Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions in Australia

Perceptions of the competence of government institutions, understood as the government’s ability to deliver as per expectations, are an important driver of overall trust in government. The OECD Framework on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions further disaggregates government competence into two dimensions: reliability and responsiveness (Brezzi et al., 2021[1]).

Government reliability is examined through three lenses: protection against emerging risks, safeguarding long-term interests, and evidence-informed policymaking. While citizens feel they will be protected in emergencies, a more citizen-centric and integrated approach to resilience could further enhance this confidence. Additionally, there is more scepticism about the government's ability to balance current and future interests effectively. The chapter then pivots to government responsiveness, analysing overall satisfaction with services, responsiveness to input and feedback, and public sector innovation. Satisfaction with essential services is positive overall, although disparities between population groups persist. The government's responsiveness to feedback is viewed favourably, though challenges remain in balancing standardised and tailored services. While views on public sector innovation are generally positive, ethical and equity concerns persist, particularly in a context of digital transformation.

The OECD Framework on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions identifies reliability as the first pillar of government competence. This encompasses three key aspects: the government’s ability and willingness to protect people’s lives in the event of an emergency, the ability to act effectively on intergenerational and global challenges, and lastly the sound use of evidence in decision-making. The econometric analysis in Chapter 2 provides some crucial insight as to how perception of government reliability drives trust in various Australian public institutions.

Most Australians feel confident that government institutions would protect people's lives in an emergency, surpassing the OECD average. However, Australians are less confident in the government's ability to safeguard long-term interests fairly and effectively. Fewer than half believe the government would adequately balance intergenerational interests—a crucial driver of trust in the federal government and parliament. Additionally, only 43% of Australians think the Australian Public Service prioritises society's long-term interests, an important factor influencing trust in the public service. Evidence-informed policymaking is essential for developing and implementing effective public policies and services in an increasingly volatile and uncertain environment. While half of Australians are confident the government would use the best available evidence when designing policies—exceeding the OECD average by over 10 percentage points—this still suggests room for improvement, especially as this dimension has emerged as one of the strongest drivers of trust in the federal government and parliament.

The most fundamental aspect of reliability is the state's ability to protect citizens' lives and livelihoods against natural hazards and human-made threats. 62% of Australians believe government institutions would be ready to protect people's lives, compared to 53% on average across the OECD (Figure ‎3.1). These positive findings are commendable, especially considering that the data was collected in the fall of 2023—following the extreme bushfire season of 2019–2020, the COVID-19 pandemic, and record flooding in Western Australia.

Australia faces a complex array of challenges in its current operating environment, suggesting effectively protecting people’s lives may become increasingly challenging. These span geopolitical, environmental, and technological domains. The geopolitical landscape is marked by shifting power dynamics, escalating tensions, and accrued risks of foreign interference which not only challenge international norms but also reshape key global relationships. Climate change presents another critical challenge, manifesting in more frequent and severe natural disasters that test Australia's emergency response capabilities and expose vulnerabilities at the intersection of natural hazards and other crises. Furthermore, the country's increasing reliance on digital infrastructure, coupled with the growing threat of cyberattacks, poses substantial risks to both economic resilience and national security (Department of Home Affairs, 2022[2]). In response to these challenges, the OECD advocates for the development of national resilience as a key strategy in the dynamic governance of critical risks, emphasising the importance of adaptive capacity and preparedness in the face of evolving threats. Although the concept has different meanings across policy contexts, the OECD defines resilience as “the capacity of systems to absorb a disturbance, recover from disruptions and adapt to changing conditions while retaining essentially the same function as prior to the disruptive shock” (OECD, 2019[3]; Ablong, 2024[4]). Part of this capacity to absorb and recover from shocks can be derived from democratic institutions and processes. The Strengthening Democracy Taskforce's report on "Strengthening Australian Democracy—A Practical Agenda for Democratic Resilience" notably emphasises that adhering to democratic principles during emergencies and crises is essential for developing trust-building policy solutions (Australian Government - Department of Home Affairs, 2024[5]). The following paragraphs will primarily focus on resilience in the context of pandemics and national disasters in Australia, although a holistic approach to the wide variety of pressures that could create emergencies is inherent to the notion of resilience.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Australian government demonstrated significant adaptive capacity, through several key initiatives aimed at strengthening the nation's ability to respond to future emergencies. These include the establishment of the National Cabinet as a more agile intergovernmental forum, the addition of 'human coronavirus with pandemic potential' to the Biosecurity Act 2015, and increased attention to supply chain (Murphy and Arban, 2021[6]) [C(2023)163]. Notably, the government is establishing an Australian Centre for Disease Control to improve response and preparedness for public health emergencies. This new centre will focus on developing expertise in One Health, which explores the connections between human, animal, and environmental health, as well as improving intelligence on health threats (Australian Government - DHAC, 2024[7]). These measures collectively demonstrate Australia's willingness to learn from past emergencies to become more resilient and prepared in the face of potential future crises.

