work (14%) and legal work (10%).

Comments from employees help to describe some of the sorts of challenges faced by employees in 2007–08:

The tensions in balancing the need to be apolitical, impartial and professional, responsive to the Government and openly accountable, as per the APS Values, in dealing with Ministers and/or Ministers’ offices occur on a daily basis at the branch head level, and you use your judgement to steer the appropriate course through any discussion, in accordance with the Code of Conduct and APS Values.

Due to an inexperienced office there are unrealistic expectations placed on our department and portfolio agencies to provide copious amounts of material to the office to the point that they do not know what they have or what they need.

There is an inconsistency between guidelines or the adherence to protocol regarding communication between lower level staff and ministerial advisers. Lower level staff are apparently ‘not permitted’ to contact ministerial advisers directly, however, they have no qualms in contacting us directly and putting pressure on us to answer their questions immediately without going through appropriate channels. This puts undue pressure on lower level staff, especially in situations where the senior management have not kept us informed of other negotiations relating to the matter we are being questioned on.

It is very disappointing to see official information deliberately distorted, and not have anything done about it.

I think that my agency’s support for the Government would be more effective if the Government did not treat us with suspicion, acknowledged that the Department has valuable knowledge, and was willing to work with the Department rather than against it.

The Government wants evidence [-based] policy advice which I strongly support. The APS needs to educate the Government that such advice will take time to gather and will require patience on the part of the Government. At the moment we appear to be generating policy off the back of press releases.

Processes for resolving concerns with requests from Ministers’ offices

Table 8.8 indicates that there has been a substantial increase in the number of agencies reporting that they have agreed on unwritten processes for resolving staff concerns that may arise about the nature of requests from ministerial offices. This year, 72% of agencies reported that they have such unwritten processes in place (up from 56% of agencies in 2004–05). Unwritten processes are much more common than written ones with only 22% of agencies reporting that they have written processes in place (up from 10% of agencies in 2004–05).

Table 8.8: Agency processes for resolving concerns with ministerial offices, 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2007–08

Agency protocol	Year	% of agencies with protocol in place(a)
(a) Percentage of agencies that provide regular (i.e. monthly or more) services/advice to Ministers. Source: Agency survey
Agreed unwritten process for resolving staff concerns that may arise about the nature of requests from ministerial offices	2003–04	NA
	2004–05	56
	2007–08	72
Agreed written process for resolving staff concerns that may arise about the nature of requests from ministerial offices	2003–04	NA
	2004–05	10
	2007–08	22

While the increase in agencies that have introduced such processes to assist employees is a positive development, employee awareness that their agency has such processes in place is relatively low. Table 8.9 looks at the levels of employees who have direct contact with Ministers and/or ministerial offices who report that they are aware that their agency has a particular protocol within those large agencies that report having the same protocol in place. The level of employee awareness of unwritten processes for resolving employees’ concerns ranged from 15% to 47% of relevant employees. Surprisingly, awareness levels concerning written processes were even lower (from 17% to 25%). This suggests that agencies need to be much more proactive in ensuring that employees who have direct contact with ministerial offices know about the protocols in place to resolve concerns that may arise about the nature of requests from ministerial offices.

Table 8.9: employees’ awareness of processes for resolving concerns with ministerial offices, 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2007–08

		Aware of protocol (% employees)(a)
Agency protocol	Year	Low	High
(a) Results include only those employees who, in the last 12 months, have had direct contact with Ministers and/or ministerial advisers. (b) The results include only those large agencies (more than 1,000 employees) that report having this protocol in place and that had statistically valid results from the employee survey (10 agencies in 2003–04, 9 agencies in 2004–05 and 10 agencies in 2007–08). (c) The results include only those large agencies (more than 1,000 employees) that report having this protocol in place and that had statistically valid results from the employee survey (2 agencies in 2004–05 and 3 agencies in 2007–08). Source: Agency and employee surveys
Agreed unwritten process for resolving staff concerns that may arise about the nature of requests from ministerial offices(b)	2003–04	21	33
	2004–05	16	29
	2007–08	15	47
Agreed written process for resolving staff concerns that may arise about the nature of requests from ministerial offices(c)	2003–04	NA	NA
	2004–05	8	32
	2007–08	17	25

