Governing the City State - Chief Minister and Treasury Directorate ...

desires of the Legislature to scrutinise the actions of the Executive, but which also fosters andencourages innovation and improvements to ACTPS policy and program design and delivery.The Commissioner for Public Administration’s Submission to the Review argued that:The ACTPS must get the balance right between process and outcomes, and betweendelivering services and reporting on the delivery of these services. In my view, getting thebalance right will require the support of all members of the Legislative Assembly and perhapsa cultural shift from members as well. Many ACTPS employees report to me that theLegislative Assembly currently places too much emphasis on process and increased reportingwithout recognising the costs associated with this and the concomitant reduction in emphasison community outcomes and the delivery of services. 287To address these challenges, those responsible for delivery – the Executive – and those withthe power and legitimate right to hold it to account – the Legislature – need to workcooperatively to ensure that the accountability systems put in place by the ACT Governmentand the Legislative Assembly recognise that “accountability systems that punish publicservants for their mistakes will constrain policy innovation, and limit the public service’scapacity to deal flexibly with new and emerging problems. 288 That is not, of course, tosuggest that reckless risk taking should be other than shown for what it is, or that wastage ofpublic money should not be exposed and criticised. What it does mean, is that accountabilityprocesses should allow new approaches to be tried, and for them to fail provided that lessonsare learnt, experiences are captured and new insights are fed back into program design anddelivery in a proper system of evaluation and review, and that mistakes are not repeated.Such an approach depends on a transparent and open assessment of risk, and a system andculture that encourages and rewards innovation and informed risk taking:accountability systems that punish public servants for unforeseen or unpreventableerrors will constrain policy innovation and organisational learning, and limit the289public service’s capacity to deal with new and emerging problems.In settling the detail of accountability frameworks, it is worth keeping in mind that just asgood people will make bad structures work, “courageous leaders and talented staff caninnovate even within a rigid accountability framework, but an overly rigid and prescriptiveframework can make this more difficult”. 290It is through cooperation and understanding and articulation of purpose, as well as legitimateroles and responsibilities of the branches of government, that the sorts of “fit for purpose”accountability structures favoured by the APSC will be able to be developed in the ACT. 291Such arrangements would be “tailored to the policy issue at hand, appropriately balance theneed to be accountable for the use of public resources and performance and the achievement287 Submission No.18. Commissioner for Public Administration.288 Australian Public Service Commission (2009b), p.2.289 Thomas, P. (2006) Performance Measurement, Reporting, Obstacles and Accountability: Recent Trends and FutureDirections ANU EPress, Canberra, p. 61.290 Australian Public Service Commission (2009b) p.9.291 See for example Australian Public Service Commission (2009c).Strategy, Resource Allocation and the Vacant Middle Ground: 226