With regards to preparedness, Australia has established a robust institutional framework for crisis management and risk reduction, characterised by a multi-layered approach (Australian Government - DPMC, 2024[8]). The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) is responsible for maintaining the Australian Government Crisis Management Framework and can initiate and adjust the government's response as needed. The Framework represents the “Government’s capstone policy framing Australia’s national crisis management arrangements” (Australian Government - DPMC, 2024[8]). Several co-ordination mechanisms underpin this approach, including the NSC for ministerial-level decision-making, and the National Co-ordination Mechanism (NCM) for bringing together representatives from different levels of government and non-government entities. State and territory governments are nevertheless primarily responsible for emergency management within their jurisdictions (Parliament of Australia, 2024[9]). Australia also engages the private sector through initiatives like the Trusted Information Sharing Network (TISN) for critical infrastructure resilience, and partners with civil society organisations on projects like 'Climate Resilient by Nature' [C (2023)163].

The country’s strategic framework for natural disaster management is comprehensive, and includes national frameworks and strategies focusing on disaster risk mitigation, adaptation, and resilience improvement, national funding frameworks, and a crisis management framework (Parliament of Australia, 2024[9]). Additionally, the Department of Home Affairs is working in collaboration with relevant agencies to develop a National Resilience Framework (Australian Government - Department of Home Affairs, 2022[10]). The Framework will aim to guide dynamic governance of critical risks and emphasise the important of adaptive capacity and preparedness in the face of evolving threats.

In spite of this robust and comprehensive institutional and strategic framework, the Australian Parliament's Select Committee on Australia's Disaster Resilience interim report highlights ongoing issues with co-ordination and communication in disaster response and recovery (Parliament of Australia, 2024[9]). These challenges, partly attributed to Australia's federal system, impact the effectiveness of the disaster response framework. The report emphasises the need for improved co-ordination across all government levels and sector, highlighting for instance the absence of a national asset register for critical infrastructure and services during disasters. This lack of co-ordination often burdens citizens, causing confusion about accessing necessary resources. To address these challenges and improve trust, all levels of government in Australia could examine how to better co-ordinate to provide more citizen-focused disaster responses, and help individuals better navigate the support and services available to them. An example of such a co-ordinated human-centric approach, which public institutions in Australia could draw inspiration from, is the USA's FEMA Disaster Recovery Centre "one-stop-shops" (Box ‎3.1).

The Australian Government has shown commitment to building resilience but faces challenges in implementing truly anticipatory and holistic mechanisms to anticipate and manage critical risks. In The focus of government efforts have nevertheless largely focused on natural disasters, reflecting Australia's vulnerability to such events, but this narrow scope has limited the integration of resilience concepts into broader national security discussions (Ablong, 2024[12]). The Australian Government is preparing its response to the Glasser Review, which recommends ways to improve national disaster governance by better co-ordinating resilience efforts across climate adaptation and national security areas. Likewise, the inaugural climate risk assessments, although detailed and comprehensive, do not take into consideration the interplay of the identified climate hazards with other types of hazards, geopolitical or technological for instance1 (Australian Government - DCCEEW, 2024[13]). To address complex, transboundary risks in a holistic manner, public institutions could broadly consider the principles of the OECD framework in alignment with current and developing Australian Government risk and crisis management processes (Box ‎3.2). The steps in the OECD framework align with several Australian Government initiatives, notably the Annual Threat Assessment, and the Critical Infrastructure Annual Risk Review, as well as the Crisis Arrangements Committee. Additionally, in 2023 the Commonwealth Risk Management Policy was updated to require non-corporate Commonwealth entities to identify and manage emerging risks.

Australians' perceptions of the ability of institutions to tackle long-term challenges are significantly higher than across the OECD. Nevertheless, less than half of the population expresses confidence in the government's ability in this regard (Figure ‎3.2). 43% of Australians believe that the Australian Public Service looks out for society's long-term interests, a survey question that was only administered in Australia. There is a notable gender gap, with 51% of men holding this view compared to 36% of women. A slightly higher share of the Australian population, 47%, think the government adequately balances current and future generations' interests against 37% on average across the OECD. Again, there is a gender disparity, with 53% of men agreeing compared to 41% of women. Governments face unique challenges when addressing long-term issues like climate change, emerging technology regulation, and housing shortages. These policy problems are often hampered by limited information, clash with the short-term focus of electoral cycles, and risk being seen as technocratic issues divorced from public input.

