[Sandy Reith]

All very well but the Government Business Enterprise model (independent statutory bodies) is an abject failure. Neither are they businesses nor are they enterprising. They were ill-conceived as a byproduct of Thatcher inspired privatisation (but a side effect certainly not of her making). Tax did not sound nice so its 'user pays', yes through the neck, no competition allowed. They removed the Minister from from full responsibility. They are not subject to the Public Service rules, therefore they are a different breed apart and hence have become a law unto themselves. Business? of course this is just part of the jargon designed by bureacracy to lull the senses to what is really going on here. Saving the taxpayer by levies and fees charged? Again, no, they cost far more than ever, the scandalous incompetence and stupendous waste is plain to see. The holier than thou "no politics please" is just silly. What is a government agency without accountability and without politics to keep it focused on the best outcomes for the populace at large? Go anywhere today, state and local governments included and you find the same arrogance and waste is becoming all pervasive. Public servants? You jest of course, you mean public masters and government above us all who, sometimes, allow us the 'privileges' to fly. We were brainwashed, and now we see that that former apathy and trust is leading to the destruction of an industry. 2016 GA Reform Year Action time.

[ventus45]

Spot on Sandy. Well said. The "law unto themselves" outfits must be disbanded. If a function is truly a government responsibility it MUST be under direct ministerial control. This "independent" crap only produces a bureaucracy worse than the real bureaucracy !!

[Kharon]

Sandy - “They are not subject to the Public Service rules, therefore they are a different breed apart and hence have become a law unto themselves.”

“2016 GA Reform Year Action time.”

Real reform is essential and demanded, across the board.  Even the big outfits have had enough and the bottom line, although healthy, could look a lot better with the removal of impost and encumbrance.

But I had to smile when I read the P2 post – HERE - CASA advertising for new blood.  It’s a strange situation.  I could find, today at least half a dozen, first class fellahin who could, and probably would make a great deal difference for the better.  They are the type CASA need to employ – but: and it is a very big but, would they go to work in an environment where any form of reform is being actively rejected outright or stone walled?  Course not.

The irony of it is that many of the best have had serious run ins with ‘the authority’ or, too many close encounters of the unpleasant kind and would not contemplate applying – until the regulator shows signs of changing it’s manners, behaviour pattern and approach to what they believe enhances ‘safety’.

Can you imagine the dust up if someone who actually knew and understood what a check and training system was supposed to do was brought into the Part 61 ‘tiger team’?  The notion of even being a ‘tiger team’ player is enough to make even the hardiest of guts rebel.

Mr. Turnbull’s reformation may be embraced by real servants of the public and honest folk – but it’s a long way away from touching the borders of Sleepy Hollow.  Quite the puzzle for someone; need the crew to make the changes, need a leader who can earn their respect and an atmosphere that is breathable.  No, CASA will simply hire the same cardboard cut-outs – replacing idiot for idiot; thief with thief and under achiever with another equally as useless.

We get to sit and watch the whole charade unfold, once again and have the pleasure of paying for it all.

Einstein – was right.  

Safe insanity for all.

[Peetwo]

The Mandarin is already back to work and although technically not one of their own, the first feature article for the year is a ripper and again brings a strange disassociation between our Murky Mandarin & his Minions and the rest, including the PM&C..  

Frank, fearless, replaceable: politicisation of appointments

---

by
Charlie Shandil
05.01.2016



While politicians get “captain’s picks” in selecting departmental heads, is the role of the Australian public service to provide impartial advice being undermined? The lack of safeguards is an ongoing concern.

The past month has witnessed a fundamental shift in the top structure of the Australian public service with the loss of some of the most esteemed bureaucrats in Australia.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade secretary Peter Varghese announced in November that he was stepping down for a position as chancellor of the University of Queensland. Hours later, the secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Michael Thawley, announced his departure from the top job. In the same week Drew Clarke, secretary of the Department of Communications and the Arts, was permanently instated as Malcolm Turnbull’s chief of staff.

This reshuffling of the bureaucracy has left three departmental head positions vacant. However, it has also brought into question the nonpartisan nature of the APS. In accordance with section 58 of the Public Service Act, the prime minister, the public service commissioner and one other will need to inform the decision about who will fill these positions, ultimately appointed by the governor–general.

However, while the PS Act underpins the appointment mechanism, it should be questioned why a prime minister chooses a departmental secretary. It is the duty of a departmental secretary to provide nonpartisan advice and be apolitical by law. But these appointments are made on a contractual five-yearly basis by the most powerful political figure in the country, who subsequently also has the power of dismissal. This calls into question how appointment and dismissal by a politician allows a secretary to provide apolitical, nonpartisan advice.

In the family of Westminster nations, the issue of politicisation has become a key concern for the effective administration of the civil service and its role in the political system. In the OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, a study found:

“Neutrality, in the sense of political non-partisanship in public administration, is of course a precondition for ensuring that, regardless of their political orientation, citizens are treated fairly and in an equitable manner. Operationally it is delivered by emphasising professionalism, merit and competence amongst public servants. These values are important to the level of justice and continuity in public administration — arguably a significant determinant of how much trust citizens place in their system of government.”

In Australia, the issue of politicisation was firmly placed on the agenda when six departmental secretaries were replaced after the change of government in 1996. In the United Kingdom, the former head of the British civil service, Sir Richard Wilson, also raised the issue of politicisation, stating that the rise of ministerial advisors now requires public servants to have insight into the “mind of a minister”, thus confirming the importance of political nous in policy advice. In New Zealand, the state service commissioner in his 2002 report to parliament commented that there are “fears in some quarters about the potential for the politicisation of the public service”.

A comprehensive analysis of “politicisation” was conducted by Patrick Weller (1989) who argued that politicisation stems from the use of the public service for party-related purposes, and from appointing, promoting and providing tenure to public servants through political influence. Weller also suggests that replacing secretaries upon the change of a government, without providing enough time to work with the new government, is also evidence of politicisation. This final point also aligns to the decision to removal tenure.

“… this absence of formal safeguards for senior bureaucrats now offers the government the capacity to politicise the whole senior executive level …”

“… this absence of formal safeguards for senior bureaucrats now offers the government the capacity to politicise the whole senior executive level …”

In 1984 the concept of the “permanent head” was removed, and in 1995 tenure was abolished from the public service, enabling the government of the day to appoint secretaries to serve at the whim of the minister, with the fear of being removed at any time without reparation or justification. In 1996, the Howard government dismissed six secretaries and appointed a non-public servant to the position of secretary of PM&C, and in 2013 the Abbott government removed three departmental secretaries within hours of swearing in.

While these examples of politicisation are far from the United States example of making 3000 senior public service positions vacant as a result of a new presidency, this absence of formal safeguards for senior bureaucrats now offers the government the capacity to politicise the whole senior executive level if they so wish. This ability to make “captain’s calls” on the bureaucracy puts into question the politicisation of the APS.

Malcolm Turnbull has not followed the style of his predecessors, and the instalment of a top bureaucrat as his chief of staff could be an opportunity to explore the politicisation of the APS in a rational and comprehensive manner. Just as the defining factors of enabling frank and fearless advice were removed to professionalise the public service — permanent head, tenure, and the like — this could be an opportunity for Drew Clarke to drive reform in this domain. A reform agenda charged with adapting the APS to contemporary times towards a new and evolved public service — one that is truly “apolitical, performing its functions in an impartial and professional manner”.

This article was first published at the APPS Policy Forum

 
Top stuff Charlie..   However if you want an answer for this bit...
"...This calls into question how appointment and dismissal by a politician allows a secretary to provide apolitical, nonpartisan advice..."

...just ask Murky because it would appear that he has redefined the term 'apolitical, nonpartisan advice', quote from post - United we stand divided we fall - Part II:

Unlike the days of the PAP, when we had the strong support of Allan Hawke, the present Secretary, Mike Mrdak, is a major obstacle to any meaningful change. Indeed, Mrdak has recently "vetoed" changes to the Act, because "politicians might amend changes if they are brought to Parliament". Mrdak is clearly of the view that politicians should only do as permitted by their civil services masters.

 
In other words Murky is perfectly apolitical and is not afraid to tell the Minister of any persuasion - when it comes to aviation safety - to mind their own business...
MTF..P2

[Peetwo]

Public Servant Whistle-blowers & the piddling PIDs? -

Another excellent narrative from Stevie E, this time on whistleblowers & the effectiveness of the now 2 yr old Public Interest Disclosure Act (also includes an opinion quote from Nick Xenophon)  :

What’s wrong with wanting more whistleblowers to come forward?

---

by
Stephen Easton
14.01.2016


Most people are loath to become whistleblowers, and with good reason. The two-year-old Public Interest Disclosure Act is encouraging more public servants to come forward, but reprisals are still feared. Would a little cash help, too?

It’s a sad fact that whistleblowers almost always bear a high personal cost for exposing illegal and unethical behaviour because in doing so, they put people with responsibilities higher up the food chain in jeopardy.

From early childhood, reporting genuine wrongdoing becomes conflated with telling fibs to get others in trouble. The result is most people have it drilled into them to just keep their mouth shut and mind their own business, or be branded an untrustworthy tattle-tale.

Combined with the actual consequences that have befallen past whistleblowers, there is good reason to keep your head down. The number of public servants coming forward with information about shifty behaviour is on the rise, but the statistics also show fear of reprisals is still prevalent.

“The external disclosure must not, on balance, be contrary to the public interest … and only disclose as much information as is reasonably necessary”

“The external disclosure must not, on balance, be contrary to the public interest … and only disclose as much information as is reasonably necessary”

Would a little money sweeten the deal and encourage more whistleblowers to come forward? South Australian senator Nick Xenophon thinks it might.

He suggests changing legislation to offer a “lump sum or income protection” to people who risk their current job, and their future employment prospects in many cases, by blowing the whistle on corruption. In the US, whistleblowers can get a kind of bounty by sharing in fines paid by organisations they help to prosecute.

“We need to break the culture of silence that can pervade all organisations — governments, corporations, unions and even sporting clubs when something is not quite right,” said Xenophon. “Whistleblowers just don’t come forward in this country because doing so invariably leads to their job and career being destroyed.”

Public sector whistleblowers on the rise

Public sector whistleblowers already have more protection than everyone else — and more than they had in the past — via the Public Interest Disclosures Act, which took effect two years ago. The scheme is supposed to protect their identities, provide a strong basis to launch legal action in response to any threats or actual reprisals against them — or against suspected whistleblowers — and give immunity to civil, criminal or administrative liability for the disclosure.


The Commonwealth Ombudsman’s annual report notes “initial doubts” about the new scheme but says it has been “instrumental” in bringing important information to light and responsible for an 11% increase in disclosures by public servants:

“This has been acknowledged by senior managers as having been beneficial to the administration of their agency.”

The Ombudsman says agencies that had the least PID reports aren’t necessarily squeaky clean. They might just have low awareness of the new scheme, less accessible PID officers, or a “culture that complaint information is not a valuable resource for improving performance”.

The annual report also lists 53 complaints to the Ombudsman in 2014-15 about how agencies reacted to PIDs. Whistleblowers were unhappy with how thoroughly their disclosures were investigated and decisions not to investigate, how well they were kept informed, and even complained of reprisals and breach of confidentiality. The Ombudsman found “shortcomings” in only two cases, which the agencies agreed to address, and reports:

“We have noted a trend in complaints relating to allegations of reprisal action…
“We have also identified a trend for some disclosers who are disappointed with the outcome of a PID investigation to make complaints about alleged reprisal actions.”

Related Content


[/url]
Whistleblowers beware: AFP reveals investigations

Read More
 


Anti-Corruption Day: 7 factors enabling crook public servants

Read More
 


Bernard Keane: speaking power to truth in Briggs affair
[url=http://www.themandarin.com.au/58734-bernard-keane-speaking-power-truth-briggs-affair/]
Read More

The report also notes some confusion about the confidentiality provisions that make it a crime to expose the whistleblower’s identity and forbid their name being given to the principal officer investigating their PID without consent, and the exceptions to them.

It could be impossible to investigate the issue without knowing the person’s identity, and their refusal is a valid reason to stop the investigation. Their name may also be needed to provide procedural fairness to someone accused of wrongdoing, such as bullying and harassment. The Ombudsman explains:

“The object of the PID Act is not to supplant normal standards required of administrative investigations by public officials. The Act does not override the requirement that an investigator make appropriate enquiries and gather relevant evidence, apply procedural fairness, and ultimately apply the appropriate weight to the evidence as the basis of findings or conclusions.”

Agencies should explain at the outset that whistleblowers will often be asked for permission to reveal their identity in the course of an investigation, the Ombudsman advises, and give “assurances regarding protection from reprisal action, supported by clear action and a commitment to supporting disclosers”.

Public servants should also know that if they make a PID, their identity could be revealed to the principal officer or others investigating the claim anyway, under various exceptions including “for the purposes of the Act”.

So you’re thinking about blowing the whistle…

To be protected by the act, one has to report the information internally first and wait until an investigation has run for more than 90 days (or longer in some cases) before sharing the information publicly.

Whistleblower advocates contend such internal investigations are when things are most likely to turn nasty, in an effort to minimise embarrassment to the organisation and senior staff. To most former whistleblowers, the best form of protection is going public with all the evidence.

