|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Australian Federal Police - Platypus Journal/Magazine |
Ambitious human resource reform program implemented
By Federal Agent Simon Overland, General Manager Finance and People Management
Recognising that the existing structure no longer provided optimal support to employees and operational areas, the AFP's Finance and People Management has been realigned to better support the needs of the National Teams Model and to assist in implementing the AFP's corporate goals.
In the past three years the AFP has implemented a very ambitious human resource reform program, which has changed the fabric of employment practices and people management in the organisation, culminating in the successful negotiation of the current Certified Agreement, enactment of amendments to the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 and consequential re-drafting of sub-ordinate legislation.
These human resource reforms were necessary in order to support and complete the major process of organisational reform that began with the introduction of the National Teams Model in 1995.
The AFP now enjoys an employment and industrial framework that is better aligned with the business needs of the organisation and supports the National Teams Model. This has been a long journey, which at time was unavoidably disruptive to the operations of the organisation, but was essential to ensuring the AFP's longer-term security and success. With the successful completion of the new industrial framework, which was primarily aimed at the operational areas of the organisation, it was timely to review important support functions to ensure consistency and compatibility with these reforms.
Diagram 1: The new structure for the people management component ofthe Finance and People Management portfolio
The initial action was to create the new portfolio of Finance and People Management, which occurred in March of this year, to ensure better linkage between money and people management. In this new portfolio two key support areas, human resources and internal integrity, have been under review since the early part of this year. A key goal for the reviews was to cause minimum disruption to the operational areas of the organisation, so both have been progressed quietly and with a minimum of fuss for people outside of these areas.
This article provides an excellent opportunity to inform the wider organisation on the outcomes.
The reviews shared common themes as both were concerned with ensuring high quality support for operational areas, replication of and support for the principles of the National Teams Model and the new employment framework, and to continue the drive to a culture of high performance in the AFP.
The Human Resource Review (HR Review) was led by Ros Williams and David Ellerman and was conducted in four stages. These were:
• a situational analysis to identify strengths and weaknesses in HR service delivery, the current organisational context and environmental factors which drive priorities and service delivery.
• consultation with HR professionals and Directors of Operations Support to delineate existing HR responsibilities, demarcate strategic from transactional services. and allocate these among line managers, local services, corporate strategic services and shared services (centralised processing).
• benchmarking of current HR service delivery against a large number of public and commercial sector national and international businesses.
• consultation with internal clients and stakeholders to determine responses to possible service delivery models.
The situational analysis recognised that any service delivery model in the AFP must support the National Teams Model, a decentralised, national and increasingly international structure and key resolutions of the 1999 Executive Conference, particularly that, 'the AFP is an organisation characterised by a culture of high performance'. It noted the substantial and challenging reform agenda that had been undertaken in the organisation and that many employees viewed HR as the prime driver of these reforms. This perception sometimes coloured the relationship between HR and parts of the organisation.
The review recognised that the new employment framework placed much greater responsibility for the management of staff and HR issues on line managers and that the organisation had not sufficiently prepared many managers for this responsibility.
The HR benchmarking study supported the delineation of HR functions as shown above and found a number of common contemporary ‘good practice' people management trends. These include:
• maintenance of strong corporate control over strategic HR functions, like workforce planning, leadership development and industrial relations, in recognition that these are critical to developing and retaining outstanding people and hence the long term success of the organisation
• segregation of HR transactional and administrative from strategic functions and central management of these transactional functions to achieve economies of scale and/or test through competitive tendering/outsourcing processes
• line managers being accountable for the day-to-day management of all aspects of people management including productivity, micro-level workplace relations, team building and conflict resolution, performance management and supporting the development of staff particularly through coaching and mentoring
• closer integration between HR practitioners and line management with the focus on supporting line managers to deal effectively with their higher levels of responsibility in the management of their people
• a strong focus on balancing efficiency and effectiveness in corporate support functions to ensure business areas and outcomes are ably supported and overhead costs are minimised
The AFP's HR practices were heavily centralised, too process oriented and needed to move from ‘enforcer/regulator' to ‘influencer/adviser' modes of behaviour, in order to support operational areas and streamline HR practices.
Diagram 2: Template for the Professional Standards structure.
A number of potential models were considered, ranging from full outsourcing of all HR functions through to the establishment of major service centres in two geographic locations. The advantages and disadvantages for the proposed models were considered and internal stakeholder and client consultation conducted, resulting in almost universal support for an area office model through which local services will be delivered, with strategic and shared services centrally managed.