Other developments

There have been a number of developments in the area of agencies’ interactions with Ministers and their offices in 2007–08. In December 2007, the Government introduced revised Standards of Ministerial Ethics. Among other things the standards emphasise compliance with relevant standards of procedural fairness, appropriate use of resources available to Ministers for public purposes and that ‘Ministers must not encourage or induce other public officials, including public servants, by their decisions, directions or conduct in office to breach the law, or to fail to comply with the relevant code of ethical conduct applicable to them in their official capacity.’9

Another issue relevant to the interaction of agencies and Ministers in 2007–08 occurred in relation to the involvement of public servants in public information campaigns, including the involvement of the Director of the Workplace Authority in the media promotion of the Work Choices legislation, at the request of her Minister, prior to the caretaker period. The Commission has issued new Guidelines on the Involvement of Public Servants in Public Information and Awareness Initiatives.10 These guidelines clarified the roles and responsibilities of public servants and Ministers and will assist future interactions between agencies and Ministers in this area. They make a basic distinction between two types of public information activity. The first is that helping to explain the Government’s policies and programmes is a core responsibility of public servants and includes activities such as working ‘at the counter’ in government shopfronts, speaking at public forums and responding to ministerial correspondence and media queries. The focus is on explaining what the Government’s policies mean and how they operate in practice. Justifying and promoting Government policy, however, is the Minister’s responsibility.

The second type of public information activity involves more proactive campaigns to publicise particular government policy and programme initiatives. Public servant involvement in these types of campaigns involves a significant risk of perceptions of political bias. The Government’s policy, as made clear in the Commission’s guidelines, is not to use public servants in government media campaigns unless that role is essential in the communication of a public interest or safety issue such as a Chief Medical Officer warning. Agency heads who wish to use public servants in government television, radio, print media or internet-based campaigns must now first seek the agreement of the Australian Public Service Commissioner.

Also in the area of public information campaigns, Finance released in June 2008 Guidelines on Campaign Advertising by Australian Government Departments and Agencies.11 These guidelines will assist agencies in their interactions with Ministers and their offices on this potentially challenging issue as they contain specific guidelines on what constitutes legitimate campaign advertising. Heads of agencies are now required to certify that any proposed campaign complies with the new guidelines and relevant government policies. This includes conducting a cost-benefit analysis in which the nature of the campaign, including the methods proposed, the medium to be used, and the volume of publicity activities envisaged will have to be justified in terms of society’s needs, efficiency and effectiveness.

There will also need to be a clear audit trail regarding decision-making. For those campaigns with expenditure in excess of $250,000 (or where the Minister requests) the Auditor-General is also required to provide a report to the relevant Minister on the proposed campaign’s compliance with the guidelines.

Chapter 7 of this report outlines the new arrangements for more transparent and merit- based assessment in the selection of most APS agency heads that were introduced in February 2008. The appointment of statutory office holders has been, at times, a challenging area of agencies’ interactions with Ministers and their offices. These new arrangements should assist in reducing the difficulties that APS employees have experienced in balancing the values of being apolitical, responsive and accountable.

Finally, ANAO released a report on the operation of the Regional Partnerships Program over the period July 2003 to June 2006. The report highlights the pitfalls that agencies can fall into when interacting with Ministers and their offices on the disbursement of grants. The Regional Partnerships Program operated as a very flexible discretionary grants programme that was aimed at stimulating growth in regional Australia. Funding decisions were taken by Ministers based on advice from the then Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS).

The ANAO report found two aspects of the programme to be of concern:

The flexibility in the application assessment and Ministerial approval processes creates challenges in ensuring transparent, accountable and cost-effective administration and in demonstrating the equitable treatment of applicants; and the manner in which the Programme had been administered over the three year period to 30 June 2006 … had fallen short of an acceptable standard of public administration, particularly in respect to the assessment of grant applications and the management of Funding Agreements.12

Significant changes to the programme were made under the former government after June 2006 in order to overcome these shortcomings. These changes included revising the briefing material to be provided to the Ministerial Committee when considering the departmental assessment of a Regional Partnerships application. The revised material identifies the obligations on Ministers arising under the financial framework, including when considering approving funding for a project that has not been recommended by the Department. The changes also included, in September 2007, enhanced procedures approved by the Ministerial Committee to manage potential conflicts of interest in respect of projects located in the electorate of a member of the Committee.