Public sector whistleblowers can also make an external disclosure, to the media for example, if they “reasonably believe that the investigation or its outcome was inadequate” according to the Ombudsman’s advice:

“The external disclosure must not, on balance, be contrary to the public interest, and you may only disclose as much information as is reasonably necessary to identify the disclosable conduct.”

There is also a provision for emergency disclosures “if you reasonably believe there is a substantial and imminent danger to health or safety or to the environment” but only what is “reasonably necessary” to avert a looming crisis. The whistleblower is again expected to make an emergency disclosure internally first and wait for an investigation to run its course, unless “exceptional circumstances” apply.

The PID Act never protects anyone revealing anything to foreign officials, anything about the conduct of parliamentarians, or any “proper activities” of intelligence agencies.

Talking to a lawyer doesn’t count as an external disclosure, but there are the usual caveats about not sharing secret spy stuff or anything else sensitive unless the lawyer has the right clearance.

A two-year review of the PID Act is due in the first half of this year.

 
That article got me thinking about the individual PIDS for the ABC aviation safety agencies & the department. Fortunately I've had a bit to do with & looked at the ATSB PID scheme, so I understand the principles & original intent of the PID Act. 

In terms of CASA & ASA PIDS I have heard or read very little about their schemes and until I started searching would not have been surprised if they didn't exist. After all I couldn't imagine McComic and some of those Sociopaths at ASA warmly embracing whistleblowers within their organisations. {Doesn't really fit with the current third Reich culture within does it?}

I was therefore mildly surprised when I came across this McComic signed document - CASA Public Interest Disclosure Procedures - which must have been one of McComic's last parting gifts before leaving his beloved agency, that he had ruled with an iron fist for the previous five years.

After skim reading large parts of this manual, I must admit to not feeling warm & fuzzy about individual employees rights & protections afforded them by the former Director (and in accordance with the PID Act), when contemplating blowing the whistle. In fact I began to wander back to the front page to confirm what I was supposed to be reading, for it was becoming obvious that this manual was really designed to totally demoralise & discourage anyone who had even a vague inkling, notion, thought of whistle blowing. From a Sociopathic point of view the former DAS missive on PIDS, put simply, is a work of art..

I guess, given McComic's track record, I should not have been surprised, the giveaway in hindsight was in the DAS Preface where, for what became standard for a McComic missive, there was the DAS approval for black letter law & the underlying threat (in red):

Director of Aviation Safety Preface

Foreword

As a Commonwealth government authority, CASA must ensure that its decision-making processes are effective, fair, timely, transparent, consistent, properly documented and otherwise in accordance with the requirements of the law.

Most of the regulatory decisions CASA makes are such that conformity with authoritative policy and established procedures will be conducive to the achievement of these outcomes. From time to time, however, decision-makers will encounter situations in which the strict application of policy, in the making of a decision involving the exercise of discretion, would not be appropriate. Indeed, in some cases, the inflexible application of policy may itself be unlawful.

This preface and the following Introduction, explains the way in which the policy and processes set out in this manual are to be used by all CASA’s personnel when making decisions in the performance of their functions, the exercise of their powers and the discharge of their duties. It also explains the processes to be followed if it appears that a departure from policy is necessary or appropriate.

Mandatory Use of Policy and Procedure Manuals

This manual is one of the set of manuals and other documents which comprise CASA’s authorised document set. The authorised document set contains the policy, processes and procedures with which CASA personnel are expected to comply when performing assigned tasks. All CASA personnel are required to have regard to the policies set out in this manual.

Except as described in the Introduction, CASA decision-makers should not depart from these policies, processes and procedures.

John F. McCormick

Director of Aviation Safety

    
& from the Introduction:

Departure from Authorised Policy

Adherence to CASA’s authorised policies will almost always produce an appropriate decision.

As said, however, from time to time there will be circumstances in which the strict application of policy may not result in the "preferable" decision. In these cases it may be appropriate (and possibly necessary) to depart from otherwise applicable policy.

Any departure from policy must be justified in order to ensure that it:

• Is genuinely necessary in the interests of fairness

• Does not inappropriately compromise the need for consistent decision-making; and, of course

• Is not in conflict with the interests of safety.

Without fettering a decision-maker’s discretion, it is therefore expected that appropriate consultation will occur before a decision is made that is not the product of the policies and processes set out in this manual. The prescribed consultation process is described below.

Leaves you scratching your head and asking what on earth this has got to do with internal whistleblowing -

Then the penny drops - it doesn't   Bizarrely McComic & the Iron Ring have conveniently interpreted whistle-blowers to mean decision makers, FOIs, AWIs etc. blowing the whistle on industry pilots, engineers, Operators etc. - UFB

Hmm...wonder if Skidmore has re-written that manual, if he hasn't? - Well he now owns that dreadful indictment and parting gift of the McComic regime...

MTF...P2   

Ps If the former DAS Preface & Intro didn't deter the potential CASA WB, then CH3 Para 3.1 should have done the trick:

3.1 AUTHORISED OFFICERS

The "authorised officers" for the purposes of the PID Act are:

• the Director of Aviation Safety (the Director) as the principal officer" under the PID Act;

• and any authorised officers appointed by the Director.

The Director has appointed the Deputy Director of Aviation Safety and the Associate Director of Aviation Safety as "authorised officers".

A PID can be made to an authorised officer of CASA if the PID relates to CASA and the discloser "belongs" to CASA, or last belonged to CASA – see paragraph 2(a) above.

   
Pps Ironically that means that Skidmore has to at least amend the document because the DDAS & ADAS positions no longer exist.
 

[Peetwo]

First real WB under PIDs?? 

A disturbing tale of embuggerance & bastardisation in the ADF may lead to the first real test of a fair dinkum whistle-blower, Stevie E tells the tale.. :

Defence abuse whistleblower seeks PID Act protection

---

by
Stephen Easton
03.02.2016


INTERVIEW: No government employee has yet been granted protection under the new Public Interest Disclosure Act. SAS Trooper Evan Donaldson tells The Mandarin he hopes to be the first.

Just before 9.30pm last night, cross-bench senator Jacqui Lambie stood up in a near-empty chamber to tell the extraordinary story of Evan Donaldson, who aims to be the first person to be protected as a legitimate public service whistleblower under the Public Interest Disclosure Act.

Earlier in the evening, her fellow cross-bencher Nick Xenophon appeared on ABC television saying the soldier had experienced “nothing short of a travesty of justice” in the Australian Defence Force. It seems Defence would prefer to file the whole thing under “defective administration” and move on but Lambie wants a Senate inquiry, the Prime Minister to meet Donaldson today, and for Defence Minister Marise Payne to resign.

“The administrative systems are so poorly managed and so poorly constructed that they can abuse those administrative processes to do you harm.”

“The administrative systems are so poorly managed and so poorly constructed that they can abuse those administrative processes to do you harm.”

Late last year, Donaldson rejected an offer of about $500,000 in compensation, on two grounds. First, he says it’s not enough to cover the loss of income, legal bills and other costs. Secondly, he believes it was much more than defective administration and is not satisfied his complaint has ever been properly, independently and publicly investigated.

The former SAS Trooper is preparing to test the limits of the public sector whistleblower scheme by publishing allegations of serious corruption and cover-ups by uniformed and civilian Defence staff, including his own six-year fight to redress what he says was a vindictive campaign to kick him out of the Army without justification and only the barest semblance of due process.

He has reams of documents that he hopes will sufficiently back up the claims he intends to make in an upcoming book to merit protection under the PIDA from legal ramifications for making his disclosures public.

“What we can now prove beyond any doubt is that dozens of uniformed officers and almost the same number of department officials have been involved in very blatant levels of corruption, ranging from fraudulent misstatement to forging of documents, forging of my signature, changing of dates on documents, the destruction of documents, and the list just goes on and on,” he told The Mandarin.

One of his most shocking allegations was reported by the ABC shortly before Lambie also raised it: that he was beaten and tortured during a session of resistance to interrogation (RTI) training, causing bleeding from the anus. RTI has since been replaced with a new training approach, Conduct After Capture (CAC).

“Each individual involved … did the wrong thing in their capacity, not in all instances to be malicious towards me, but just because that was the way they did things.”

“Each individual involved … did the wrong thing in their capacity, not in all instances to be malicious towards me, but just because that was the way they did things.”

Donaldson says the standard training became longer and more intense in 2006 and alleges that was because its main purpose had changed to training Defence Intelligence Organisation personnel in interrogation techniques illegal under international law.

“It occurred to me later on reflection that it was not [primarily] a training exercise for us, because you don’t receive any skills qualifications or course reports or anything like that,” he said. “The individuals from the Defence Intelligence Organisation, however, did receive course reports, so they were being assessed on what they were doing to us.”

In Donaldson’s account, he went on with his job but then months later, reported symptoms of mental illness related to the traumatic experience and requested sick leave.

He says he was denied but granted leave without pay for a year, which was later rescinded unjustly, and told to either return to the fold or be treated as absent without leave.

The soldier-turned-sleuth believes he can also prove this was later linked to an attempt to falsify psychological reasons for his removal from his next deployment, following his rank being inexplicably and deliberate changed from SAS Trooper to regular Private in the ADF’s central human resources database.

Donaldson believes the unauthorised alteration of his record was a first attempt to get him out of the SAS by a decorated, much higher ranking officer, now retired, with whom he had “a history, and not a particularly good one”. He proposes this snowballed out of control as he pursued countless freedom-of-information requests to find out what happened and the superior officer tried to cover his tracks, in the years that followed.
Defence has told him it is not possible to go back and figure out who altered the personnel management key solution (PMKeyS) database, which he doubts.

Beret parade: Evan Donaldson with his SAS graduating class and Major General Michael Jeffery in 2006

Cultural and systemic issues

The events covered in the forthcoming book are not all directly connected to each other, or to Donaldson’s personal grievances. The aim is to build a case that there are cultural and systemic problems in the Australian Defence Force.

“Some people in the ADF, if they have malicious intent against you — and it doesn’t need to be much — the administrative systems are so poorly managed and so poorly constructed that they can abuse those administrative processes to do you harm,” he said.
Rather than focus only on his own problems, he promises to detail various “stories of horrific maladministration or abuse of people” he encountered throughout his career:

“The book does name names; it does go through all the things that occurred. It implies in some circumstances that members of the public service acted corruptly. It implies in others that they simply acted inappropriately, or that their actions knowingly contributed to [wrongdoing] and that they should have done something [different] in their position.”
Donaldson says his legal team are confident that his case meets the threshold under the act for making an external disclosure. The official “information for disclosers” explains:

“To be protected by the PID Act, you must have already made an internal disclosure and either the investigation has exceeded the time limit (over 90 days or such longer time as permitted by the Commonwealth Ombudsman or IGIS) or you reasonably believe that the investigation or its outcome was inadequate. The external disclosure must not, on balance, be contrary to the public interest, and you may only disclose as much information as is reasonably necessary to identify the disclosable conduct.”

Evan’s own case

While the book is not all about Trooper Donaldson’s own case, it was the catalyst for writing it, and he does believe that when he lays out his case in “forensic detail” it reveals “the most shocking examples of cover-up and corruption” that have ever emerged from the ADF.

And even though he believes a significant number of key figures actively conspired against him, his investigations tell him it was not so much a “grand conspiracy” as the way things often go in the military.

“What occurred was that each individual involved after the initial incident of the identity change did the wrong thing in their capacity, not in all instances to be malicious towards me, but just because that was the way they did things,” said Donaldson.

A Commonwealth Ombudsman’s report eventually led to his rank being restored and the finding of defective administration, but only after his claims made it to the desk of former Defence minister David Johnston.

“Dozens of uniformed officers and almost the same number of department officials have been involved in very blatant levels of corruption.”

“Dozens of uniformed officers and almost the same number of department officials have been involved in very blatant levels of corruption.”

Donaldson says he first went through his chain of command and eventually the matter reached then Chief of the Army David Morrison. Morrison allegedly provided the first forged document and told Donaldson he had authorised his own demotion, but the soldier proved it was altered by producing the original. Both have been seen by The Mandarin.

His first external disclosure was to the Australian Federal Police, who refused to investigate, followed by investigative journalist Hedley Thomas, who put the claims to Defence and received a long response that Donaldson says is full of lies and designed to discredit him. He took eight weeks to painstakingly refute the response, and convinced his local MP Teresa Gambaro to send the whole lot to Johnston.

Since then there have been further reprisals including from the SAS Association, which told its members he had failed selection and never served in the regiment, and against his brother, who he says is also an SAS Trooper and being forced out in a similar manner.

“When you hear this for the first time without all the documentation, I can imagine what it sounds like,” Donaldson says apologetically, nearing the end of a potted version of the long and harrowing story.

But actually, when you put aside the tale’s fascinating setting in the most secretive parts of ADF operations, its cast of interesting characters and the eye-opening claims he hopes to air publicly in coming months, the core elements are fairly typical of public sector whistleblowers.

It begins with a broken working relationship between a front-line staff member and a highly respected, long-serving colleague occupying a much higher position. Next comes a complaint about victimisation, the failure of accountability mechanisms, a campaign of reprisals including attempts to smear, discredit and ostracise the whistleblower, a large organisation putting its reputation first, and a cabal of old mates closing ranks to protect each other.