Australia has developed a robust evidence-base for long-term policy planning, mitigating the challenge of information poverty that often biases governments against long-term investments. The government produces comprehensive intergenerational reports that project economic and budgetary outlooks for the next 40 years, examining the sustainability of current policies in light of demographic and technological trends (Australian Government - Treasury, 2024[15]). Additionally, Australia has successfully institutionalised strategic foresight across its administration, with specialised teams in various government ministries focusing on future planning (OECD, 2022[16]). Initiatives such as the Futures Hub, CSIRO Futures, and the Australasian Joint Agencies Scanning Network, or the Investments Oversight Framework (IOF) further enhance the country's capacity for horizon scanning and trend analysis. Recently legislated, the introduction of Long-term Insights Briefings by the Australian Public Service demonstrates a commitment to examining information about medium-term and long-term trends, risks and opportunities that affect Australia or Australian society, and building institutional knowledge for future-oriented governance (Australian Government - DPMC, 2023[17]; Public Service Amendment Act 2024, 2024[18]).

In addition to initiatives which aim to close the information gap, the incumbent government’s strategic planning activities are critical to ensure the viability of long-term commitments (Ilott et al., 2016[19]). The Australian Public Service (APS) recognises this responsibility, as evidenced by recent amendments to the Public Service Act 1999. These changes introduced a new APS Value of Stewardship defined as anticipating medium and long-term issues, addressing current and future challenges, seizing opportunities, and considering the interests of all Australians (APSC, 2024[20]).

In parallel, it is also crucial to establish a continuous two-way dialogue between governments and the public. This ongoing engagement helps anchor long-term commitments and ensures that policies reflect the needs and perspectives of diverse stakeholders. The value of this two-way dialogue is recognised in the approach to developing Long-term Insights Briefings which must make provision for public consultation. It can not only improve the quality and democratic legitimacy of long-term policies but also increases public ownership over decision made (OECD, 2024[21]). Large-scale deliberative initiatives focusing on long-term issues are not yet common or institutionalised in Australia. Institutionalising these deliberative processes helps maintain continuity across political cycles and enables better long-term planning. A notable example of this institutionalisation is the Permanent Climate Assembly of Brussels, established in 2021. This assembly consists of 100 randomly selected citizens who serve for a period of 18 months, with one-third of the members being replaced every six months. The assembly is tasked with making recommendations on climate policies to the Brussels Parliament, ensuring a consistent citizen voice in climate-related decision-making (OECD, 2024[21]; Assemblée citoyenne pour le climat, 2024[22]). By fostering this ongoing dialogue and establishing permanent deliberative bodies, Australia could create more sustainable solutions to long-term challenges, particularly in policy areas where public buy-in is central. This recommendation aligns with Australia’s commitment to establish “Youth advisory groups” included in the Third National Action Plan under the Open Government Partnership.

Additional data from the OECD Trust Survey sheds further light into Australians' perspectives on specific long-term issues. Notably, 49% of Australians trust the government to appropriately regulate new technologies and facilitate their use by people and businesses, again exceeding the OECD average of 41% Similarly, 49% of Australians are confident that their country's will succeed in reducing greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade, surpassing the OECD average of 42% and showing an increase from 38% in 2021. In both cases, just over 7 in 10 Australians felt the government should make these policy areas priorities (Figure ‎3.3).

The confidence Australians express in the country's ability to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions only partially aligns with the current reality. When adjusted for population, Australia ranks second in GHG emissions among OECD countries, with 19 tonnes per capita in 2020 (Leandro, 2024[23]). The public's optimism could be influenced by various factors, including the complex nature of climate policy, political messaging emphasising carbon neutrality goals, and limited media scrutiny of policy implementation and effectiveness (OECD, 2024[24]).

When examining both the quality and likelihood of meeting established targets, the outlook becomes more nuanced. Australia has committed to achieving net zero emissions by 2050 and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 43% below 2005 levels by 2030, but these goals face substantial challenges due to the country's historical dependence on fossil fuels and its significant mining and agricultural sectors (Leandro, 2024[23]). Current measures under the government’s baseline scenario are projected to keep the country on track, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 42.6% below 2005 levels by 2030 and remaining 3% below Australia’s 2021-2030 emissions budget (Australian Government - DCEEW, 2024[25]). Organisations like Climate Action Tracker nevertheless criticise these targets projections, noting that the 2030 NDC target of 43% reduction falls short of the 1.5°C threshold, and highlighting concerns about the heavy reliance on land sector sequestration calculations, which mask limited progress in actual emissions reduction (Climate Action Tracker, 2024[26]). In light of this complex state of play, the 2023 OECD Economic Surveys: Australia the OECD dedicated a chapter to achieving the transition to net zero in Australia and developed detailed recommendations to support Australia in achieving the transition to net zero (OECD, 2023[27]).