The area offices, called Local Business Service Groups (LBSG), are in the process of being established in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and ACT Policing. While these LBSGs will service geographically based operations and staff the review clearly recognised that major functional areas have not received sufficient people management support in the past. Consequently, LBSGs are also being established in the functional areas of National Operations, Learning and Development, Finance and People Management and Policy, Planning and Legal. Regardless of what functional stream staff occupy, the LBSG in their geographic location is responsible for servicing their needs. The Sydney LBSG will serve for example staff in the Sydney Avian Teams, which belong to National Operations.
In addition to HR support services the LBSGs will also include finance and budgeting, to replicate the amalgamation of these two functions at the national level through the establishment of the Finance and People Management portfolio. LBSGs will also include learning and development and aspects of the revised integrity programs to provide a consolidated locally based support service to geographic and functional business areas.
The centralised strategic HR function is re-named as People Strategy, with the Director Human Resources becoming the Director People Strategy (DPS). Ros Williams has taken on the role of DPS and her portfolio has responsibility for issues such as workforce planning, executive development, management development, the employment framework and equity and diversity. Recruitment of new sworn staff will continue to be handled by People Strategy, as will other recruitment where there is reason to run the process centrally. Other forms of recruitment will be handled by LBSGs. A number of processing functions that were handled centrally have either been devolved to the LBSGs, where there was a sound business case for so doing, or collocated with the existing Shared Services Centre.
In addition to the People Strategy portfolio, a Health and Safety Services portfolio has been established. This area is currently headed by Federal Agent Clive Banson and incorporates Occupational Health and Safety, Medical Services, Psychological Services and Professional Reporting. While People Strategy is focused on strategic people management issues, Health and Safety Services, in addition to its policy role, ensures proper focus on the health and well-being of individual staff, particularly when circumstances require intensive work with an individual. Examples of when this might occur include rehabilitation, support for employees in the professional reporting program or involved in an integrity investigation and people on Comcare.
It has often been said that people are the AFP's greatest asset. The changes to the delivery of HR services aim to make it clear to internal and external stakeholders that the AFP is very serious about creating a positive and healthy work environment that facilitates performance and provides rewarding and supportive employment opportunities. The new structure for the people management component of the Finance and People Management portfolio is shown in Diagram 1.
As can be seen from Diagram 1, the people management structure now includes three silos, one of which is Professional Standards, which has been created out of the review into the AFP's integrity programs.
The Professional Standards portfolio incorporates all aspects of the previous integrity program, including the Internal Investigation and Internal Security and Audit functions, and is now headed by one Director, the Director Professional Standards. The new incumbent is Federal Agent Peter Wood. Federal Agent Peter Phillips, the former Director Internal Security and Audit, is moving to take up the position of Director MOSC.
Ensuring individual and organisational integrity remains an important part of the Professional Standards role, however the new arrangement has a broader focus as reflected in the objectives, which are to assist in the development and maintenance of a high performance culture in the Australian Federal Police and the professionalism of Australian Federal Police employees. If we are to be a law enforcement agency that is second to none, then we must aspire to the highest standards of performance in all that we do. The Professional Standards portfolio, in partnership with operational areas, management and other areas of People Management will focus on improving the performance of individuals, teams and business areas. Integrity is but one component of a performance culture.
In the main, performance issues subject to Professional Standards scrutiny are the professional standards established under Commissioner's Order 2, complaints covered by the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981 (the Act) and Commissioner's Order 5, and allegations under Commissioner's Order 6. Under the Professional Standards model there will be much less reliance on formal adversarial and punitive processes and more on managerial and administrative discretion in responding to performance issues, including complaints and allegations. There is increased emphasis on embracing and practicing the principles of a learning organisation, particularly with regard to developing a culture that accepts and learns from honest mistakes, at the individual, team and organisational level.
While greater forgiveness of honest mistakes will be practiced, it is recognised that serious performance issues involving corrupt or seriously deficient professional conduct will not be tolerated by the organisation or its professional practitioners. Professional Standards aims to minimise instances of extreme poor performance, but when such instances do occur, will continue to be deal with it effectively, quickly and professionally.
The activities of the Professional Standards portfolio are governed by the operation of the Act, the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, Commissioner's Orders 2, 5 and 6, the Workplace Resolution Guidelines and the Professional Standards Practice Guideline. Whenever possible, performance issues will be resolved at the lowest possible level in the organisation through referral to line management, with appropriate support and oversight provided by the Professional Standards portfolio. If the matter constitutes a complaint or allegation, it is preferable to deal with it as minor complaints or through conciliation, whenever possible. In deciding whether to progress matters as minor complaints or conciliations regard is had to the provisions of the relevant Acts, Commissioner's Orders and Guidelines and if it is not appropriate to deal with a matter in such a way consideration is then given to the use of an authorised officer (AO) to undertake an investigation.