The PID Act is due for a review of its first two years of operation by July 1.

 
Oh how I can personally relate to that tale, not as a public servant but as a private citizen up against a behemoth bureaucracy, it is simply overwhelming - good luck to trooper Donaldson your truly a brave man..
MTF..P2

[Peetwo]

Another excellent article from Stevie (legend ) Easton that, although better, highlights the deficiencies of the PGPA Act and furthers the argument for a Federal version of ICAC (bring it on.. ):

Why public sector corporations need an independent watchdog

---

by
Stephen Easton
22.02.2016


FEATURE: The idea that there are holes in the federal accountability landscape won’t go away. Veterans of debacles say the PGPA Act, although an improvement, is no substitute for an independent umpire.

After a lunchtime lecture on public sector reform at Parliament House last year, Finance Department secretary Jane Halton side-stepped a question from an audience member who sought her views on the need for a Commonwealth anti-corruption commission.

She told the man that much like Senate committee members, he would have to accept public servants don’t give opinions on government policy — but the idea that there are holes in the federal accountability landscape won’t go away.

Andrew Murray

Along with a federal crime and corruption watchdog, some Commonwealth public sector veterans believe there is a need for an independent regulator to oversee publicly owned corporate bodies, a role that currently belongs to the Finance Minister.

Former Western Australian senator Andrew Murray, who is currently presiding in the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, recommended just that in a detailed 2008 report he was commissioned to write as part of the now largely forgotten attempt to improve accountability and transparency, Operation Sunlight.

“Murray Review Recommendation 37:
“That the Government establish a Public Sector Regulator on matters relating to financial administration and management, with strong and comprehensive enforcement powers that promote an efficient regulatory system for the public sector.
“Persuasion, education and encouraging compliance through negotiation, settlement and adverse publicity should be the primary enforcement mechanisms. Prosecution resulting in civil or criminal penalties should be a last resort.”

The then Labor government rejected the idea, preferring to keep these powers in the domain of the Finance Minister rather than with a dedicated, independent body.

Directors’ duties

In her speech last year, Halton expounded on the respective “camps” inhabited by departments and statutory bodies before the recent Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act brought them all under one legislative umbrella.

“It’s an improvement on the CAC Act but it still doesn’t actually make them accountable.”
 
When federally funded corporate entities operated under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act, Halton said, “there were very few controls around how [they] managed and spent the money they held, even if it was appropriated by the parliament”.
“And there was little to remind these bodies that, independent though they were in many respects, they owed accountability to the parliament and the people about how they run their affairs,” the Finance secretary added.

Dawn Casey, who has spent a long and celebrated career serving in both camps, believes the old-fashioned concept of parliamentary oversight has become so “permeated by political considerations” that it is no longer fit to ensure good governance.

Dawn Casey

The PGPA Act applies general duties to all public sector staff and extra duties to directors of corporate entities (and departmental secretaries) that are “very similar” to those under corporations law, according to Halton.

“It’s an improvement on the CAC Act but it still doesn’t actually make them accountable,” Casey told The Mandarin. Without the will to penalise non-compliance, such administrative legislation is more like a set of guidelines.

The experienced public sector director argues there should be an independent regulator like the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the many other similar watchdogs that oversee entities outside government, to enforce the new legislation without fear or favour.

She also sees an “urgent need” for a separate independent corruption watchdog for the Commonwealth, and believes the Australian National Audit Office should be more strongly independent of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, to which it reports.

Case in point

Her belief in the importance of independent auditing and oversight stems from a range of experiences over a diverse public sector career, but was strengthened by her more recent experience on the board of the Indigenous Land Corporation.

“There is a definite accountability hole, particularly for Commonwealth public sector corporations.”
 
The ILC is still saddled with big debts from the disastrous purchase of Ayers Rock Resort through a subsidiary in 2013. Private interests did a lot better out of the deal than the ILC did.

The board chaired by Casey thought their predecessors might possibly have breached the CAC Act, which applied at the time, and had the transaction reviewed by independent consultants who found a range of serious governance issues, including evidence that only three of seven board members voted to take the deal. Casey wrote last year:

“The board I led has brought these issues to the attention of the Government and the appropriate regulators. To no avail. Instead, we have been maligned, attacked and most worryingly, the serious issues we have raised have been ignored.”

The ILC’s latest annual report — which was delayed for months until enquiries by The Mandarin prompted its sudden release — details the persistent attempts by the ILC’s former directors to have the government investigate the matter further.

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann agreed and referred the matter to Indigenous Affairs Minister Nigel Scullion (pictured top) but Scullion decided there was nothing more to be done about it. Casey’s board reports:

“Challenged to provide ‘new information’, the ILC once again examined all the records in its possession and in May 2015 wrote to the Prime Minister adding to the extensive information already supplied to the Government. The letter to the Prime Minister identified a range of relevant documents and detailed five particularly concerning features of the transaction process. No substantive response had been received at the time of preparing this report.”

Eddie Fry

The late annual report was released with an unusual rejoinder from the new chair, Eddie Fry, which confirms his board will toe the line and let the Ayers Rock Resort matter fade into history and says he’s “already established the basis of a new, open and productive relationship with the Australian Government”.

The unity ticket against independent oversight

Much like a federal anti-corruption commission, the major parties and senior public servants are not keen to see an independent regulator for corporate entities in the public sector.

Casey believes it should be mandatory, not optional, that such organisations always have independently chaired internal audit committees, and said as much in a submission on the development of the PGPA Act.

“Senior public servants never used to like the idea of independent audit chairs, years ago, but several of them now have them,” she said.

Casey also questions the independence of a later decision by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to abandon criminal charges against another former ILC board member, Sam Jeffries, for allegedly leaking confidential documents.

And she finds it hard to fathom why the government rejected her board’s advice to manage the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Account in the same way as the Future Fund in order to generate higher returns, which are used to fund the ILC, and allow the body to borrow from the Land Account at better interest rates than it can get from private lenders.

“We could have paid all that debt off quicker; there was no reason why not,” she argues.

“Finance, at the officer level, were all on side with it and then all of a sudden the political heavyweights came in and Scullion didn’t want it to happen so it just stopped.

“See that’s just all politics. That’s not good policy, or good management.”

Eddie Fry says he is working with government to “forge a common approach to two particular issues of concern to the Board” — the Ayers Rock Resort purchase, which he has agreed to leave alone, and the above suggestion to maximise the ILC’s funding stream from the Land Account, which he intends to pursue.

 “The reality is that there’s a club inside the Commonwealth.”

The long and interesting saga has been covered in detail by the press — and those articles are said to have been used regularly by Australian Institute of Company Directors educators as a case study in poor governance — but there has been little interest from either major party.

While former Labor Ministers Penny Wong and Jenny Macklin tried to urge the ILC not to buy the resort, Casey suspects members of both Labor and the Coalition have links to former directors of the corporation and its subsidiary Voyages Tourism, and have since then decided to let sleeping dogs lie.

“I’m not saying ministers and the two major parties always do everything badly, but clearly politics is all about staying in power,” she said. “And therefore you can’t have any total independence around those government agencies currently in the federal scene.”

Casey argues the accountability framework of the federal government needs this major overhaul because it is designed for a more civilised era, when politicians were not so unashamedly tribal, combative and ideological, and public service leaders were stronger and more independent.

‘There’s a club inside the Commonwealth’

Another veteran of both corporate and non-corporate sides of the Commonwealth sphere who has intimate knowledge of the Ayers Rock Resort debacle, believes the auditor-general can too easily be prevented from initiating own-motion inquiries by the JCPAA.

“So, where something becomes political, and in particular, where both major parties for what ever reason may not want to see issues emerge, then in essence it becomes very hard for the auditor-general to pursue an issue,” they told The Mandarin on condition of anonymity.

The same person argues the Department of Finance does not undertake its role as public sector regulator “with any degree of focus, attention or openness” — pointing out this role is barely ever acknowledged publicly and not well known:

“I’m sure they’re prepared to pursue issues when it becomes politically expedient but the real test is: when it’s not politically expedient, are things going to be pursued?


“And certainly what the ILC found was that there was a transaction, it was not commercially astute transaction, and the board had grave fears as to what was really driving it. But would anyone look at this? No.”


“The real test is: when it’s not politically expedient, are things going to be pursued?

 
Our source has another slightly ominous warning for those who accept that in general, there just isn’t as much self-interested behaviour and corruption in the public sector:

“The reality is that there’s a club inside the Commonwealth. It starts with the secretaries, but extends through the senior echelons of the public sector. There’s quite a lot of permeability between the public service and the key statutory corporations, so everyone’s assumed to be part of the club.


“One of the things is that people can be disciplined by the club but they can also be protected by the club.”

The argument is compelling: corruption inside public sector corporations might well be investigated, but without an independent regulator there is no guarantee. The private sector watchdogs have their critics too, and can be weakened in various ways by the government of the day, but at least they are dedicated to the specific task, the anonymous commentator says.

“I absolutely share Dawn Casey’s view and believe that there is a definite accountability hole, particularly for Commonwealth public sector corporations involved in commercial or quasi-commercial operations.”

Halton said something similar when she spoke about the PGPA Act:

“The core philosophy in the PGPA Act is that public resources are public resources, no matter whose hands they are in.
“Believe it or not, this is a new concept in a Commonwealth government context.”

 
‘There’s a club inside the Commonwealth’ - No kidding Sherlock , nowhere is that more prevalent than with the three Stooges (CASA, ASA & ATSB) & the Department led by M&M, where they've been Lording the 'Mystique of Aviation Safety', over governments of either colour, quite literally for decades...


Good job Stevie E...


MTF..P2

[P7_TOM]

Here is a concept worthy of support, John Lloyd tackles a vexed question.  We wish him well.  Courtesy of ‘The Mandarin’ – HERE.

[ventus45]

Here is a concept worthy of support, John Lloyd tackles a vexed question.  We wish him well.  Courtesy of ‘The Mandarin’ – HERE.

Really Yoda ?

I respectfully disagree.

Do you want "more clubs" inside the Commonwealth, even more exclusive clubs, even more inpenitrable clubs, even more unaccountable & unimpeachable clubs ?

Isn't 3 enough ?

‘There’s a club inside the Commonwealth’ - No kidding Sherlock , nowhere is that more prevalent than with the three Stooges (CASA, ASA & ATSB) & the Department led by M&M, where they've been Lording the 'Mystique of Aviation Safety', over governments of either colour, quite literally for decades...

No Yoda, John Lloyd is proposing proceeding further down the path, precisely down the path, of what Reith wanted to do way back, the early phases of which, incidently, directly lead to the creation of "the 3 aviation clubs" in their present form. You want to make it worse ?

Remember, I was there ( DoD - 1978 to 2000).  I know only too well, that what is said - and what is done - when it comes to "policy", are never the same.

Lovely smoke and mirror for all.

[Gobbledock]

Ventus;

I know only too well, that what is said - and what is done - when it comes to "policy", are never the same.

Agreed. I've also played in this game.
Until Governments and their employees are treated the same as the private sector nothing will change. And I can assure you it will never change. Governments will always hold the upper hand, and 'accountability' is not part of their structure nor will it ever be. That would put us and them on equal footing. Ain't going to happen.

The Mandarin is an interesting website to say the least, however nothing will ever change, they can talk all they want, reflect all they want, suggest all they want and even criticise all they want, it will never change the fact that the system is rigged, always has been and always will be.

[Peetwo]

Federal ICAC ? - Bring it on!

Another excellent article from Stevie E courtesy the Mandarin : 

Federal ICAC case strong, despite anti-bribery measures

---

by
Stephen Easton
27.04.2015



Anti-corruption processes across key federal entities, led by the Australian Federal Police, have been enhanced in recent years in response to major foreign bribery cases. But no matter how good these measures are, they do little to weaken the case for a federal ICAC.

Last week saw a flurry of new reports of public servants caught doing the wrong thing.

On Thursday the country’s newest independent corruption fighter, South Australia’s independent commissioner against corruption Bruce Lander, announced six charges against the former manager of the state’s Interpreting and Translating Centre, who is alleged to have profited from inside information. Lander also revealed a woman faces an abuse of public office charge as well as 233 counts of theft and 114 counts of dishonest dealing with documents, after a separate investigation.

Meanwhile in Sydney, a former Department of Agriculture employee was charged with two corruption offences in relation to a consultancy he established, only a few hours after a very remorseful Canberra public servant was sentenced by a local magistrate for using his employer’s credit card improperly.

It continued on Friday, although the theme changed to public officials indulging in criminality on their own time. A senior executive from the Australian Government Solicitor’s office pled guilty to drug dealing charges and a Defence employee was sentenced for possessing child pornography, while the ACT Supreme Court dealt with a senior manager from Airservices Australia who used fake businesses to defraud $380,000 from the tax office.

Just today, Victoria’s Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC) claimed its first major scalp, that of the allegedly corrupt former education department official Nino Napoli, on the first day of a series of hearings expected to run for the next six weeks or so.

“It is a proactive recognition that the current arrangements are in many ways insufficient … but it’s not a replacement for an ICAC.”