With regards to regulation surrounding technological innovation, Australia's existing regulatory framework appears efficient as reflected in its rankings: it stands 7th out of 25 OECD countries in terms of innovation-active businesses, according to the OECD innovation indicators (OECD, 2023[28]). Additionally, the World Intellectual Property Organization's 2023 Global Innovation Index places Australia 24th out of 132 countries, indicating its strong but still improving position in the global innovation landscape (WIPO, 2023[29]).

Recent government initiatives to gather public and stakeholder input on the adequacy of AI regulatory frameworks have nevertheless revealed a significant lack of public confidence in current institutional and regulatory structures. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet's inaugural Long-term Insights briefing on AI's impact on public service trustworthiness (Australian Government - DPMC, 2023[17])highlighted a global study which found that only 44% of Australians believe AI's benefits outweigh its risks, with 35% agreeing that current institutional safeguards are adequate (Gillespie et al., 2023[30]). Moreover, the Department of Industry, Science and Resources' consultation process for their "Supporting Responsible AI" discussion paper received numerous submissions identifying critical gaps in existing laws (Australian Government - DISR, 2024[31]).

Building trust in the government's ability to effectively and safely harness innovation requires a two-pronged approach. On one hand, there is a need for an updated regulatory framework to address the challenges posed by emerging technologies, particularly AI. The government is actively working on strengthening existing laws and considering mandatory safeguards for high-risk AI applications (Australian Government - DISR, 2024[31]). On the other hand, clear communication efforts are crucial. The Long-Term Insights briefing highlights that there is low awareness of current initiatives and regulatory roles among the public (Australian Government - DPMC, 2023[17]). To build trustworthiness, the government must not only develop robust frameworks but also clearly communicate and explain these initiatives to the community. This includes making information about protections, regulatory responsibilities, and safety measures easily accessible and understandable to the public, especially in a complex and evolving technological landscape.

Evidence-informed policymaking is essential to elaborate and implement effective public policies and services in an increasingly volatile and uncertain environment. However successfully bridging the gap between knowledge formation and policymaking is challenging. Over half of the Australian population (52%) feel confident the government would use the best available evidence when designing policies, over 10 percentage points above the OECD average (41%) (Figure ‎3.4). Although Australia fares better compared to its peers, this represents an interesting area of opportunity given it is one of the largest drivers of trust in the federal government and parliament.

Despite performing well compared to other OECD countries, nearly half of the Australian population perceives government decision-making as opaque. A notable gap exists between supporters and non-supporters of the incumbent party regarding their belief in the government's use of best evidence. While about two-thirds of those who voted for the current party in power believe the government uses the best evidence, only around 40% of those who did not vote for the ruling party think that is likely (Figure ‎3.5). As information environments become increasingly polarised, reaching a consensus on what constitutes the best evidence could potentially become more challenging. This divergence in perceptions could have implications for public trust and public buy-in for policies which require a significant degree of compliance. This underscores the importance of transparency about how government decisions are made (see Section 4.1.1 in Chapter 4).

Australia has made significant progress in enhancing evidence-based policymaking, with practices varying across different policy areas. Australia continues to transparently publish Impact Analysis for relevant policies under the Australian Government Guide to Policy Impact Analysis. These are included with Explanatory Memorandum or Statement giving effect to policies as well as being published on the Office of Impact Analysis website. In line with recommendations from the 2019 Independent Review of the APS, there has been a concerted effort to institutionalise policy evaluation across government sectors (APS Reform, 2023[32]). In July 2023, the government established the Australian Centre of Evaluation to support APS evaluation practices and expertise; and most departments have now established in-house evaluation functions. Moreover, the Budget Process Operational Rules and Cabinet Handbook have been updated to focus on evaluating expenditure and supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives in the policy lifecycle. Additionally, the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) is developing a dedicated "evaluation profession" to attract and retain experts in this field (Australian Public Service Commission, 2024[33]). These initiatives appear to have been effective in shifting the culture, with stakeholders interviewed in the context of this study noting a growing interest in and demand for policy evaluation within the public service.

Other efforts to enhance the use of evidence in Australia's public service have shown mixed progress when comparing guidance from the 2019 Independent review. For instance, the Survey of Trust in Australian Public Services was expanded to include publishing agency-level data in annual reports and providing monthly datasets online and steps are being taken to explore data sharing schemes with researchers. Efforts to formalise regular collaboration between the APS and academia are still underway.

Importantly, stakeholders have noted that the use of evidence tends to be unequal across policy areas, with sectors such as foreign aid, public health, education, and Indigenous affairs emerging as leaders. This suggests that while some progress has been made, there is still significant room for improvement in embedding high-quality research in decision-making processes and strengthening the public service's role as a knowledge broker across all policy domains.

