Beginning in 2009–10 all APS entities were required to report in accordance with the Outcomes and Programs Framework, whereby programs provide the link between Australian Government decisions, activities and their actual outcomes. In the Outcomes and Programs Framework, organisations identify and report against the programs that contribute to government outcomes over the budget and forward years. All APS agencies contribute to Portfolio Budget Statements that inform
Parliament and the public of the proposed allocation of Government outcomes. Portfolio budget statements outline: • outcome statements, which specifically articulate the intended results, impacts or consequences of actions by the Government on the Australian community; • programs to address outcomes, which are designed to deliver benefits, services or transfer payments to target groups; and • resourcing information, deliverables and key performance indicators for each program. Annual reports report performance of agencies in relation to services provided. Prior to the introduction of the Outcomes and Programs Framework APS entities reported against an Outcomes and Outputs Framework, which had been introduced in 1999. Reforms have been progressively introduced to the APS with the specific aim of making it more efficient, accountable and responsive to community needs since the mid-1980s. The
Australian National Audit Office provides the Australian Parliament and the public with an independent assessment of selected areas of public administration in the APS, and assurance about APS financial reporting, administration and accountability.
Benchmarking the APS In November 2009,
KPMG published a report benchmarking Australian Public Service performance against international public services. The report found that the APS measured up well against some of the world's leading public services. The report found that the APS is a high performer compared to other public services when it came to: being responsive to economic changes; being independent and values-based; and for proportions of women employed. It found that the APS performed poorly in: its capability for coordinated, informed and strategic policy; its mechanisms for integrating external stakeholders into policy development and service design; and its understanding of government priorities through an overarching framework.
Public opinion and criticism The APS is often the target of public criticism. For example, in 2013, Alan Moran, the director of deregulation at the conservative libertarian think tank the
Institute of Public Affairs, argued that the Australian Government was not seeking enough savings from a bloated Australian Public Service. In October 2013, newly appointed Defence Minister
David Johnston told media he had "inherited a mess" and that he believed that in the Defence department "23,000 public servants is too heavy." The Noetic group said in 2014 that most Australian Public Service organisations could not demonstrate the benefits from large and expensive programs of work. Other commentators, including political scientist
Richard Mulgan, have argued that rhetoric in 2013 about a bloated APS is ill-informed and unsustainable, if service benchmarks are to be met. Rob Burgess, in a
Business Spectator article in November 2012 argued that
efficiency dividends imposed on the public service are actually delivering one of the world's leaner public sectors. ==Personnel organisation==