An AO will be appointed from the area in which the performance issue arose, for the purpose of dealing with the matter as a minor complaint, conciliation or investigation, unless this is not appropriate, for example where there is a potential conflict of interest, serious management issues are likely to be raised, there is a need for a degree of independence, or in all the circumstances it is not appropriate. In these cases consideration is given to appointing an AO from outside the area.
When it is not appropriate to use an AO, the matter is referred to Internal Investigations. This will tend to be only the more serious matters.
The structure of Professional Standards is designed to follow the National Teams Model template as closely as possible. The template for the Professional Standards structure is at Diagram 2.
The Professional Standards Operations Committee (PSOC) mirrors the role of Operations Committees. It is comprised of the Director Professional Standards, Coordinators Professional Standards Monitoring Centre, Internal Investigations (Canberra and Sydney) and Professional Standards. A representative from the Ombudsman's Office has an open invitation to attend PSOC meetings, which occur regularly to oversight the management of all work activity being undertaken by the Professional Standards portfolio. To that end it is responsible for decisions in relation to the way in which complaints and allegations are handled with options ranging from referral back to line management for follow-up, formal conciliation under the Act through to full-scale investigation by Internal Investigations.
The PSOC is responsible for ensuring all matters are progressed in a planned and timely manner, proper records are kept in relation to Professional Standards activity and that outcomes are actioned and, where appropriate, reviewed. The PSOC is also responsible for ensuring that investigations activity is balanced between responding to serious complaints and allegations and pro-active integrity investigations.
The Professional Standards Monitoring Centre (PSMC) is comprised of an Administration and Data Integrity Team, a Client Services Team and an Intelligence Development Team. Like Operations Monitoring Centres the PSMC is the ‘front door' for all matters or information coming into Professional Standards and is responsible for day-to-day liaison with key stakeholders such as the Ombudsman's office. The PSMC supports the PSOC by keeping proper records, actively monitoring progress of all matters, ensuring follow-up action on outstanding matters and outcomes and exercising quality control over professional standards matters.
On a day-to-day basis the Coordinator of the PSMC, where necessary in consultation with the Director Professional Standards, makes decisions in relation to the initial response to complaints and allegations. These decisions are later subject to ratification of the PSOC.
An important component of the PSMC is the Intelligence Development Team. Using a risk management approach the Intelligence Development Team identifies pro-active investigations that will focus on individuals and areas of identified risk.
The Internal Investigation Division (II) retains this nomenclature because of the operation of the Act. It is the single investigative arm of Professional Standards, incorporating the previously distinct Internal Security and Audit investigation teams. II provides a pool of professional standards investigators and when necessary will draw on other human resources, internal and external to the organisation, when forming teams around investigations.
II retains responsibility for investigating serious complaints under the Act and Commissioner's Order 5 and serious allegations under Commissioner's Order 6. It also continues to undertake pro-active and targeted investigations based on information developed by the PSMC.
II aspires to be a model of best practice in the conduct of professional standard investigations, utilising the MOSC methodology to plan investigations, setting clear objectives, time frames and resource requirements. It will seek to stay abreast of contemporary investigative techniques both in the AFP and wider national and international law enforcement community and, where appropriate, will utilise leading edge methodology in investigating professional standards matters.
The Professional Standards Team (PST) comprises a number of functions. These are Personal Security, which deals with security vetting and clearances for AFP employees; Security Operations, which deals with building and physical security; and Employment Standards, which coordinates and provides advice to decision makers with respect to options for dealing with identified instances of poor performance by employees. The Professional Standards Team is also responsible for the development and maintenance of the AFP Fraud and Anti-Corruption Plan.
The Professional Standards Team also includes Professional Standards Officers, who are out-posted to LBSGs in operational areas. They are responsible for the current security officer functions, including providing advice to operational teams on operational security. They also provide advice and support to authorised officers; conduct Quality Assurance Reviews (QAR) into investigations; and collect, disseminate and share information arising from QARs and other learning opportunities related to professional standards and conduct. In the LBSGs they work closely with human resource and learning and development practitioners.
The Professional Standards Review Team (PSRT) is comprised of the General Manager Finance and People Management, Chief Police Officer of the ACT, Directors Professional Standards, People Strategy, Health and Safety, Legal and Psychological Services; Coordinators PSOMC, Internal Investigations Canberra and Professional Standards Team and Team Leader Employment Standards. The PSRT is the principle decision-making body with regard to the manner in which all finalised performance issues are resolved. This includes endorsing action taken in respect to the full range of responses to performance issues, such as workplace resolutions, conciliation or investigations by AOs or formal investigations by Internal Investigations.