Recognising the importance of addressing interconnected challenges through evidence-informed policymaking (EIPM), seven EU Member States are currently receiving technical support from the European Commission’s Technical Support Instrument (TSI) in this area (European Commission/OECD, 2022[34]). A dedicated framework was developed in the context of this project, to assess the evidence-informed policy making ecosystem in each country (see Box ‎3.3). Carrying out an assessment of this nature could help Australia better achieve its goal of regular and meaningful collaboration between the APS and academia. Drawing on this exercise, the newly established Australian Centre for Evaluation (supported by other existing functions such as the Office of Impact Analysis) has the potential to mature collaboration between the APS and academia and to improve evidence-informed policymaking.

According to the 2023 OECD Trust Survey, Australians have more positive perceptions of government reliability compared to other OECD countries, though there remains room for improvement. While emergency preparedness correlates with higher trust in public institutions across the OECD, this correlation is notably absent in Australia. In a complex and volatile environment, where there is little room for error or oversight, this should nevertheless remain a priority for the government. Improving other dimensions of reliability have the potential to yield more important trust gains. Notably, positive perceptions of the government's ability to balance generational interests boosts trust in federal institutions, while confidence in the Australian Public Service's long-term focus increases public service trust by 8.1 percentage points. Evidence-based decision-making is a significant driver of trust in both the federal government and parliament—with the impact on parliamentary trust in Australia being nearly double the OECD average.

To improve perceptions of government reliability, and strengthen trust, Australia could consider the following:

• Promoting a more citizen-centric and holistic approach to resilience

  • Examine how to co-ordinate across government levels to provide more citizen-focused disaster responses, and help individuals better navigate the support and services available to them.

  • Enhance efforts to overcome silos to develop a whole-of-government approach to managing emerging critical risks.

• Enhancing confidence in the government’s ability to protect long-term interests fairly and effectively

  • Continue to invest in anticipatory and strategic foresight exercises to overcome the poverty of information about longer-term outcomes.

  • Strengthen the institutional framework to mitigate the fragility of long-term commitments in democracies, notably through the APS Stewardship function.

  • Balance this technocratic approach with enhanced mechanisms for citizen participation on long-term issues to promote buy-in.

• Further embedding high-quality research in decision-making processes

  • Envisage assessing the country’s evidence-informed policymaking to strengthen the use of evidence more equally across different commonwealth entities.

The OECD Framework on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions identifies responsiveness as the second pillar of government competence. This covers three dimensions of public governance: satisfaction with essential services; continuous improvement of services and programmes based on public input and feedback, and an innovative civil service. All these dimensions of government responsiveness drive trust in public institutions to varying degrees.

Australians are largely satisfied with the provision of essential services, although satisfaction with administrative services only marginally exceeds the OECD average. This represents an interesting area of opportunity given satisfaction with administrative services emerged as a driver of trust across all four selected public institutions. Nevertheless, important disparities between population groups persist, highlighting the challenges public institutions face in balancing a standardised service offer while tailoring their offer to specific needs. User-centric design and strengthening feedback loops can be a useful lever to mitigate these disparities, and boost satisfaction overall. In this regard, Australia performs rather well, with just under half of Australians consider the government to be responsive to their feedback, outperforming the OECD average. Finally, public sector innovation enables institutions to adapt their approaches to better address citizen expectations and has emerged as an important driver of trust in the federal government and in the public service in Australia. Overall, perceptions of public sector innovation in the country are relatively positive, but equity and ethical concerns persist.

30% of Australian adults consider the availability, quality, and affordability of essential services such as healthcare and education among the top three policy issues in their country, aligning closely with the OECD average (Figure 2.1 in Chapter 2). This emphasis underscores the importance of continual enhancement in public service delivery to maintain and strengthen public trust in Australia's governmental institutions. Public institutions are generally perceived as dependable providers of essential services, such as education or health, with user satisfaction rates surpassing the OECD average. However, satisfaction with administrative services only marginally exceeds the OECD average (Figure ‎3.6).

In Australia, a large majority (71%) of those enrolled in an educational institution in the past two years—or who had a family member enrolled—were satisfied with the educational system (Figure ‎3.6). This share is well above the OECD average of 57% and has risen from 63% in 2021.

