Did public service learn from welfare scandal?

A Great Academic Study Australian Public Service (APS )’s response to the proposals of the Robodebt Royal Commission found that the staff of the two largest agencies in the Nations Group grew up.

In a turning point published by European Journal of Public PolicyAustralian National University Researchers Daniel Casey And Dr Maria Maley He found that the Defense and Interior Works did not provide guidance to the washing of the scandal.

The Research Newspaper said, “Failure to communicate with the defense departments (the largest department in APS) and the interior staff (the second largest department in APS), considering the important cultural failures revealed in both departments,” he said.

“Interestingly, in July 2023, in an APS -diameter forum, the Secretary of Defense Greg Moriarty,” he said.[w]I think they are currently dealing with a very basic crisis in public service around Robodebt. “

In many ways, the basis of the study is what emphasizes it: researchers used their demands for freedom of knowledge (FOI) to force their agencies to answer their questions.

“The study uses both quantitative and qualitative methods and is based on the data obtained under Australia. Freedom of Information 1982. FOI requests were sent to the Australian government organization. 1999 Public Service Law (PS Law), as of December 31, 2023.

“Requests were presented on January/February 2024 and took place between 1 July 2023-31 December 2023. This six-month period was selected for the publication of both the Royal Commission report (7 July 2023) and the publication of the government (13 November 2023).”

The study documents “the five agencies initially tried to reject applications on this basis, but all agencies ultimately publish relevant documents”. The question it aims to illuminate is whether the APS has learned or how it learns from its mistakes. The Royal Commission is a rich way, because you cannot buy a royal commission without a really filling or failure.

What is of interest to the authors is whether APS leaders have socks puppets for ministers and where the practical limits are.

“In Australia, in accordance with the law, public officials should be sensitive to the directions of the ministers, while remaining neutral and professional, he advises ‘open and fearless’ and provides the possibility and legislation of the government action,” he says.

“Hyper sensitivity was defined as’ not forced to help the governments of the authorities’ cases’ and the insecurity of the term of office for public service leaders has been defined as a reason for the problem.

“The RobodeBT crisis has all the distinctive features of such hypersensitivity. However, this basic cultural reason has been a part of making the meaning of public service leaders after Robodebt?”

So what is “making meaning”? Basically, corporate cognitive or adherent corporate learning. Hard things.

“Using Robodebt as a case study to discover the communication of leaders after a crisis, and therefore to use their meaning has a few original contributions. The study focuses on how to communicate with a crisis, a crisis in a short period of time in a crisis.

“Other studies investigated learning after the crisis within a certain organization about the crisis, or how the courses traveled throughout the judicial regions; or traveled between policy areas;

“In addition, the hypersensitivity of public officials is a matter of concern between political administrative systems, but how public service leaders communicate with the personnel related to the problem is rarely examined and difficult to detect. Such changes are often hidden. Using an innovative method, we reveal new evidence of how public services are stuck in this difficult issue.”

For 113 relevant agencies, it is a research project from hell, because they must scan and correct all related FOI information. The results were not good. Not analysis.

“The reaction of the most senior leaders of APS is called ‘loudly than words’, because they did not express any words about the cause of the abuse in Robodebt: the hypersensitivity of senior public officials to the agenda of the ministers.

“These messages have shown that not being able to face the basic problems that cannot be a meaningful learning.

“Similarly, the speech points sent to all senior executive service officials to use with the staff in their interviews, so it was not clear about the problems seen in Robodebt, which defines the ‘appropriate’ words that should be used.

“Robodebt ‘was exposed to’ and ‘leadership and judicial failures’, but they are not defined, and warning ‘at the same time to remember that many good people are trying to do the right thing’ said.

So, is there a cheat page for kidnapping and deviation? Of course, he reads:

“In cases where public service leaders do not communicate or communicate with limited or minimal reduction, we use a framework of the literature on inertia. Brown and plain (2022p. 51-56) Preventing the learning of the courses proposes four memories ‘policy inertia’:

• First moment: Re -Framework of LessonsFollowing the publication of a report, ‘fine pressure is rewritten to allow nothing to happen’, usually with ‘Tokenist gesture[s]’To avoid material reform.
• Second moment: Evacuation of courses‘A government player accepts responsibility rhetorically… But then sends them to other actors and does not take any other action’.
• Third moment: Pause and refiningActors usually take additional time to take into account and analyze suggestions to provide an appropriate and comprehensive application. This inertia is usually deliberate and functional for good reasons.
• Fourth moment: Refuse to accept lessons ‘Those who aim to carry application courses deliberately look and refuse to participate in sensation’. This includes the desire to blame ‘bad apples’ instead of recognizing a wider cultural, systemic failure.

The piece appeared first Mandarin.