On completion all complaints and allegations are referred through the PSMC to the PSRT for ratification of a recommended course of action or decision on a course of action. The PSMC is responsible for notifying the Ombudsman of the results of complaints, and for recording and actioning the decisions of the PSRT.
An issue of concern to a number of employees has been the lack of detail with the outcomes of complaints and allegations. This has been recognised and outcomes of complaints and allegations will be specified in more detail than was previously the case.
The PSRT will consider recommendations relating to substantiated complaints and allegations, with options ranging from referring matters to the appropriate Director of Public Prosecutions office for consideration of criminal charges, use of the AFP disciplinary process or a administrative solutions available under the AFP Act. In considering the appropriateness of recommended outcomes the primary focus is on the rehabilitation of the individual or team. For this reason administrative remedies that focus on securing improvements in performance of individuals and of the AFP's professional standards, are preferred. The key mechanism for ensuring improved individual performance is the Employee Management Plan (EMP).
In addition to setting or monitoring performance standards in EMPs the following powers are now available to the Commissioner and his or her delegates under the AFP Act:
• Assignment of Duties (s.40H): This power may be used to modify the duties of an AFP employee in order to secure improved performance outcomes by means of retraining in areas where performance in the original role has been found to be deficient. Timeframes for the performance of modified duties may be set and monitored through the EMP process. Once performance improvements have been secured to the required level, the employee may be reinstated to his or her original duties.
• Declarations Conferring the Status of Member (s.40B): This power may be used to suspend (see the Regulations) or revoke (Acts Interpretation Act) an AFP employee's status as a member with the result that the employee cannot exercise police powers until the status is reinstated. Such suspensions or revocations could be used where it is inappropriate for a person to have the exercise of police powers, pending resolution of an issue, but it is not appropriate to suspend a person from being present in the workplace. Further, a revocation or suspension could stand as an outcome following an investigation until improvements in performance standards are secured and confirmed via the EMP process.
• Declarations Conferring Commissions (s.40D): These declarations may be suspended or revoked in accordance with the AFP regulations. There is however, a requirement that the Commissioner should consult with the Governor-General before doing so. Again, the original status could be restored once the issue is resolved or improved performance is secured.
• Declarations Regarding Rank (ss.9 (2A) and 9(2B)): This power may be used to modify the rank at which a member can exercise police powers for the purposes of Commonwealth and State laws. Any modifications could remain in force until improvements in performance are secured via the EMP process.
• General Employment Powers: As an employer, the Commissioner can issue directions to employees regarding the nature of duties to be performed and the manner in which those duties are to be performed. This power could be used to secure a broad range of outcomes relevant to securing improved performance against professional standards. For example the Commissioner could direct an employee to make apologies as appropriate and make other reparations by means of undertaking specified tasks relevant to making amends for poor performance. These outcomes could be monitored and secured via the EMP process.
Existing powers, such as suspension from duties, termination of employment and the discipline regime continue to be available. Termination of employment remains as an ultimate sanction for serious performance issues or a persistent failure to demonstrate improved performance as monitored via the EMP program.
The PSMC has a key role in monitoring progress of management and EMP basis outcomes and retains ultimate corporate responsibility for signing off on outcomes and reporting these to the Ombudsman, where appropriate. At all times, the focus is on improving performance of the individual or team.
The completion of the major reform process, represented by the passage of the Certified Agreement and amendments to the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, reinforced the recognition that the current corporate structure was no longer providing optimal support to employees and operational areas. The initial response was to create the Finance and People Management portfolio and then subsequently review two of the major components of that new portfolio, human resources and the integrity programs.
Those reviews are now finalised and the new structures and processes as briefly described above are being implemented. The focus of these latest reforms has been to ensure that the drive to a high performance culture continues in the AFP, through providing people management support for individuals, teams and business areas that supports the principles of the National Teams Model and is consistent with and brings into operation the new employment framework. The continuing development of a high performance culture is central to our drive to be highly regarded law enforcement professionals working in a law enforcement agency that is renowned nationally and internationally as a leading edge organisation.
While integrity will always remain an important issue for the AFP, the new structures and processes recognise that it is subsumed within the broader agendas of professionalism and performance. The Finance and People Management portfolio is committed to assisting the organisation to foster the development of professional law enforcement practitioners and teams in a high performing organisation.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUFPPlatypus/2000/20.html