“It is a proactive recognition that the current arrangements are in many ways insufficient … but it’s not a replacement for an ICAC.”

Wrongdoing happens everywhere, but when it happens in government often, at a high level or when the normal procedure in some part of the public sector is seen to be crooked, public confidence in the whole institutional framework takes a hit. It’s much easier to trust an independent statutory body, empowered to unearth corruption through investigation and interrogation than an agency of the government — with good reason — which is why such entities are now one of the standard accountability mechanisms at state level.

Both major parties and plenty of federal mandarins oppose the establishment of such a corruption watchdog for the Commonwealth, but that hasn’t stopped cross-benchers and experts from outside government continuing to prosecute the case.


Gabrielle Appleby

UNSW associate professor of law Dr Gabrielle Appleby supports the creation of a federal ICAC, but says it must be appropriately designed, adequately funded and sit within “a web of accountability mechanisms that can all check and balance each other”.

“It performs an important inquisitorial role, a role that OK, yes, sometimes royal commissions can also perform, but they’re so hard to get off the ground, particularly when it’s about investigating corruption within government,” Appleby told The Mandarin.

“[Standing anti-corruption commissions are] an important part of that accountability framework but they’re not the only part, and they shouldn’t be an unmonitored part of the accountability framework.”

The week before last, a long list of tweaks and improvements to the Commonwealth’s anti-corruption mechanisms aimed at enhancing guidance, professional education and cross-agency collaboration were detailed in a report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Working Group on Bribery.

The report also revealed the number of foreign bribery investigations undertaken by the Australian Federal Police increased from seven in October 2012 to 17 — possibly a consequence of one of the key enhancements it refers to, the establishment of the Fraud and Anti-Corruption Centre in 2013.

“I think you have to take [the establishment of the FAC Centre] as a positive move by the government,” says Appleby. “It is a proactive recognition that the current arrangements are in many ways insufficient … but whilst it seems to be part of a general strengthening of the system of checks and balances at the federal level, it’s not a replacement for an ICAC.”

The measures taken over the past several years represent Australia’s progress towards implementing 33 recommendations made by the OECD working group in October, 2012. Among them was the suggestion:

“…that the AFP take sufficient steps to ensure that foreign bribery allegations are not prematurely closed, and be more proactive in gathering information from diverse sources at the pre-investigative stage.”

A few months earlier, compelling allegations had surfaced in a joint ABC-Fairfax journalism investigation, made by the former acting co-ordinator of the AFP taskforce looking into how much public officials knew about the Australian Wheat Board illegally paying kickbacks to the Iraqi government. The claims, backed up by other members of the taskforce, suggested it encountered mysterious resistance from above and was shut down prematurely to avoid embarrassing the government.

That affair then became the subject of a senate inquiry, which reported in late March.

Unsurprisingly, the Labor and Coalition members of the committee agreed on only one recommendation:

“… that this matter should not further exercise the resources of the federal parliament.”

The far longer and more detailed minority report by the committee’s chair, Greens senator Penny Wright, contained four recommendations including another call for a federal ICAC.

“One of the main purposes of these types of bodies is to promote public confidence in the integrity of government administration,” said Appleby. “The establishment, in and of itself, is one way of demonstrating that.”

Another role for a federal ICAC would be “to tell the public service and elected officials that the government is serious about corruption” in order to promote a stronger anti-corruption culture, she adds. “So, it is not necessarily just the high profile investigations that make a standing commission necessary, it’s also that educative role, in changing and shifting the culture.”

“You have to be careful about publicity of corruption investigations … can have these perverse consequences where you see resignations, and pre-emptive resignations over relatively minor matters.”

“You have to be careful about publicity of corruption investigations … can have these perverse consequences where you see resignations, and pre-emptive resignations over relatively minor matters.”

Two reports published in February and March by Western Australia’s Corruption and Crime Commission, which looked broadly at misconduct risk, demonstrated a role that goes beyond catching crooks in specific cases.

As well as financial and legislative independence from government, a federal ICAC would need sufficient powers to peer into the inner workings of government, but it must be designed carefully to make sure it is not too powerful, according to Appleby.

“I think that you have to be careful about publicity of corruption investigations,” she said.

“I think that sometimes public investigations are a really important part of an ICAC’s functions, but sometimes, particularly in relation to less serious and systemic matters, the public investigations can have these perverse consequences where you see resignations, and pre-emptive resignations over relatively minor matters. And that, I think, is again a matter of institutional design.”

Appleby points out that just because it was first, the powerful, public and very aggressive NSW ICAC is not necessarily the best model. Bruce Lander’s office in SA, for example, does not do its work in the public eye. Another unique aspect is that it was not set up in the wake of a major scandal, as was the case in other states.

“The former Labor premier Mike Rann had always been opposed to the introduction of a commission against corruption. He had always indicated that he didn’t think corruption was a problem in South Australia and that the mechanisms that were in place were sufficient — so very similar arguments to that you see at the Commonwealth level — but then with a change in leader, you’ve got a change in approach.

“I think now that we’ve got anti-corruption commissions in all of the states … it will become increasingly strange that there’s no standing anti-corruption commission at the Commonwealth level. So just through generational change, maybe we will see that eventually.”

Come on Malcolm the writing is on the wall - get it happening??
MTF..P2  

[Peetwo]

Talking in plain English

Recommendation 30 (b) of the Forsyth (ASRR) review said..

"..the third-tier standards drafted in plain, easy to understand language..."

The following excellent article by Dr Neil James from the Plain English Foundation (via the Mandarin), outlines the many advantages of writing government documents, which includes regulations, in easy to read and understandable plain English..     

A 9900% rate of return? The value of plain English to government

---

by

Dr Neil James
06.04.2016





There’s an enormous economic return in making government communication — internally and externally — easier to read. And while documents drive government it can help agencies make better decisions.

Imagine a public sector reform that generated one dollar for every cent invested. That’s a 9900% rate of return!

Fanciful as this sounds, that’s what the Department of Revenue in Washington State found when it rewrote just one of its tax letters in plain English. Its goal was to raise $1.2 million from businesses who commonly failed to pay a particular sales tax. As a result of the new letter, compliance rates actually leapt by 200%, raising an extra $2 million in revenue.

Examples like this led the entire state to develop a “Plain Talk” program that trained 7500 people, revised six major websites and rewrote 2000 standard forms and letters. While not every measure produced results as spectacular as that tax letter, there were no negative returns.

In Australia, most public sector managers would acknowledge the documents they deal with could also improve. Too many of our government communications are unclear, inefficient and hard to read. But fewer managers would understand the full costs of unclear communication, or the benefits that plain English will bring.

Improved productivity

First of all, plain English improves productivity.

The Plain English Foundation has helped more than 100 public sector organisations in Australia to improve their communications. We have found that converting documents such as briefing notes or internal submissions into plain English reduces them on average by 25% to 40% without compromising their content.

More importantly, plain English generally halves the time staff spend writing and the time managers spend reading (and rewriting) texts.

Lower costs

Not long ago, the United States Navy put a dollar value on this impact by measuring how long its officers needed to read internal memos. It found that memos written in plain English took up to a quarter less time to read than those in traditional language (the study did not include rewriting time). Based on the hourly rate for naval officers, this was worth as much as $73 million in staff time. If all personnel were included, the value was around $350 million a year.

Consider the staff costs in your own organisation. What proportion of the working day would a mid-level manager spend reading and reviewing text? And what proportion would more junior staff spend reading and writing emails, letters, submissions and reports?

A reasonable estimate is that direct writing and reading time is around one-third of staff time in many agencies. For a $90,000 position, this costs $30,000 a year. Reduce that time by 25% to 50% with plain English, and the time saved is worth $7,500 to $15,000 each year. Multiply by the number of employees and the figures quickly add up.

Operational savings

Of course, these savings don’t always translate directly to the balance sheet because you are still paying your employees. But it means they are producing more for the same investment in time. And in a high-volume environment, agencies can often convert this to operational savings.

In Sweden, for example, the Higher Education Agency revised around 200 pieces of online content it used to process 800,000 applications a year. Increased clarity meant fewer phone calls and less follow-up. Operating costs for its call centre fell by 20% within two years, and it reallocated 1.7 million kroner of the centre’s 8 million kroner budget.

Enhanced reputation

No less real is the impact plain English can have on the reputation of an agency. Not surprisingly, nearly every study shows the public prefers plain English and will view an organisation that uses it more favourably as a result. If you were making a complaint, which one of these responses would be more credible?

Before:

“I acknowledge your patience whilst I undertake an investigation of the concerns that you have raised regarding your experience with this service. The circumstances of your complaint will be examined, and details of the outcome will be forwarded to you within a timeframe of two weeks.”

After:

“Thank you for your patience while I investigate your complaint about this service. We are further assessing the circumstances you outline and will let you know the outcome within two weeks.”

Is the first version closer to your agency’s style? If so, you should consider a plain English program.

Better decisions

But of all the benefits of plain English, perhaps the least understood is how it affects the decision-making process.

Documents still drive government. Virtually every decision is assessed, conveyed, reviewed and recorded in some form of text. When those texts are poorly written, it is not just time that is wasted and readers who are annoyed — decisions themselves are compromised.

When managers and executives complain about the poor quality of the documents they read, they commonly highlight the analysis supporting recommendations they are asked to approve. Poor logic is more easily papered over by complex language, and managers end up having to comb through a text for the key points. Inevitably this leads to some less effective decisions. As a director in one agency put it: “Plain English forced us all to think much more clearly.”

This is perhaps the premier value of plain English. It doesn’t just improve government communication — plain English improves government.

IN YOUR INBOX: Sign up for unlimited access and The Juice newsletter. It's FREE to join.

"..As a result of the new letter, compliance rates actually leapt by 200%, raising an extra $2 million in revenue.."  

One of the most common gripes from industry stakeholders in the ASRR submissions, was the complex, voluminous, virtually unreadable regulations being churned out by CASA in their 28 year Regulatory Reform Program. The quote above is the perfect example of how regulations written in plain English could & would help industry to interpret if their businesses are compliant, without having to refer to a lawyer for interpretation.
MTF...P2   

[Gobbledock]

Oh my god! Can you imagine selling the above idea to Dr Voodoo from CAsA? He would be mortified if regulations, reports or minutes were to be written in plain simple English! How dare they! Hell, he may even get rid of the stupid beard and throw the PHD in the bin!

[Peetwo]

Is Murky slowly but surely getting on the nose?

Stevie E on the Senior Mandarin - in particular Parko - collective take on the Peter Shergold's manifesto, via the Mandarin:

Shergold’s failure forum: rethink risk, create plan for success

---

by
Stephen Easton
13.04.2016

Martin Parkinson calls it the quintessential mark of leadership. A right stuff-up or two shouldn’t stop public servants rethinking risk — just as the Department of the Environment has begun to do — to enable more blue-sky thinking.

---

The Department of the Environment has begun devolving responsibility down to lower levels and appointed a chief risk officer, after facing 10 major external reviews since the botched Home Insulation Program of 2009.

Secretary Gordon de Brouwer said the department had done “an enormous amount” of work in response to the scrutiny of the past seven years, speaking to members of the Institute for Public Administration Australia in Canberra on Monday — video online via IPAA ACT and content group.

At the same time, he said all the proposals in Learning from Failure — University of Western Sydney chancellor Peter Shergold’s recent attempt to explain why the HIP and other big government projects sometimes fail catastrophically — were still of “direct relevance” to Environment.

” … every person at every level can and should be expected to display leadership … ”

” … every person at every level can and should be expected to display leadership … ”

The department is also striving to learn from a more recent error — the ignorance of skinks and snakes that led to ministerial approval for the Carmichael coal mine in Queensland being overturned and then re-issued — without making scape goats.

“We take a very strong line internally that that mistake wasn’t an intentional mistake, it wasn’t reckless, there was no serious negative intent,” said de Brouwer. “It was really about people trying to improve the system, but … that didn’t work well enough.

“So we explicitly said that ultimately, the person responsible for the department is the secretary, so I’m responsible. I’ll back staff in their decision making [and] we’ll learn from the mistakes.”
[/url]
Watch: Peter Shergold discusses his Learning from Failure report
[url=http://www.themandarin.com.au/63079-video-peter-shergold-discusses-learning-failure-report/]
Devolution, FOI reform and providing "safe spaces" for fearless advice is needed, an IPAA ACT forum heard from several federal secretaries including the head of the Australian Public Service, Martin Parkinson.

Read More
 


Martin Parkinson

Australian public service head Martin Parkinson had the last word to the room full of public servants who came to hear Shergold expound on his latest ideas. Parkinson urged public servants not to forget that poorly run government programs could endanger life and limb:

“I think we worry about reputational risk, quite sensibly. I think we worry about damaging relationships with ministers, at times. What we rarely do is to stop and think about the consequences our actions have beyond the APS.”

In the case of the HIP bungle, those consequences were the deaths of four young men, he reminded them.

“It’s our responsibility as leaders to make sure the conditions that led to their deaths … cannot happen again,” said the Department of the Prime Minister Cabinet secretary. “We cannot erase our mistakes but we can learn from them and we have to.”