Assessments of student performance, including through the internationally comparable 'Programme for International Student Assessment' largely support the positive perceptions of Australia's education system. The 2022 PISA results show Australia ranks 11^th out of 80 countries based on student literacy, science, and math skills (OECD, 2023[35]). Australia's education system is unique, with 31% of children attending government-dependent private schools (also called non-government schools in Australia), more than double the OECD average of 15% (OECD, 2024, p. 190[36]). Despite this highly privatised system, socioeconomic factors influence performance similarly to other OECD countries. In Australia, socio-economic status accounted for 15% of the variation in mathematics performance in PISA 2022, on par with the average across OECD countries (OECD, 2023[35]). However, long-term trends paint a somewhat more nuanced picture of educational outcomes: compared to the early 2000s, current 15-year-old Australian students are scoring at levels expected of 14-year-olds two decades ago in mathematics and reading. Similarly, based on NAPLAN, an assessment tool which tests reading and numeracy in all states and territories against the Australian curriculum only, the Productivity Commission found that results have remained generally flat over time (Productivity Commission, 2022[37]).

This trend of stagnant educational outcomes has unfolded despite substantial funding for education. Australia's education expenditure as a percentage of GDP ranks among the highest in OECD countries (5.8%, 6th out of 36 countries in 2021), and has risen in recent years (OECD, 2024, p. 281[36]; Productivity Commission, 2022[37]). This echoes research suggesting that beyond a certain threshold, how financial resources are used matters more for student performance than the level of investment (OECD, 2023[35]). In Australia in 2022, 61% of students were in schools where principals reported that instruction was hindered by staff shortages, and 27% by inadequate teaching staff (OECD, 2023[35]). This shortage has worsened since 2018 and is likely to remain, as a recent study found that just 41% of surveyed teachers intended to remain in the profession, citing heavy workloads, health concerns, and low professional status (Heffernan et al., 2022[38]). To address these challenges, Australia has developed new strategic priorities through the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement, which notably has “building a strong and sustainable workforce” as one of three priority areas for reform, along with equity and excellence, and well-being for learning and engagement (Australian Government - Department of Education, 2024[39]).

However, the ability to deliver on these priority areas is constrained by Australia’s federal structure. Australia's education system features a shared responsibility between state/territory and federal governments (Australian Government - Department of Education, 2024[40]). States and territories provide most of the recurrent funding and manage the operation of government schools from preschool to secondary level and vocational training, while the Commonwealth leads national educational policies, provides most of the recurrent funding for non-government schools and has responsibility for tertiary education. The OECD Education Policy Outlook for Australia identifies two key challenges: the need for more inclusive involvement of diverse actors in policymaking and the difficulty in implementing national goals consistently across all levels due to varied sub-national contexts. These challenges are crucial to address the success of the new education agreement. (OECD, 2023[41]). A positive example of how Australia is addressing these challenges is the National Teacher Workforce Action Plan (Box ‎3.4).

Satisfaction with the healthcare system in Australia is slightly lower than with the education system, but remains well above the OECD average: 64% of those who used or had a household member use the healthcare system in the past 12 months were satisfied, compared to the OECD average of 52% (Figure ‎3.6). Core indicators from the 2023 edition of Health at a Glance related to health outcomes and access to care suggest this positive perception is warranted (OECD, 2023[42]). Life expectancy at birth in Australia stands at 83 years, two years above the OECD average. Health coverage is excellent, with 100% of the population having coverage through Medicare (OECD, 2023[42]). However, there remains room for improvement regarding the effectiveness of primary and preventive care. For example, in terms of effective primary care, Australia performs worse than the OECD average—654 avoidable hospital admissions (per 100 000 people) compared to the OECD average of 463.

On one hand, the Australian health system appears efficient and well-resourced compared to other OECD countries, with higher public health expenditure (20% vs. 15% OECD average) and better health outcomes (OECD, 2023[42]). Australia also has a slightly above-average number of practicing physicians and nurses per capita. However, the system faces significant workforce challenges which threaten to increase in coming years (Australian Government - AIHW, 2024[43]). The Skills Priority List 2023 report indicates that 82% of health professional occupations were in shortage, particularly in areas like general practice and mental health. This shortage is exacerbated by structural factors, notably global competition for healthcare professionals and Australia's ageing population.

The slightly poorer results with regards to the effectiveness of primary and preventive care should also be interpreted considering the complex nature of the Australian health system’s institutional framework. The federal government is primarily responsible for funding and regulating Medicare (universal health insurance scheme), the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and aged care, whilst also providing significant funding for public hospitals. State and territory governments are responsible for managing public hospitals, ambulance services, and community health services. Local governments play a role in environmental health and some community services (Government of Australia, 2023[44]). This multi-tiered structure can lead to potential gaps in service delivery and challenges in co-ordinating care across different sectors of the health system especially between primary care and hospitals (Angeles, Crosland and Hensher, 2023[45]; OECD, 2015[46]). These issues can also be exacerbated by the fee-for-service funding model, which makes integrated care particularly challenging for patients with complex chronic conditions (Angeles, Crosland and Hensher, 2023[45]). Despite attempts to improve integration through initiatives like Medicare Locals and Primary Health Networks (PHNs), progress towards a cohesive national healthcare system has been limited.