Further, ANAO recommended that:

• in the interests of accountability, transparency and equity during the assessment and decision-making stages, the Department develop, for consideration by the Ministerial Committee, procedures for recording the participants in and outcomes of any significant meetings or substantive communications that may occur between applicants and Ministers and/or their offices in relation to Regional Partnership applications
• the Department appropriately qualify its assessment and advice to Ministers in circumstances where the assessment of a Regional Partnership application was truncated or expedited as, for example, occurred in the lead-up to the 2004 federal election
• in light of the Minister’s statutory obligations when approving the expenditure of public money, the Department advise Ministers on any measures considered necessary to effectively manage the risks to the Commonwealth and achieve value for money when acting on election commitments.

The current government has closed the programme and will replace it with the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program in 2009. It is expected that the new programme will address the administrative deficiencies of its predecessor.

Strengthening the relationship with Ministers and their offices

This year’s agency survey asked agencies which provide regular (i.e. monthly or more often) services and advice to Ministers to nominate the five most important strategies or approaches they use to strengthen relations with Ministers and their offices. Table 8.10 consolidates these free text responses into a number of categories.

Table 8.10: Summary of agencies’ five most important strategies for strengthening relations with Ministers and their offices, 2007–08 (N=69)

Type of Strategy	Agencies	Proportion (%)
Source: Agency survey
Regular meetings	67	96
Coordinated communications and business (including portfolio agencies using departmental liaison resources and ministerial coordination units)	45	62
Emerging or potentially important issues awareness/advice	38	54
Ad hoc meetings	33	48
Updates and briefings on programmes and initiatives	32	45
Provision of agency liaison officers in ministerial offices	28	41
Documented policies and procedures for interactions between agency and ministerial office and training	22	32
Responsiveness, including maintaining awareness of Minister’s activities/policies and providing rapid responses to requests	20	29
Facilitating contact at many levels within the agency and ministerial office	19	28
Clearly defined roles	17	25
Invitations to Ministers to be involved in agency activities, including departmental visits and events	10	13
Quality assurance strategies	7	10

Regular meetings with Ministers and their offices is the most common way of maintaining strong relationships. Coordinating communications and workflow through a ministerial coordination unit and agency liaison officers are also frequently cited as good strategies, especially for agencies within larger portfolio departments. Keeping the Minister abreast of emerging issues through briefings and updates, providing advice on issues and ad hoc meetings were also strategies commonly nominated by agencies. Somewhat surprising is that only 25% of agencies nominated ‘clearly defined roles’ as one of their top five strategies. Defining roles is a very important way of avoiding misunderstandings and maintaining positive relationships between agencies and ministerial offices.

Nonetheless, together the agency responses represent a close approximation of the sorts of detailed strategies and approaches suggested in the Commission’s Supporting Ministers, Upholding the Values good practice guide and ANAO’s Agency Management of Parliamentary Workflow publication.

The only strategy not identified within agencies’ top five, when compared to the guidelines provided in these publications, is the need for active leadership. Leadership in this respect refers to regular reminders and discussions by agency heads with SES employees about the agency’s responsibilities to support Ministers and how to maintain good relationships with ministerial offices and their legislated responsibility to uphold and promote the Values. It also involves agencies adopting the types of strategies reported here and ensuring that these messages are actively communicated to all employees who have contact with ministerial offices.

Relations with the Parliament

There are a number of formal courses for public servants about their rights and obligations in relation to Parliament. The Department of the Senate, the Department of the House of Representatives and the Commission all provide training in this area. Table 8.11 sets out the numbers of employees who attended these courses over the past three financial years.

Table 8.11: Attendance at parliamentary accountability training courses, 2005–06 to 2007–08

Course	Year	Attendance
Note: Courses are generally open to APS and other Commonwealth employees. (a) The SES Orientation Programme run by the Commission addresses, among other things, rights and responsibilities as well as the procedures and expectations of parliamentary committee witnesses. (b) Preparing to Appear Before a Parliamentary Committee is run by the Commission and open to SES and EL employees. It builds upon the relevant section in the SES Orientation Programme. (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. (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.
SES Orientation Programme(a) (Commission)	2005–06	164
	2006–07	243
	2007–08	235
Preparing to Appear Before a Parliamentary Committee(b) (Commission)	2005–06	19
	2006–07	45
	2007–08	67
Parliament, Privilege and Accountability(c) (Senate)	2005–06	59
	2006–07	120
	2007–08	51
Senate Committees(d) (Senate)	2005–06	47
	2006–07	131
	2007–08	35
About Committees(e) (House of Representatives)	2005–06	67
	2006–07	49
	2007–08	20
Total attendance at above courses	2005–06	356
	2006–07	588
	2007–08	414

