The Department of Defence has taken steps to ensure senior staff are held accountable for failure with underperforming rank-and-file public servants also put on notice.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
The scheme was launched shortly before a wholesale review of the public service that signalled the end of "jobs for life" and called for restrictions on hiring and firing to be eased.
In response to a senate question on notice, a department spokesman said the scheme was designed to ensure "individuals are held accountable for their behaviour".
"A new performance management system has been implemented for the senior executive service," the spokesman said.
"For non-SES staff, work to date has been focused on improving support for staff to have more effective performance conversations.
"Progress is continuing on applying greater weighting in performance appraisals against behaviour and how results are delivered."
The department acknowledged the scheme was launched after the first principles review found the quality of advice from public servants could be "diffuse, inconsistent and fragmented".
"The review recommended that policy advice be strengthened by bringing all policy functions into one organisational unit to improve the quality of policy advice to government," the spokesman said in the response.
"This recommendation was accepted by the government and has been implemented by defence".
The department has refined individual and collective responsibilities for management in a bid to further the One Defence Behavioural Model outlined in the defence white paper.
The model calls for feedback processes to be strengthened so the capability, accountability and leadership of senior staff can be improved.
Do you know more? email ps@canberratimes.com.au
Last week, a report prepared by Sandra McPhee called for a drastic overhaul of the APS classification scheme, merit evaluations, job security and hiring and firing processes.
Ms McPhee, a director of Fairfax Media, said the public service's approach to job termination was overly prescriptive, lengthy and inconsistent with standards in the public sector.
"Managers are risk averse, at least in part due to a limited understanding of the law and fear of having a decision challenged," McPhee wrote.
"Neither agencies nor employees are well served by processes that delay separation."
The report also called for a cultural shift to support and encourage managers to deal with underperforming staff.
"Performance discussions in the private sector are an opportunity to highlight achievements and explore career directions," McPhee wrote.
"By contrast, APS performance discussions are poorly perceived."
The Community and Public Sector Union described the report as a missed opportunity but insisted there was room for improvement in employment agreements.
"The underlying bias behind this report seems to be an assumption that public sector workers believe they're entitled to a 'job for life'," Nadine Flood, CPSU national secretary, said.
"Given that more than 18,000 jobs have been slashed by this Government, even Blind Freddy can see that's absolutely not the case."