Parkinson, PM&C’s third secretary in three years, said his favourite line from Shergold’s report was:

“Failure and how we respond to it is where leadership is born.”

“Leadership is not someone else’s problem,” he said. “So I don’t want anybody in this room walking out thinking ‘that was a really interesting discussion’ and leaving it at that.”
Parkinson told the IPAA members that “every person at every level can and should be expected to display leadership” and offered some advice on how to do it well: admit to your failures, acknowledge your personal contribution to them, and “reflect actively and progressively” on your decisions and performance.

The new approach to risk in the APS

Public service commissioner John Lloyd noted that Learning from Failure “fit quite neatly” with the mandatory administrative reforms being led by the Department of Finance. One area of alignment is the need to rethink risk — with Shergold arguing that all major proposals should go to cabinet with risk assessments attached, and that each major agency needs a chief risk officer to lead a shift to a “positive risk culture”.

The appointment of a chief risk officer at Environment, de Brouwer said, did not mean one lonely executive was responsible for risk on behalf of the whole organisation:

“It’s really frankly an instrument to engage [all] the staff about risk, rather than someone who separately carries that risk. We appointed a person who’s engaging, who’s got the backing of the board and myself, but also deeply respected by staff on those issues.”

The CRO’s role is to lead a shift throughout the department, from risk management characterised by lots of documentation and forms to fill in, to “thinking about … the forces that are at play in the world, how that helps you achieve the outcomes, or how you engage with those forces to deliver the outcomes”.

” … we don’t know if this is going to work; if it doesn’t, we won’t proceed further.”

” … we don’t know if this is going to work; if it doesn’t, we won’t proceed further.”

It was logical, de Brouwer added, that “if you expect people to take risk, they have to have responsibility” and they also “have to know that you’ve got their back” if things go wrong.

“So frankly if you’re going to give people the authority and say that they’re taking on risk, you really have to back them,” he said. “I’ve said that to my own department and I really expect SES officers and team leaders to back their staff — and that’s very explicit from me.”

The Environment secretary explained he had put leadership of internal committees and more financial responsibility in the hands of Band 1 and 2 senior executives, which in turn was putting more responsibility onto Executive Level staff. The number of SES officers is being reduced by 25% compared to just under a 20% reduction in overall staff numbers, the forum heard.

“We’ve shrunk the system, so we’ve gone from 18 to 12 divisions, specifically with the idea of creating a very powerful incentive for SES officers to pass on the responsibility to their officers,” de Brouwer explained.

Conflicting messages on risk?

Andrew Stuart, a deputy secretary with the Department of Health, put it to the panel that public servants been constantly hearing two conflicting messages about risk.

The newer vision of empowered staff who “engage with risk” to enable innovation and organisational agility is confounded by the traditional risk aversion which still permeates much of the APS. He asked: “How do we reconcile them?”

Only Shergold addressed the pointed question, making it clear that what puts the brakes on the new approach to risk inside particular departments is ministers and political considerations. He said the one key difference he noticed between the private sector and the public sector was that cabinet does not discuss its risk appetite in various areas in the way company boards do.

“I don’t believe that discussion is impossible within a public sector arena,” Shergold contended, suggesting public servants should ask ministers what they want to achieve, and how much of their limited political capital they are willing to stake on each policy aim.
Small-scale experimental trials and innovative solutions are best suited to areas where past policies have failed, and can be safely explained to the public on this basis. Shergold, having chaired the state government’s Social Impact Expert Advisory Group, cites Social Benefit Bonds in New South Wales as an example:

“The way … the government framed it, first Barry O’Farrell and then Mike Baird, was to be very open with the public: ‘We’re doing this in areas where public policy has previously failed; we don’t know the solutions; we’re willing to trial a number of new approaches; we don’t know if this is going to work; if it doesn’t, we won’t proceed further.'”
Creating an environment for success

In his closing remarks, Parkinson reflected on how senior APS leaders could create the right environments for staff to excel.

He said failure should not put the brakes on “blue-sky thinking”, which he believes is critically important and must come from casting a much wider net when trawling for inspiration. Senior bureaucrats had stayed inside their own bubble too much.

” … involving a wide group of people in blue-sky thinking gives every person a stake in making the resulting decisions work.”

” … involving a wide group of people in blue-sky thinking gives every person a stake in making the resulting decisions work.”

“This is a failure of leadership,” said the PM&C boss. “This is a failure of their own personal leadership. When we neglect to reach far and wide for ideas, we open ourselves up to a lethal combination of arrogance and ignorance, and that’s not acceptable in any context, but particularly not in a modern public service.

“Once we come up with ideas though, wherever that we’ve garnered them from, they should be rigorously questioned. This isn’t about putting people through a ringer and saying ‘I’m smarter than you’, it’s actually about testing and refining ideas because by testing and refining, you will find the best way to ensure success.

“Open, candid discussion winnows down ideas to find those that have the best probability of being able to be implemented successfully. And involving a wide group of people in blue-sky thinking gives not only a broader set of perspectives, but it gives every person a stake in making the resulting decisions work.”

Secondly, Parkinson argued that objective, evidence-based analysis required “safe spaces” based on “collegiality, co-operation and creativity” to be successful. Even after government has made its decisions and they have been implemented, the public service should be able to collect data and examine if programs are working as intended, he said.

Going back to the HIP debacle, Parkinson picked another quote from the Shergold review about the need to consult “those who best understand the environment in which a policy will be delivered” to understand implementation issues.

“As the person who was given the Home Insulation Program and some other programs to try and clean up, it was very clear that execution was not built into policy design; it was treated as an afterthought,” he said.

“Implementation should never be seen as the poor cousin of policy development in the APS.”

Top image: Peter Shergold and Gordon de Brouwer

More reactions to Peter Shergold’s seminal report at The Mandarin: Adaptive government? Easier said than done.

    
I'm not sure why but every time I see a reference to the HIP, I immediately visualise Pumpkin Head Murky and I wonder if he also cringes anytime HIP gets mentioned when he is amongst his peers??   
As usual top job Stevie E, choc frog is in the mail -
MTF..P2  

[Kharon]

Easton – Choc frog #2.

“This is a failure of leadership,” said the PM&C boss. “This is a failure of their own personal leadership. When we neglect to reach far and wide for ideas, we open ourselves up to a lethal combination of arrogance and ignorance, and that’s not acceptable in any context, but particularly not in a modern public service.

Coming from anyone else, I’d call Bollocks; but, as it’s from the PM&C boss I’d say there’s a small glimmer of hope for an outbreak of common sense.  Probably not today, maybe even not tomorrow, however we may hope this becomes a feature of Turnbull’s tenure.

“Once we come up with ideas though, wherever that we’ve garnered them from, they should be rigorously questioned. This isn’t about putting people through a ringer and saying ‘I’m smarter than you’, it’s actually about testing and refining ideas because by testing and refining, you will find the best way to ensure success.

There’s a hint of ‘big business’ methodology in that.  The best of the best use their ‘thinking folk’ ruthlessly to make sure every project has a chance of becoming a winner and the rewards reward the innovations – refreshing approach to an age old problem.

“Open, candid discussion winnows down ideas to find those that have the best probability of being able to be implemented successfully. And involving a wide group of people in blue-sky thinking gives not only a broader set of perspectives, but it gives every person a stake in making the resulting decisions work.”

One can only hope this notion filters down stream and purblind, hidebound seat warmers, like Oliver get the message.  Not that he will, but perhaps some of the ‘new blood’ will, in time adopt modern thinking.

Going back to the HIP debacle, Parkinson picked another quote from the Shergold review about the need to consult “those who best understand the environment in which a policy will be delivered” to understand implementation issues.

The part in bold needs to be framed, then used to replace the ridiculous ASA poster; it’s worth repeating:- 

need to consult “those who best understand the environment in which a policy will be delivered” to understand implementation issues.

Real consultation; not the pitiful, shambollic CASA version - great place to start.  Good example for 'other' departments of how not to do it; PM&C could start there, make an example...  

Thanks Stevie for the welcome report, lets hope the PM&C can make this happen, soon. You daren’t bet on it; but a small prayer to a pagan god of choice may help keep the notion alive.  

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

PM Malcolm: "Have a go you mugs!" -  

Off the Mandarin today..

Turnbull: ‘look to other jurisdictions’ and plagiarise the best ideas

---

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has urged Canberra’s public servants to keep a closer eye on the successes and failures of other governments in Australia and overseas.

Policymakers in the federal sphere “pay insufficient attention to what is happening in other jurisdictions” and the public policy scene is too “parochial” for the times, Turnbull said this morning, following an address to the Australian public service at Parliament House hosted by IPAA ACT.

Given all developed countries face a lot of the same policy challenges, the PM said he found it surprising how little attention was paid to what had and had not worked elsewhere. A good start for the APS, he suggested, would be to look more closely at the states and territories and New Zealand.

Turnbull encouraged his public servants to shamelessly “plagiarise” good policy ideas, and said he wanted independent bureaucrats who would advise on what is best for the nation, not just what they think ministers or their advisers want to hear.

“Very few propositions are not improved by discussion and debate.”
 
The head of the service, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet secretary Martin Parkinson, enthused that since the PM took office, “a rich period of opportunity” had dawned for APS members with the courage to seek out bold ideas and advocate for them.

“He is an open book, he wants our ideas, he will seek our advice … and from what I’ve seen, he won’t be reckless or hasty,” Parkinson said. “This presents us public servants with opportunities like we’ve never had before.”

Turnbull unsurprisingly endorsed former federal mandarin Peter Shergold’s vision of an “adaptive government” that has more room for experimentation, to test imaginative new ideas in the most challenging policy areas at small scale.

The PM said “agility and adaptability” were the “best tools” available to the public service, which finds itself disrupted by “forces it cannot control” in the same way as other long-standing institutions.

He also agreed with Shergold’s argument that government messaging needs to change, when questioned about how ministers should support a much more experimental approach to public policy.

“When we produce a new policy, we’ve got to say that this is the best policy solution that we have available to us today… but [also explain] if it turns out to be deficient in some respects then we will change it, and if it doesn’t work at all then we will dump it,” Turnbull explained.

The political pressure can be reduced by governments that are open about what they are doing. “The alternative,” said the PM, “is that you never take a risk, you never change anything.”

Turnbull said he was a “strong believer” in the traditional Westminster system of cabinet government because “very few propositions are not improved by discussion and debate” while the head of his department, Martin Parkinson, spoke of a partnership between public servants and “the political class” with the shared goal of improving the wellbeing of Australians.

The PM praised former Department of Communications secretary Drew Clark for his role in cementing that relationship as his chief of staff, by bringing “a very keen understanding and a strong link to the APS” into the Prime Minister’s Office.

Digital luddites need to ‘swallow their pride’

The digital transformation agenda and the growing promise of data analytics sit at the heart of Turnbull’s vision for a modern APS.

He said a new approach to IT procurement in PM&C and the Department of Social Services which “uses off the shelf products that are configured rather than coded” was a good example.

“The key to success for a 21st Century APS is to embrace innovation and technology.”
 
For public sector leaders to ignore digital disruption is “simply not acceptable” to the PM and he suggests that baby boomers and gen-xers should “swallow their pride” and rely more on the help of “digital native” millennials. He also spruiked the Digital Transformation Office, suggesting APS leaders could be more receptive.

“I encourage you all to familiarise yourself with their work and engage with them directly,” Turnbull said, recalling the words of his former business partner Sean Howard, who said there was always plenty of technology but it was “technological imagination” that was harder to find.

“Open your minds and be bold,” the PM told the large crowd of APS members.

Mentoring women ‘enormously important’

Turnbull also ticked off the topic of women in leadership, confirming that a new strategy for gender equality in the APS would be released this week by public service minister Michaelia Cash.

Parkinson reported the Secretaries Board resolved to create a new Diversity Council at its last meeting to lead implementation of the strategy.

The new measures should help stamp out “practices that go on, sight unseen, to steer women into certain public service roles and men into others”, Turnbull said, paying tribute to Parkinson’s past approach to women in leadership as head of Treasury.

The PM is very much in favour of introducing targets, as Parkinson did in the central agency, but also said mentoring from successful women was an “enormously important” way to help others climb the ladder.

“I want public servants who are filled with curiosity and a desire to make a difference.”
 
And he supports the view that flexible working conditions to support a healthy work-life balance are a must for any high performing organisation, leading to better teamwork and higher productivity.

“As a leader, as a manager of a business, of a department or a unit or a section, it is your job far as you can to ensure that the people who work for you are able to get the right balance between home and work,” Turnbull said.

According to the PM, public servants are the bureaucracy’s “greatest asset” thanks to the experience and institutional memory they possess, which is why a focus on nurturing talent and continuous improvement is vital.

To that end, the Secretaries Board has established a new Talent Council, chaired by Department of Social Services secretary Finn Pratt, according to Parkinson.

“I want to see Commonwealth public servants who are filled with curiosity and a desire to make a difference,” said Turnbull, whose address to the APS was hosted by the Institute for Public Administration Australia (ACT Branch).

“The key to success for a 21st Century APS is to embrace innovation and technology, to think big and bold, and to be committed to learning and leadership at every level.”