As reported in Chapter 5 of this report, the rate of attendance at the Commission’s SES Orientation Programme, which provides new SES employees with the essential information they need to operate effectively in the APS environment, including their interactions with Ministers’ offices and the Parliament, has increased substantially since last year to around 70%. Given that in 2007–08 25% of newly appointed senior executives came from outside the APS and that a good proportion are unlikely to have any or recent experience in dealing with parliamentary matters (around half of these had previous ongoing experience in the APS), this is an encouraging result and the APS can be fairly confident that these employees are receiving the information they need to represent their agencies to Parliament.

The timing of the 2007 federal election and the associated caretaker period affected attendance at the About Committees course, and the Senate courses appear to have been similarly affected. While total attendance at these courses fell in 2007–08 compared to that in the previous year, it remained higher than in 2005–06 and the preceding three years, which averaged 255 attendees annually, that is, between 2002 and 2005.

This trend is reflected in the number of employees reporting their attendance at formal training courses dealing with their accountabilities, rights and responsibilities to Parliament, both during their careers and in the previous 12 months. Table 8.12 shows that the gap between SES and ELs reporting formal training has widened. This suggests a consolidation of this training into the SES and away from ELs, and possibly a reduction in the number of non-SES employees appearing before committees.

Table 8.12: Proportion of SES and EL staff who have received formal training in accountabilities, rights and responsibilities to Parliament, 2005 and 2008

	2005		2008
Classification	Yes (%)	No (%)	Yes (%)	No (%)
Source: Employee survey
SES
Received training in career	67	30	70	28
Received training in previous 12 months	13	87	26	74
EL 2 and EL 1
Received training in career	21	72	17	81
Received training in previous 12 months	17	81	21	77

Ninety per cent of agencies indicated that some or all of their SES employees appear before parliamentary committees (excluding Chief Executive Officers (CEOs)). This compares to 94% of agencies in 2005. Given the exclusion of CEOs from the survey, it is not surprising that, while all large agencies have SES attending parliamentary committees, only 79% of small agencies do.

For those agencies reporting that their SES staff appear before parliamentary committees, the agency survey also asks agencies to report on the sorts of measures they have in place to ensure SES staff understand their rights and responsibilities in relation to parliamentary accountability. The most common measure in place is for employees to learn by attending and observing committee processes. Internal briefing and self-nominated training are also frequently reported measures. Large agencies are more likely than small agencies to use all measures except internal briefing.

Figure 8.1 compares the proportion of measures reported by relevant agencies for the period 2002–03 to 2004–05 with this year’s results. For these measures there has been a gradual, general trend upwards since 2002–03, except for voluntary training which fell slightly in relation to the previous two years. This is consistent, however, with the relatively high rates of attendance over recent years at relevant courses run by these parliamentary departments and the Commission.

Key chapter findings

The year 2007–08 has been an eventful one for interactions between APS agencies, Ministers and ministerial offices. It covers a period that includes agencies’ interactions with the previous government in the lead-up to the caretaker period, the caretaker period itself and the period where agencies were establishing relationships, protocols and processes with new Ministers and new ministerial staff. The post-election environment has been influenced by the Government’s goal of reinvigorating Australia’s Westminster tradition. The revised Standards of Ministerial Ethics, the Code of Conduct for Ministerial Staff, the reductions in the number of ministerial advisers, additional guidance concerning the involvement of public servants in public information campaigns and new requirements for the approval of government media campaigns have all assisted in clarifying roles and responsibilities. The priority in 2008–09 is to ensure that these new codes and guidelines are embedded into ongoing working arrangements.

