Public servants at the Defence Department are being forced to endure a tortuous 10-step bureaucratic obstacle course just to get routine briefs approved by senior managers, insiders say.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The extreme micro-management, leaked by Defence insiders, suggests that Defence could be facing overwhelming odds as it tries to wage war against its own internal red tape.
But help is at hand; The Canberra Times has pieced together a road map for getting an information brief past Defence's human resources chiefs.
Our easy-to-use guide to the bureaucratic maze is based on the experiences of one exasperated staffer who outlined a ten-step routine to putting together routine documents.
"[Public servant] writes the brief and provides to senior executive (band 1) for review," the source said.
"If approved, brief is forwarded to DPG governance where the admin person (an APS6) reviews the paper and always requests rewrites.
"Brief is updated and forwarded back to Defence People Group governance."
Sound familiar? Send your tips to ps@canberratimes.com.au
But there's more.
"DPG governance forward to senior executive (band 2, First Assistant Secretary for People Solutions) for review.
"DPG governance reviews the feedback from SES2 and forwards brief back to the writer."
But the ordeal is not over, even after five steps with the original public servant then having to "update" their document before it can get moving again.
"Brief is updated and cleared through the SES1 and forwarded to DPG governance.
"DPG governance review again and forward to Deputy Secretary Defence People and Chief of Staff for DEPSEC DP.
"DEPSEC DP and Chief of Staff review and provide feedback that requires changes to the brief.
"DPG governance reviews the feedback and sends back to the writer (again).
"Brief is updated and cleared through SES1 and sent to DPG governance."
Defence is in the process of reinventing itself in the wake of the First Principles Review, which found its bureaucratic structure was "complicated, slow and inefficient" and that "waste, inefficiency and rework are palpable".
The review complained of "institutionalised waste, delayed decisions, flawed execution, duplication, a change-resistant bureaucracy, over-escalation of issues for decision and low engagement levels among employees".
In some cases, the review found an administrative structure of 12 layers between top bosses and frontline staff.