Oh and my heart bleeds for the poor PS -

No slowing down — not now, not during caretaker either

---

The Turnbull government has its double dissolution trigger after the Senate on Monday voted down the second reading speech of the Australian Building and Construction Commission legislation.

Does this mean Commonwealth public servants should jump into caretaker-mode for the next 74 days? Not yet, and even if Australia does go to the polls on July 2, there’s still a lot of work to be done running the country.

Officially, caretaker period begins when the House of Representatives is dissolved, and a double dissolution is no different. This process is rarely varies — it is after all a convention — but the APS has more recruits from the private sector this time around, so these are the basics:

• The government may not involve any departmental officers in election activities.
  
• The government is to avoid implementing any major policy initiatives, making appointments of significance, or entering major contracts or undertakings that would bind an incoming government and limit its freedom of action — so says the Cabinet Handbook. In practice this is quite a complicated question.
  
• Most importantly of all, the business of government must continue.
  
  

When in doubt, do whatever the secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet says — beginning with the guidance on caretaker conventions.

Major decisions and announceables

Cabinet or its committees may still meet during this period for the continuance of business of government, but to avoid controversy and general messiness, decisions that can be made now will be made now.

In Australia, decisions that have already been made may still be announced during caretaker, although this isn’t encouraged. A former British minister last week gave her account of breaching that convention by announcing more police officers during the “purdah” — the British description for caretaker. Former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith explained:

“Despite being well received, my announcement landed me in hot water. I had made it during the official pre-election purdah period and received a civil service ‘telling off’ for breaching purdah.
“I’d like you to imagine this as me knocking nervously on the door of the Cabinet Secretary/headmaster with exercise books down my trousers in anticipation of the punishment I was to receive.  It was rather more a ‘disappointed’ word passed on from the Cabinet Secretary via my Permanent Secretary to me and my special advisers. Why the fuss?
“Outside the political world the word ‘purdah’ is associated with the idea of women being screened or veiled from the eyes of men. In government it requires civil servants and politicians to coyly draw a gauzy veil over the business of party politics in the run up to elections or referendums … It does not – and should not – mean the closing down of government.
“I accept I was wrong to make that announcement.  Purdah has an important function. However my transgression doesn’t change my view that for many civil servants – and even for many others with very little relationship to elected government – local or national – purdah is an excuse to close down any public facing or vaguely innovative government activity.”

But keeping public servants out of politics is not easy thing. David Charles, former secretary of the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce joked to The Mandarin that public servants could use such times to “take a holiday … If you wanted to be a politician, you’d go into politics.” But on a serious note, there is still some important work that needs to be done for the incoming government:

“During the caretaker period public servants give themselves some time off for a while before the red and blue books are prepared,” Charles said.

“Avoid any indication you’re taking sides in the process. Public servants have to work with whoever is in government, so you need to be there to work with whoever ends up in charge.”

When does it start?

If we’re all reasonably certain the election will take place on July 2, as per the PM’s own public warning to the senate crossbench last month, then why doesn’t he just go to the Governor-General now? First, he wants at least one budget under his belt — that’s coming May 3, with a convenient countdown on Treasury’s budget site in case you forget. Second, by convention he must also allow the opposition an opportunity to respond.

That’s scheduled for May 5.

At some point between May 5 and May 11, the election writs will be issued, parliament will be dissolved and caretaker will begin.

Hmm...I seem to recall the former miniscule - for non-aviation - Albo took the piss out of the average punters knowledge of the 'caretaker convention' to completely obfuscate all responsibility for responding to the Senate PelAir cover-up inquiry report and personally I am not going to let him forget it, courtesy of Planetalking:

...Ex deputy PM and Infrastructure and Transport Minister Anthony Albanese carries some excess baggage related to the Pel-Air crash fiasco and the abuse of due process he tolerated in CASA and the ATSB should he contest or win the Labor leadership, as widely speculated today.


Albanese had an outstanding term as minister in those portfolios in relation to rail and roads, and a dismal record when it came to his responsibilities in relation to air safety in this country.


The evidence for this is on the parliamentary record in the proceedings of the recent Senate committee inquiry into the ATSB’s investigation into the crash of a Pel-Air ambulance flight near Norfolk Island in 2009.


While the jet involved was a small Westwind, and no one died (miraculously) the accident gave rise to a series of appalling disclosures of deliberate malpractice in the two aviation authorities, the safety regulator, CASA and the accident investigator, the ATSB.


The findings of the Senate committee support fears that neither body has the integrity of management nor the technical skills or the commitments to aviation safety that most Australians would take for granted as being delivered and maintained on their behalf.


The incoming government need go no further than to obtain a briefing from Senator David Fawcett, (Liberal, South Australia) who with his state’s independent Senator, Nick Xenophon, pursued and disinterred a rotten state of affairs in both bodies which ought to be of considerable concern to whomever becomes the minister responsible for aviation in the Abbott Government.


The findings of the committee include an entire chapter detailing its dissatisfaction with the testimony given by the chief commissioner of the ATSB, Martin Dolan.


Anthony Albanese had a responsibility to parliament to respond to the Senate report in 90 days, and late in May gave such a commitment in the clearest of terms, yet he did not honour his word.


Senator Fawcett made a measured speech concerning the state of affairs in relation to the Pel-Air crash which should be read in conjunction with the committee’s final report.

While aspects of the crash, its investigation, and the Senate’s own inquiries have been reported at great length in Plane Talking, these are among the main matters:-


CASA withheld from the ATSB, contrary to the wording of the Transport Safety Investigation Act, an internal document related to the crash which revealed that had CASA carried out its duties of oversight in relation to Pel-Air, it may have prevented the accident happening.


The Director of Safety for CASA, John McCormick, admitted in testimony that he withheld the document, saying inter alia that he didn’t think it mattered to the investigation the ATSB was conducting, and that he didn’t want to pollute its deliberations.


The documentation that McCormick withheld containing damning evidence of CASA’s inadequacy and incompetence as a safety regulator.


The documents reveals that Pel-Air the operator of the crashed jet was in multiple serious breaches of its air operators certificate at the time of the crash, and that it had no rigorous fuel policy for oceanic flights like that being performed by the Pel-Air jet.


The Senate inquiry, comprising Senators of all parties, heard that the ATSB report into what was the world’s first ditching of a fully functioning Westwind jet (but which was about to run out of fuel) failed to make any safety recommendations even though all of the safety equipment on board the aircraft failed to work as intended.


It also learned that the ATSB had declined to recover the flight data recorder from the wreckage, which lies at a recoverable depth near Norfolk Island, and which should have established what meteorological updates were given to the pilot during a flight that had started in Apia, and whether that information was in fact correct.


The captain of the jet, Dominic James, says he did not become aware of the deteriorated state of the weather at his intended refueling stop at Norfolk Island until after he had flown passed the last point of opportunity to divert to airports in Noumea or Fiji.


(After four missed approaches and nearing fuel exhaustion, he made a controlled ditching at sea, while all of the aircraft’s controls and systems had the benefit of full power).


The ATSB’s final report into the Pel-Air crash stitched up the pilot for incorrectly fueling the flight, ignored the systemic issues in CASA, and does not meet the expectations of the international air safety community in alerting it to safety issues or deficiencies in a particular type of aircraft.


The Pel-Air report is a festering embarrassment in Australia’s once unquestioned place as a first tier state in relation to air safety.


It is an embarrassment Albanese carries with him...

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

PM Malcolm: "Have a go you mugs!" -  

Off the Mandarin today..

Turnbull: ‘look to other jurisdictions’ and plagiarise the best ideas

---

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has urged Canberra’s public servants to keep a closer eye on the successes and failures of other governments in Australia and overseas.

Policymakers in the federal sphere “pay insufficient attention to what is happening in other jurisdictions” and the public policy scene is too “parochial” for the times, Turnbull said this morning, following an address to the Australian public service at Parliament House hosted by IPAA ACT.

Given all developed countries face a lot of the same policy challenges, the PM said he found it surprising how little attention was paid to what had and had not worked elsewhere. A good start for the APS, he suggested, would be to look more closely at the states and territories and New Zealand.

Turnbull encouraged his public servants to shamelessly “plagiarise” good policy ideas, and said he wanted independent bureaucrats who would advise on what is best for the nation, not just what they think ministers or their advisers want to hear.

“Very few propositions are not improved by discussion and debate.”
 
The head of the service, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet secretary Martin Parkinson, enthused that since the PM took office, “a rich period of opportunity” had dawned for APS members with the courage to seek out bold ideas and advocate for them.

“He is an open book, he wants our ideas, he will seek our advice … and from what I’ve seen, he won’t be reckless or hasty,” Parkinson said. “This presents us public servants with opportunities like we’ve never had before.”

Turnbull unsurprisingly endorsed former federal mandarin Peter Shergold’s vision of an “adaptive government” that has more room for experimentation, to test imaginative new ideas in the most challenging policy areas at small scale.

The PM said “agility and adaptability” were the “best tools” available to the public service, which finds itself disrupted by “forces it cannot control” in the same way as other long-standing institutions.

He also agreed with Shergold’s argument that government messaging needs to change, when questioned about how ministers should support a much more experimental approach to public policy.

“When we produce a new policy, we’ve got to say that this is the best policy solution that we have available to us today… but [also explain] if it turns out to be deficient in some respects then we will change it, and if it doesn’t work at all then we will dump it,” Turnbull explained.

The political pressure can be reduced by governments that are open about what they are doing. “The alternative,” said the PM, “is that you never take a risk, you never change anything.”

Turnbull said he was a “strong believer” in the traditional Westminster system of cabinet government because “very few propositions are not improved by discussion and debate” while the head of his department, Martin Parkinson, spoke of a partnership between public servants and “the political class” with the shared goal of improving the wellbeing of Australians.

The PM praised former Department of Communications secretary Drew Clark for his role in cementing that relationship as his chief of staff, by bringing “a very keen understanding and a strong link to the APS” into the Prime Minister’s Office.

Digital luddites need to ‘swallow their pride’

The digital transformation agenda and the growing promise of data analytics sit at the heart of Turnbull’s vision for a modern APS.

He said a new approach to IT procurement in PM&C and the Department of Social Services which “uses off the shelf products that are configured rather than coded” was a good example.

“The key to success for a 21st Century APS is to embrace innovation and technology.”
 
For public sector leaders to ignore digital disruption is “simply not acceptable” to the PM and he suggests that baby boomers and gen-xers should “swallow their pride” and rely more on the help of “digital native” millennials. He also spruiked the Digital Transformation Office, suggesting APS leaders could be more receptive.

“I encourage you all to familiarise yourself with their work and engage with them directly,” Turnbull said, recalling the words of his former business partner Sean Howard, who said there was always plenty of technology but it was “technological imagination” that was harder to find.

“Open your minds and be bold,” the PM told the large crowd of APS members.

Mentoring women ‘enormously important’

Turnbull also ticked off the topic of women in leadership, confirming that a new strategy for gender equality in the APS would be released this week by public service minister Michaelia Cash.

Parkinson reported the Secretaries Board resolved to create a new Diversity Council at its last meeting to lead implementation of the strategy.

The new measures should help stamp out “practices that go on, sight unseen, to steer women into certain public service roles and men into others”, Turnbull said, paying tribute to Parkinson’s past approach to women in leadership as head of Treasury.

The PM is very much in favour of introducing targets, as Parkinson did in the central agency, but also said mentoring from successful women was an “enormously important” way to help others climb the ladder.

“I want public servants who are filled with curiosity and a desire to make a difference.”
 
And he supports the view that flexible working conditions to support a healthy work-life balance are a must for any high performing organisation, leading to better teamwork and higher productivity.

“As a leader, as a manager of a business, of a department or a unit or a section, it is your job far as you can to ensure that the people who work for you are able to get the right balance between home and work,” Turnbull said.

According to the PM, public servants are the bureaucracy’s “greatest asset” thanks to the experience and institutional memory they possess, which is why a focus on nurturing talent and continuous improvement is vital.

To that end, the Secretaries Board has established a new Talent Council, chaired by Department of Social Services secretary Finn Pratt, according to Parkinson.

“I want to see Commonwealth public servants who are filled with curiosity and a desire to make a difference,” said Turnbull, whose address to the APS was hosted by the Institute for Public Administration Australia (ACT Branch).

“The key to success for a 21st Century APS is to embrace innovation and technology, to think big and bold, and to be committed to learning and leadership at every level.”

Oh and my heart bleeds for the poor PS -

No slowing down — not now, not during caretaker either

---

The Turnbull government has its double dissolution trigger after the Senate on Monday voted down the second reading speech of the Australian Building and Construction Commission legislation.

Does this mean Commonwealth public servants should jump into caretaker-mode for the next 74 days? Not yet, and even if Australia does go to the polls on July 2, there’s still a lot of work to be done running the country.

Officially, caretaker period begins when the House of Representatives is dissolved, and a double dissolution is no different. This process is rarely varies — it is after all a convention — but the APS has more recruits from the private sector this time around, so these are the basics:

• The government may not involve any departmental officers in election activities.
  
• The government is to avoid implementing any major policy initiatives, making appointments of significance, or entering major contracts or undertakings that would bind an incoming government and limit its freedom of action — so says the Cabinet Handbook. In practice this is quite a complicated question.
  
• Most importantly of all, the business of government must continue.
  