There have been other positive developments. The proportion of employees reporting that they faced a challenge in balancing the need to be apolitical, impartial and professional, responsive to government and openly accountable fell significantly compared to that recorded in 2004–05 (the latest period of comparison available). That the fall occurred in an election year is somewhat surprising, but is a good sign. It may be due to a range of factors, including the smaller proportion of staff who reported having direct contact with Ministers and ministerial advisers in 2007–08, and the significant fall in the number of ministerial advisers under the Rudd Government. It is also likely that the Commission’s activities in this area have helped employees to become more confident in balancing these APS Values and have also improved ministerial staffers’ understanding of their roles and responsibilities in interacting with public servants. The awareness-raising in the earlier half of 2008, prior to the Government’s introduction of the new Code of Conduct for Ministerial Staff in July 2008, would also have had an important impact.

The new guidelines on public servants’ involvement in public information campaigns and agency spending on campaign advertising will also assist agencies in their interactions with Ministers and their offices on these potentially challenging issues.

The growth in the proportion of agencies reporting that they now have protocols to assist staff in resolving concerns that may arise about the nature of requests from ministerial offices is another positive development, although employee awareness that their agency has such processes in place is relatively low. Low levels of awareness of many of the protocols that agencies have in place to guide employees’ interactions with Ministers and their offices in relation to issues such as recordkeeping and quality control was a general problem in 2007–08; there is a strong case for agencies investing more in proactively promoting awareness of these protocols to those employees who have regular contact with Ministers and their offices.

The proportion of agencies that report having established formal evaluation measures to assess the quality of the services and advice provided to Ministers was also relatively low. Given the resources that agencies expend in providing services to Ministers and the importance of forging strong relationships with Ministers and their offices, underpinned by high-quality services and advice, it is essential that more agencies implement mechanisms to enable them to evaluate the quality of their outputs, including how satisfied Ministers are with their services.

 

1 Hon. Kevin Rudd MP, ‘Address to Heads of Agencies and Members of the Senior Executive Service’, Great Hall, Parliament House, Canberra, 30 April 2008, p. 4, <http://www.pm.gov.au>

2 ANAO 2008, Agency Management of Parliamentary Workflow, Better Practice Guide, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p. 2, <http://anao.gov.au>

3 L. Briggs, ‘Supporting Ministers, Upholding the Values: A Good Practice Guide’ (Publication Launch Speech, 9 March 2006), <http://www.apsc.gov.au>

4 Australian Government, Code of Conduct for Ministerial Staff, July 2008, <http://www.smos.gov.au>

5 The 2008 survey data relates to the current government while 2006–07 annual reports relate to the previous financial year and relationships with the former government.

6 ANAO 2008, Agency Management of Parliamentary Workflow, Better Practice Guide, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, Chapter 7, ‘Managing and Reporting Organisational Performance’, pp. 67–75, <http://www.anao.gov.au>

7 National School of Government, Centre for Working with Ministers and Parliament (CWMP), ‘Trust and Confidence in Learning’ (Programme); C. Jary, Working with Ministers, CWMP, Sunningdale Park, Ascot, 200?, <http://www.nationalschool.gov.uk/cwmp>

8 Public Service Commission of Canada, Annual Report 2006–2007, The Commission, Ottawa, <http://www.psc-cfp.gc.ca>

9 Australian Government 2007, Standards of Ministerial Ethics, p. 6, <http://www.pmc.gov.au>

10 Australian Public Service Commission 2007, Guidelines on the Involvement of Public Servants in Public Information and Awareness Initiatives, Circular No. 2007/5, <http://www.apsc.gov.au>

11 Finance 2008, Guidelines on Campaign Advertising by Australian Government Departments and Agencies, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.finance.gov.au>

12 ANAO 2007, Regional Partnerships Programme: Volume 1—Summary and Recommendations, Performance Audit Report No. 14, 2007–08, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, pp. 19–20, <http://www.anao.gov.au>

13 Ministry of Justice, The Governance of Britain, The Stationery Office, London, June 2007, <http://www.justice.gov.uk>. Progress achieved on its key commitments was reviewed in Governance of Britain: One Year On (July 2008).

14 Rt. Hon. Gordon Brown MP, ‘Constitutional Reform Statement’, 3 July 2007, p. 2, <http://www.number10.gov.uk>

15 The Spectator (London), 17 November 2007, pp. 18–19.

Previous Next: Agency governance

About the State of the Service Previous State of the Service reports are available from our State of the Service page

Navigation Letter of transmittal Preface Overview Who we are Enhancing productive capacity

Reinvigorating the traditions of Westminster government Working with stakeholders and moving to more inclusive government Appendices

Resources Glossary Downloads Figures and tables