Australia's satisfaction with administrative services shows a mixed picture. While 68% of Australians who used these services in the past year were satisfied, slightly above the OECD average of 66%, the country ranks 14th out of 30 countries. Encouragingly, overall satisfaction (among both users and non-users) has increased from 53% in 2021 to 65% in 2023. Further, while most users are satisfied with various aspects of their last experience with an administrative service, there is more room for improvement in service speed (67% satisfaction) and accessibility through preferred channels (71% satisfaction) (Figure ‎3.7). This area of action represents an important avenue to build trust, as satisfaction with administrative services significantly impacts trust at all levels of government in Australia. Above-average satisfaction is associated with a 5.4 percentage point increase in trust for the federal government, and 5.5 percentage points for both local government and public service.

Administrative services encompass a wide range of governmental functions, including ID applications, birth registrations, and benefit applications. These services are provided by various institutions, at different levels of government. For instance, birth registrations or driver’s licenses are typically handled at the state level, while passport applications are managed by the federal Australian Passport Office. The welfare system, a significant component of administrative services, involves both federal and state governments to a varying extent. In the 2021-22 fiscal year, government welfare spending reached AUD 212.4 billion, with the federal government contributing 88% of this amount (Australian Government - AIHW, 2024[47]). These services are largely overseen by the Minister for Government Services, who also serves as Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). It is anchored within the Department of Social Services, with several agencies responsible for implementation. These include Services Australia (which manages the MyGov online portal and programmes like Centrelink and Medicare Australia) and the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA).

Delivery of administrative services in Australia have faced challenges in recent years, impacting satisfaction levels. Services Australia's reputation suffered due to the "Robodebt" scheme, while staffing issues led to backlogs and increased response times. The government has significantly increased staffing levels to address backlog issues (Government of Australia - DSS, 2024[48]; Services Australia, 2024[49]). Notably, there has been an increase of ongoing staff in frontline service delivery functions from the conversion of casual labour. Similarly, the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS)2 has been under pressure, with an independent review highlighting concerns such as over-reliance on the scheme and financial sustainability (NDIS Review, 2023[50]). In response, the government has created a Disability Reform Roadmap and is developing a Foundational Supports Strategy (Australian Royal Commission, 2023[51]; Australian Government - DSS, 2024[52]).

Although levels of satisfaction with essential services are high in Australia, the OECD Trust Survey reveals notable differences in satisfaction with Australian public services across socio-economic and demographic groups. Disparities in satisfaction with core government services can have significant implications for service uptake, and further compound existing inequalities (OECD, 2023[53]). These differences in satisfaction levels between socio-demographic groups may indicate variations in accessibility, timeliness, or quality of services for people with different backgrounds.

For administrative services, gender, education, and financial concern all play significant roles. Men, individuals with higher levels of educational attainment, and those without financial concerns consistently reported higher satisfaction levels (Figure ‎3.8). Healthcare system satisfaction followed a similar pattern. For example, women tend to be 14 percentage points less satisfied with healthcare services than men. Similarly, those with higher levels of educational attainment, and those without financial worries expressed greater satisfaction. Interestingly, the education system showed less variation, with only financial concern significantly impacting satisfaction levels. Notably, age did not significantly influence satisfaction across any of the three services. The consistent correlation between financial stability and higher satisfaction across all sectors underscores the profound impact of economic well-being on how citizens view and interact with public services in Australia.

This presents a complex challenge for governments, as they must balance the need to streamline service provision out of an efficiency mindset while also catering to the specific needs of diverse groups and delivering on broader societal goals (Nordesjö, Ulmestig and Denvall, 2022[54]). The tension between standardisation and customisation is further complicated by the diversity of services, which cover a wide range of needs and are organised in distinct ways (Baredes, 2022[55]). For instance, some services are more frequently used by certain social groups, while others are compulsory. Additionally, as outlined in prior sections, in Australia many key services involve complex co-ordination arrangements among levels of government, limiting the ability of any single level of government to enact change.

Data on satisfaction with services among Indigenous Australians is scarce, presenting challenges in assessing their experiences with public services and potential impact on trust levels. The OECD Trust Survey did not ask about people’s ethnicity, and other surveys have faced limitations in representativeness (see Box 2.2 in Chapter 2). The Survey on Trust in Australian Public Services sample was not representative of the Indigenous Australian population. Current monitoring efforts primarily focus on socio-economic outcome measures rather than measures of access and quality of public services available to Indigenous Australians and subjective satisfaction levels. Developing measures of service satisfaction that are representative of different population groups, including Indigenous Australians, could provide public institutions with better evidence to address satisfaction gaps.