  

When in doubt, do whatever the secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet says — beginning with the guidance on caretaker conventions.

Major decisions and announceables

Cabinet or its committees may still meet during this period for the continuance of business of government, but to avoid controversy and general messiness, decisions that can be made now will be made now.

In Australia, decisions that have already been made may still be announced during caretaker, although this isn’t encouraged. A former British minister last week gave her account of breaching that convention by announcing more police officers during the “purdah” — the British description for caretaker. Former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith explained:

“Despite being well received, my announcement landed me in hot water. I had made it during the official pre-election purdah period and received a civil service ‘telling off’ for breaching purdah.
“I’d like you to imagine this as me knocking nervously on the door of the Cabinet Secretary/headmaster with exercise books down my trousers in anticipation of the punishment I was to receive.  It was rather more a ‘disappointed’ word passed on from the Cabinet Secretary via my Permanent Secretary to me and my special advisers. Why the fuss?
“Outside the political world the word ‘purdah’ is associated with the idea of women being screened or veiled from the eyes of men. In government it requires civil servants and politicians to coyly draw a gauzy veil over the business of party politics in the run up to elections or referendums … It does not – and should not – mean the closing down of government.
“I accept I was wrong to make that announcement.  Purdah has an important function. However my transgression doesn’t change my view that for many civil servants – and even for many others with very little relationship to elected government – local or national – purdah is an excuse to close down any public facing or vaguely innovative government activity.”

But keeping public servants out of politics is not easy thing. David Charles, former secretary of the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce joked to The Mandarin that public servants could use such times to “take a holiday … If you wanted to be a politician, you’d go into politics.” But on a serious note, there is still some important work that needs to be done for the incoming government:

“During the caretaker period public servants give themselves some time off for a while before the red and blue books are prepared,” Charles said.

“Avoid any indication you’re taking sides in the process. Public servants have to work with whoever is in government, so you need to be there to work with whoever ends up in charge.”

When does it start?

If we’re all reasonably certain the election will take place on July 2, as per the PM’s own public warning to the senate crossbench last month, then why doesn’t he just go to the Governor-General now? First, he wants at least one budget under his belt — that’s coming May 3, with a convenient countdown on Treasury’s budget site in case you forget. Second, by convention he must also allow the opposition an opportunity to respond.

That’s scheduled for May 5.

At some point between May 5 and May 11, the election writs will be issued, parliament will be dissolved and caretaker will begin.

Hmm...I seem to recall the former miniscule - for non-aviation - Albo took the piss out of the average punters knowledge of the 'caretaker convention' to completely obfuscate all responsibility for responding to the Senate PelAir cover-up inquiry report and personally I am not going to let him forget it, courtesy of Planetalking:

...Ex deputy PM and Infrastructure and Transport Minister Anthony Albanese carries some excess baggage related to the Pel-Air crash fiasco and the abuse of due process he tolerated in CASA and the ATSB should he contest or win the Labor leadership, as widely speculated today.


Albanese had an outstanding term as minister in those portfolios in relation to rail and roads, and a dismal record when it came to his responsibilities in relation to air safety in this country.


The evidence for this is on the parliamentary record in the proceedings of the recent Senate committee inquiry into the ATSB’s investigation into the crash of a Pel-Air ambulance flight near Norfolk Island in 2009.


While the jet involved was a small Westwind, and no one died (miraculously) the accident gave rise to a series of appalling disclosures of deliberate malpractice in the two aviation authorities, the safety regulator, CASA and the accident investigator, the ATSB.


The findings of the Senate committee support fears that neither body has the integrity of management nor the technical skills or the commitments to aviation safety that most Australians would take for granted as being delivered and maintained on their behalf.


The incoming government need go no further than to obtain a briefing from Senator David Fawcett, (Liberal, South Australia) who with his state’s independent Senator, Nick Xenophon, pursued and disinterred a rotten state of affairs in both bodies which ought to be of considerable concern to whomever becomes the minister responsible for aviation in the Abbott Government.


The findings of the committee include an entire chapter detailing its dissatisfaction with the testimony given by the chief commissioner of the ATSB, Martin Dolan.


Anthony Albanese had a responsibility to parliament to respond to the Senate report in 90 days, and late in May gave such a commitment in the clearest of terms, yet he did not honour his word.


Senator Fawcett made a measured speech concerning the state of affairs in relation to the Pel-Air crash which should be read in conjunction with the committee’s final report.

While aspects of the crash, its investigation, and the Senate’s own inquiries have been reported at great length in Plane Talking, these are among the main matters:-


CASA withheld from the ATSB, contrary to the wording of the Transport Safety Investigation Act, an internal document related to the crash which revealed that had CASA carried out its duties of oversight in relation to Pel-Air, it may have prevented the accident happening.


The Director of Safety for CASA, John McCormick, admitted in testimony that he withheld the document, saying inter alia that he didn’t think it mattered to the investigation the ATSB was conducting, and that he didn’t want to pollute its deliberations.


The documentation that McCormick withheld containing damning evidence of CASA’s inadequacy and incompetence as a safety regulator.


The documents reveals that Pel-Air the operator of the crashed jet was in multiple serious breaches of its air operators certificate at the time of the crash, and that it had no rigorous fuel policy for oceanic flights like that being performed by the Pel-Air jet.


The Senate inquiry, comprising Senators of all parties, heard that the ATSB report into what was the world’s first ditching of a fully functioning Westwind jet (but which was about to run out of fuel) failed to make any safety recommendations even though all of the safety equipment on board the aircraft failed to work as intended.


It also learned that the ATSB had declined to recover the flight data recorder from the wreckage, which lies at a recoverable depth near Norfolk Island, and which should have established what meteorological updates were given to the pilot during a flight that had started in Apia, and whether that information was in fact correct.


The captain of the jet, Dominic James, says he did not become aware of the deteriorated state of the weather at his intended refueling stop at Norfolk Island until after he had flown passed the last point of opportunity to divert to airports in Noumea or Fiji.


(After four missed approaches and nearing fuel exhaustion, he made a controlled ditching at sea, while all of the aircraft’s controls and systems had the benefit of full power).


The ATSB’s final report into the Pel-Air crash stitched up the pilot for incorrectly fueling the flight, ignored the systemic issues in CASA, and does not meet the expectations of the international air safety community in alerting it to safety issues or deficiencies in a particular type of aircraft.


The Pel-Air report is a festering embarrassment in Australia’s once unquestioned place as a first tier state in relation to air safety.


It is an embarrassment Albanese carries with him...

Watch: the PM answers the public service’s burning questions

---

Just metres from the press gallery, this time it was the Australian Public Service’s opportunity to pose questions to their Prime Minister.

After the PM’s address to the Australian Public Service, Malcolm Turnbull held a Q&A session with the audience.

Due to the size of the audience, both in the Great Hall of Parliament, and watching via the Institute of Public Administration’s live webcast, Malcolm Turnbull took three questions submitted in advance.

Watch the broadcast from the PM’s address and Q&A, hosted by IPAA’s ACT branch (duration 43 minutes).

IPAA Prime Minister’s Address to the APS from IPAA ACT on Vimeo.
Related Content

[Peetwo]

More GOLD from the Mandarin but are the pollies listening? 

In this part of the political cycle (i.e. elections) the mandarin understandably gets busy, at the moment they are looking at policy & policymaking.

The first from their policy series that I have chosen is by Professor Don Nutbeam from the Sax institute:

Don Nutbeam: more paths to evidence-informed policymaking

---

by
Don Nutbeam
20.05.2016



Better collaboration and impact assessment should help bridge the researcher-policymaker divide. Researchers, once engaged and invested in outcomes, can restore evidence to policymaking.

Nicholas Gruen’s recent two-part series on the problems with the use of evidence in policymaking, and with policy evaluation offered a thought-provoking interpretation of the challenges involved in effective policymaking today. However, rather than creating another arm of bureaucracy devoted solely to evaluation as he suggests, I would argue that improving the dialogue between policymakers and researchers is a more effective solution with longer term benefits.

It’s true, as he argues, that there are cultural differences between the worlds of research and policy that create barriers to policymakers making better use of research.

“Researchers care deeply about making a difference, but too often encounter barriers to communication with policymakers … ”

“Researchers care deeply about making a difference, but too often encounter barriers to communication with policymakers … ”

Too often, researchers claim their work is ignored without making an effort to understand that policymaking is complex, often messy, and driven by many considerations, of which available research findings are just one. And it’s true that there are some researchers so focussed on methodological purity that they run the risk of ending up with a perfect answer to the wrong question, often years later than the answer was actually needed.

But it’s too simplistic to suggest that researchers are a vain lot who care solely about displaying their academic prowess and who are indifferent to whether their work has impact. In general, they care deeply about their ability to make a difference, but too often they encounter barriers to communication with policymakers, and respond to career incentives that take them away from the practical application of their research.

Policy develops and changes on the basis of underlying beliefs about the cause of a problem and the potential effects of an intervention, as well as consideration of the social and political context in which action is taken.

At its simplest this means that the use of evidence is set alongside consideration of what is popular or at least acceptable to the population that is affected by a policy. Policy development and change is also significantly directed by the power and influence of the competing interests of “policy influencers”. Who wins, who loses, who will fight and who will compromise are significant determinants of this process. Consider for example current debates about reducing sugar consumption as a response to epidemics of overweight and obesity in many countries.

It follows that policymaking is rarely an “event”, or even an explicit set of decisions derived from an appraisal of evidence and following a pre-planned course. Policy tends to evolve through an iterative process, subject to continuous review and incremental change. Policymaking is an inherently “political” process, and the timing of decisions is usually dictated as much by political considerations as the state of the evidence.

Related Content

[/url]
Nicholas Gruen: why we accept travesties of 'evidence-based' policymaking

Read More
 



Nicholas Gruen: why Australia needs an evaluator-general

Read More
 



VicHealth's citizens' jury lessons: no censorship, impartiality
[url=http://www.themandarin.com.au/65180-vic-healths-citizens-jury-lessons-no-censorship-impartiality/]
Read More
 

In this context, policy change depends upon a point-in-time appraisal of what is scientifically plausible (evidence-based); what is politically acceptable or achievable; and what is practical for implementation. It follows that policy is more likely to be influenced by research evidence if it is available and accessible at the time it is needed; it is presented in a way that is sensitive to the political and social context; and the evidence points to actions for which powers and resources are (or could be) available, and the systems, structures and capacity for action exist.

Can researchers meet this brief? Gruen suggests not — but they can and they do, though not as much as they might. Those who do it well work effectively with policymakers who bring political experience and practical insights to the table and who, once engaged, are more likely to be invested the outcomes.

Many more benefits would flow if more researchers worked with policymakers to understand more clearly the type of questions that need answering, and to deploy the research methods that deliver the best possible answers to the questions of greatest public importance. This is more likely to happen if the incentives are right.

At present, our research grant funding system, especially in health and medicine, favours narrowly defined, methodologically pure applications. One unintended consequence is that many research questions of great public policy significance remain unanswered – we have become masters of learning more and more about less and less.  In such a system it is especially difficult to win funding for “real world”, complex and technically challenging intervention evaluation.

Impact assessment — for programs, funded research

In the UK, the introduction of “impact assessment” as a part of the regular national assessment of university research performance has positively influenced the dialogue between researchers and policymakers. With substantial resources and public reputation at stake, universities set about systematically understanding and describing the impact of their research on society and the economy, and in working with partners outside of the university to provide the evidence required to validate impact.

The outcomes were impressive. Universities across the UK provided well written case studies of social, health and economic impact. These are all now accessible and searchable online. With such a powerful advocacy tool it is unsurprising that the most recent UK government Public Spending Review saw continuing protection of national research spending at a time when almost all other government budgets were subject to significant reductions.

In Australia we also need to embrace the importance of research impact assessment. It will help optimise the usefulness of research to the policy community and support our advocacy for continued substantial taxpayer investment in publicly funded research. It may also help to reset the incentives for undertaking more complex and messy research that addresses complex and messy questions of great public importance.

The challenge of finding ways to ensure that evidence forms part of an inherently fluid political decision-making process is both a responsibility of those who generate evidence and those who use it. For those who generate evidence and those who wish to see it used, the key is to provide timely access to information, and to employ improved techniques for communicating and managing the inevitable uncertainties that arise through scientific research.

Knowledge brokers working for bridge building organisations such as the Sax Institute where I work play an important and nuanced role in identifying policymakers’ needs, helping to define research questions and design evaluations. They can also create productive linkages between policymakers and researchers. We should be aiming for more of these links and better dialogue between policy and research — not creating new barriers. Both policymaking and relevant, impactful research depend on it.

All well and good but I think the greater problem is that governments set policy then due to the toxic state of politics, they water down & renege on those promises, letting the bureaucracy rule the roost at the sacrifice of good governance.

Governments of either colour have forgotten how to govern, the toxicity of politics has led to men & women with good intent in politics get swamped by the political factions - God save our once 'Lucky Country'.


MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

The Pork-Barrelling Barnbaby - oink, oink!

I think Barnbaby is getting a little desperate announcing the move of Federal agency the APVMA before the CBA is even completed, Stevie E explains in the Mandarin this week...

Armidale move threatens core capability and change management

---

The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority faces having to rebuild its core capability if it moves to Armidale, New South Wales, right when its CEO was hoping things would “settle” after a series of significant and overlapping reforms that go back several years.

The APVMA’s concerns about its ability to perform its role after a sudden move, because its scientists have almost all said they would not move with it, have been on the record for months.

Chief executive Kareena Arthy reiterated her concerns in May’s Budget Estimates hearing. She also discussed some of the agency’s operational changes, in line with the government’s new lighter-touch approach to regulation. The aim is to “fast-track” applications for approval of certain household and agricultural products and speed up the process for manufacturers, while maintaining community safety with new compliance checks.

She explained that $7.3 million worth of reforms over four years, catalysed by the agricultural competitiveness white paper, would involve developing new standards and new compliance activities, as well as building a new computer platform.

But that’s far from the only reform going on. The APVMA has in fact been in “change mode” due to overlapping reform for several years, since well before Arthy took up the job three years ago, as she told a professional forum for public servants to discuss the new approach to regulation at the end of 2014.

The APVMA has been developing a new risk-based assessment framework with the University of Melbourne’s Centre of Excellence for Biosecurity Risk Analysis, for example, as part of a wider set of reforms. All going to plan, it is due to start using it on July 1 this year.

“We are doing a lot of cutting edge work in transforming our business from being a regulator which was not particularly well regarded by stakeholders to frankly one that I think — once we get through these next two years — I think we will be a beacon, for a lot of people not just in Australia but internationally for a lot of the directions we’ll be taking,” Arthy said at the forum, about 18 months ago. She also commented on the burden it put on the small agency.

“Change is good; I’m a change agent and a change manager and I hate sitting still, but sometimes you just have to let the regulators get on with it,” she said.

At the APVMA, “the same people who are actually doing the work and doing the science and doing the decision-making are the ones implementing regulation, and they’re the ones who need to be able to focus on doing what they do best, to be able to fulfil the ambition of the regulation change,” she added.

“As with most of us, we are doing too many things at once and there does come a point where to achieve real change, things just need to settle for a while and let people just deliver.”

It seems the upheaval of moving to Armidale — for the purposes of regional economic development in the electorate held by Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce — could create significant new challenges for the regulator as it emerges from this period of change.

Hang the cost-benefit study, it’s Armidale or bust

Joyce confirms the decision to force the move to Armidale is a rock-solid Coalition election promise, regardless of whatever was found by a cost-benefit analysis that was due in early June but has not seen the light of day.

The cost-benefit study consumed “roughly $270,000” of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources budget, according to first assistant secretary Fran Freeman’s evidence in the Estimates hearing. Secretary Daryl Quinlivan noted it was supposed to inject some facts into the situation, being conducted independently of the department by consultants from Ernst and Young.

It is now clear that its outcome is irrelevant to the government, whose deputy is threatened by the return of independent candidate Tony Windsor in the seat of New England and stands accused of pork-barrelling by the Opposition.

In the hearing, Arthy told an incredulous Senator Doug Cameron the move could be extremely detrimental to the agency, based on a staff survey that showed a large number of scientists did not want to move from Canberra to a regional centre like Armidale:

“I have had no reason to change the advice that I provided last year, which was based on the information at the time about the difficulty in taking the regulatory science component in sufficient numbers, and that I would not be able to fulfil my statutory obligations. I have had no reason to change that view.”

She said it was two years ago when the minister first told her of his plan to move the agency either to Armidale, a regional centre in Joyce’s central New South Wales electorate, or Toowoomba in Queensland, which he has now rejected.

Arthy characterised her view that the APVMA might be unable to do its job following a move to either place as “speculation” but told Cameron she had communicated it because she took her role legislated role very seriously:

“The implications—and this is hypothetical—is that, if we were not able to process applications, it could mean that a number of products would not be available. At the moment we handle about 5,000 applications a year with a significantly reduced staff. Without alternate mechanisms in place to process those, we would not be able to get through as many.”

The task of rebuilding the agency would make it “difficult … to sustain operations for a number of years” based on the staff survey, which showed “only a very small number” of its “highly specialised” scientists were willing to move with it:

“Without that critical mass of regulatory scientists and the inability to quickly bring new people on in an area where there are not regulatory scientists just lying around, that is my main concern in terms of being able to sustain an organisation of our nature.”

Liberal senator Anne Ruston, standing in for Joyce in the hearing, described Arthy’s concerns as “short-term” and said — without being able to talk to Joyce — “her thoughts” were that the cost-benefit analysis should determine if it would be smarter to carry out the move over a long period of time rather than all at once.

This would mean the agency kept a presence in both locations for a transitional period and, as new scientists were recruited, their jobs could be located in Armidale rather than Canberra.

In the same hearing, the outgoing chair of the independent Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Daniela Stehlik confirmed “the board complied with the request from the minister to relocate” its headquarters from Canberra to Wagga Wagga at a meeting in February and would begin the process on July 1.

Stuff the 'cost benefit analysis' - yeah Barnbaby have to agree CBA's are not worth the paper their written on, well at least that is our experience when it comes to CASA doctored CBAs associated with new regs. However in this case it would appear the APVMA has done due diligence on their soon to be released CBA, plus there is significant other issues at play here which make your premature announcement just a little bit suspect...



MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

CASA beware them times are a changing??

Excellent article by Tom Burton on the Mandarin...

Tom Burton: why government needs to reshape itself

---

by
Tom Burton
01.07.2016

To be relevant in the modern era, government must re-engage. It is the central agencies that must take up the task of redesigning government to regain its relevance and effectiveness.

Government needs to deeply reform itself, if it is to be relevant in the modern era. The reform needs a fundamental change in the way government is designed and operates.
For a sector that occupies nearly 30% of the economy, there has been remarkably little discussion in this election campaign about the role and shape of the public sector.

At a time of widespread and deep disenchantment with the effectiveness of governments around the developed world, there has been barely a blip about what sort of public sector will serve us best in the coming decades.

Rapid technological development is driving arguably the most profound changes since the industrial revolution. But there is little evidence of the sort of fundamental rethinking about the core operating model that will be needed if government is to regain its relevance.

“Large, clunky, innately secretive, risk averse … we seem to have an operating model of government not fit to play an effective role in these times of major challenge and opportunity.”

The Australian public sector seems stuck in a largely post-war model — broadly copied from a Westminster system that served the United Kingdom well when it ran a global empire. The unkind view, from the balcony I sit at looks like this: large, clunky, innately secretive, risk-averse specialised agencies, narrowly appropriated to solve and regulate problems and deliver services that typically span multiple agencies and multiple jurisdictions.

There are many public sector leaders seeking to bring modern approaches and changes to their individual agencies and departments — Victorian Premier’s Secretary, Chris Eccles’ program of changes and speech this week on the role of government being a good example. But  in the broad we seem to have an operating model of government not fit to play an effective role in these times of major challenge and opportunity.

Government in Australia is a $400 billion platform. Yet the concern and belief of many I talk to inside the sector is that at the organisational, delivery and external level, the model is simply not returning that value — and more — to the broader nation.

The very real likelihood of another decade of fiscal deficits is driving some rethinking  — the most profound being the long overdue digitisation of basic services and associated transformation programs (NSW has just closed down 494 fax lines!). But much of this is cleaning up  a decade of appalling badly designed web sites and apps and there appears to be few built-in incentives to drive deeper systemic change and reform.

Government has no market mechanisms to signal failing relevance or effectiveness. With only occasional audits and functional reviews to clean out the most obviously ineffective programs, agencies are largely left to fight among themselves for ownership of appropriations and programs. Well remunerated by anyone’s standards, there is little personal incentive to challenge the system or admit a program or agency should be retired.

It probably has been forever so. But while there has been major productivity and workplace reform outside of government, within the comfortable halls of the bureaucracy work practices have altered little since the end of the typing pools. Decision making remains treacle-like in almost any agency I ask about, with extraordinary multiples of sign offs, rewrites and approvals.

The Commonwealth’s Belcher red tape review promises some changes, but the reality is a deep lack of professional trust means the dreams of an agile and innovative public sector are fantasy. Louise Hand’s recent video on red tape reduction at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is a fabulous piece of change management and advocacy, but also revealed how endemic many of the public sector’s worst bureaucratic practices are.

Phones and desktop computers are disappearing from non-government workplaces, real-time editing (like with Google Docs) and delegated approvals are fast becoming the norm and many white-collar organisations are moving to a system of giving staff unlimited leave. But government is resolutely hanging onto mega-offices, deeply administrative pay classifications and HR practices of the ’70s.

This may seem administrative trivia in the scheme of things, but it is symptomatic of a culture and mindset that pervades the middle band of the bureaucracy. Caught between a highly risk-averse senior executive group and a phalanx of processes, systems and faux reporting, this middle group are not trusted enough to get on with their work. This is exactly what Louise Hand’s video identified.

Hand’s video is also a pointer to another deep issue. At a time where technologically empowered citizens are demanding to be involved and engaged with their governments, we have risk-averse executives largely unwilling and unable to become part of the public discourse. Governments are being literally eaten up and spat out by the new world of social media, yet we still have the vast majority of senior bureaucrats unwilling to front up for their agencies in a consistent and proactive way.

You can have as many social media folk and big ad campaigns as you like, but without an SES officer leading the way in public engagement, it will just be a sideshow. Which, at worst, leaves agencies inward-facing, tepid and frankly roadkill in a modern open internet world.

The same goes to decision making and transformation. At a time where collaboration and co-design are becoming the foundation for modern eco-system, product and service development, the deep seated secrecy endemic in the upper levels of all the jurisdictions, (South Australia perhaps the exception), reveals again an insular culture stuck in a prior world.

In New Zealand, cabinet documents associated with major decisions like the budget are released after six weeks. In Canberra it is 30 years! I have sympathy for PM&C chief Martin Parkinson’s call for some space to deliberate in privacy, but the world has dramatically changed. The idea of a closed-door, FOI-free space for fearless advice continues to promote a top-down authoritarian model that every indicator suggests is simply not working for our citizens.

The slow, but now steady, change to a more outcomes-based approach that Eccles highlighted suggests a renewed and welcome focus on effectiveness, evidence and empiricism. However a quick look at the outcomes statements of the nearly 900 federal agencies also reveals we have a long way to go: well-meaning statements of intent would be the benevolent view; others would describe them as waffle and bureaucratic obtuseness.

After the 2013 National Commission of Audit noted how weak the Commonwealth’s reporting and accountability system is, the Department of Finance has done a lot of work to rejig the public reporting system. But in several months we will yet again see truckloads of printed annual reports littered around Parliament House. The waste of tax money producing glossy print reports for 900 agencies is symptomatic of a system moving snail-like into the digital world. At a time where we have the capacity to deliver real-time metrics across government through agency websites, endless hours are devoted to self-promoting reports that are read by virtually no one.

There are of course differences across the governments. NSW — easily the most progressive of the state and federal administrations — now has real-time data being delivered directly to the Premier’s office. Mike Baird can now answer the question no other Australian chief minister can: how did my government perform yesterday?



[/url]
Empowered citizens and the government challenge

Read More
 



Tom Burton: Parkinson's challenge of leadership

Read More
 



All Things P: the new hub for engagement, communications
[url=http://www.themandarin.com.au/65050-welcome-things-p-hub-engagement-communications/]
Read More
 

The biggest challenge however lies at the heart of the public sector model. It is a challenging thought, but if we were starting government again we almost certainly would not have agencies and departments running a whole fleet of buses, trains and trams — nor hospitals — and probably not even schools and universities. Nor a massive tax collection agency or a bureau full of meteorologists or a network of post offices.

Just as Uber runs a large transport network with no cars of its own, and AirBnB a huge suite of accommodation without any of its own houses and apartments, government now has the opportunity to run similar powerful algorithmic platforms for its core services.

At the heart this model is government running a powerful data layer powered by algorithms that direct and control resources, be it to collect rubbish, manage energy usage, deploy emergency services or triage traffic flows.

In this scenario these algorithms are the core enabler to a far more intelligent government, a platform that uses real-time structured and unstructured data across multiple sources.

The payoffs for government are huge. Just take one example: nearly three quarters of our annual infrastructure spend is to solve congestion problems. A system that dynamically manages usage through a combination of ride sharing, surge capacity in public transport, congestion pricing and alternative routing would offer real alternatives to building more and more road and transit systems.

In this world Governments have real choices where they want to play — at the infrastructure, data, or provider level — and well chosen can get real leverage for their efforts in collaboration with the broader economy.

But while alluring and deeply transformative as a model, it is simply dream land stuff, given the deeply siloed way government agencies operate and are funded. To tackle problems like obesity, domestic violence, suicide and endemic incarceration requires a response which has a singular focus and, frankly, a vehicle unbridled by the bureaucratic fiefdoms and rules that logjam virtually every attempt to radically change the approach to government.

Ironically these constraints do not exist offshore, where the federal government is much more willing to use innovative external providers to tackle some of the deeper development issues in our region.

This system design issue is a central agency challenge and with some rare exceptions, I am simply not seeing the sort of deep policy thinking needed to both challenge and drive the fundamental change the system needs, if it is to be effective and relevant in this next era.

MTF...P2