Nevertheless, recent data on socio-economic outcomes, produced to monitor progress made towards Closing the Gap targets, reveal significant disparities between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and the non-Indigenous population in Australia, suggesting public services are not yet adequately meeting the needs of Indigenous communities. A significant portion (15.4%) of Indigenous Australians live in remote or very remote areas, while 30% reside in the most socioeconomically disadvantaged areas. This geographical and socioeconomic distribution starkly contrasts with non-Indigenous Australians and presents unique challenges for service delivery to Indigenous communities.

In education, 68% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 20–24 years had attained Year 12 or equivalent qualification, compared to 91% among non-Indigenous Australians (Productivity Commission, 2024[56]). This gap widens in remote areas and more disadvantaged socio-economic regions, highlighting the intersection of geographic and economic factors in educational attainment.

Health outcomes also show concerning disparities. Life expectancy for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people remains significantly lower than for non-Indigenous Australians, with gaps of 8.8 years for males and 8.1 years for females in 2020-2022 (Productivity Commission, 2024[57]). These gaps, while smaller than in 2005-2007, have widened since 2015-2017, indicating a regression in progress. As is the case for education metrics, the disparities are even more pronounced in remote and socio-economically disadvantaged areas. However, there are some positive trends, such as the increasing proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander babies born with a healthy birthweight, though this improvement is less evident in remote and disadvantaged areas (Productivity Commission, 2024[58]).

Available data also suggest that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are significantly more likely to require support from administrative and social services compared to the non-Indigenous population. This disparity is starkly illustrated across several key indicators. In child welfare, the rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care remains high, with 57.2 per 1000 children in care as of 2023, compared to just 4.7 per 1000 for non-Indigenous children (Productivity Commission, 2024[59]). The significant employment gap also suggests that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are more likely to need job seeker services, with 55.7% of Indigenous people aged 25-64 years employed in 2021, compared to 77.7% among non-Indigenous people (Productivity Commission, 2024[60]). Housing data adds another layer to this complex picture, with 18.5% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander households residing in social housing in 2021, compared to 3.2% for other households (Productivity Commission, 2024[61]). Notably, the proportion of Indigenous households in social housing increases dramatically with remoteness, reaching 68.7% in very remote areas.

Australia is not alone in facing stark disparities in satisfaction and outcomes between population groups. In 2023, the OECD Council adopted the Recommendation on Human-centred Public Administrative Services, which offers a clear, common framework for designing and delivering government services tailored to people's needs to help bridge these gaps (see Box ‎3.5). The following two sections of this report will examine in more depth Australia’s practices related to this recommendation.

Service and policy design emerges as a crucial lever in mitigating these disparities (OECD, 2022[62]). A human-centred approach involves understanding users and their needs through ongoing measurement and engagement, making the design and delivery process participatory and inclusive, and addressing barriers that prevent people from accessing public services across all channels (see also Sections 4.1 and 4.3 in Chapter 4 on openness and fairness).

To enhance the quality of citizen participation in policy and service design, OECD countries are increasingly investing in building internal capacities and skills within their public service. The OECD Reinforcing Democracy Initiative monitoring report reveals that nearly 80% of surveyed countries have implemented toolkits and guidelines for civil servants on citizen and stakeholder participation, with 64% offering related training programs (OECD, 2024[21]). Australia exemplifies this approach with its comprehensive framework, including a Charter of Partnerships and Engagement, Good Practice Guidance and self-assessment tool for Partnerships and Engagement, as well as the APS Vision for user-centred service excellence which was created by the Australian community (Australian Government - APS Reform, 2024[63]). These resources support public officials in fostering quality external engagement and genuine partnerships in policymaking across various sectors, to better meet people’s needs.

Interviews conducted for this study revealed that public institutions at the Commonwealth level in Australia engage regularly and systematically with a wide variety of actors and stakeholders when designing policies, programmes, and services. However, they tend to interact more with other departments, levels of government, and organised interest groups (both private sector and civil society organisations) rather than directly with citizens. This limited citizen engagement occurs for several reasons: sometimes due to low public knowledge about specific policy areas, sometimes because they believe citizen input is better managed by another institution jointly responsible for the portfolio, or because of challenges in framing the engagement in a way that wouldn't unduly influence the outcomes of the exercise.

While these efforts are commendable, there is a value in developing approaches which focus specifically on engaging citizens or intended users of a service, distinct from stakeholder engagement, which typically includes other interest groups (see also Section 4.1.2 in Chapter 4). The OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation processes highlights the value of this distinction “Stakeholders can provide expertise and more specific input than citizens through mechanisms such as advisory bodies or experts’ panels, whereas citizen participation requires methods that provide the public with the time, information, and resources to produce quality inputs and develop individual or collective recommendations” (OECD, 2022[64]). France, as part of its Open Government Plan, has taken a pioneering step by developing two initiatives to institutionalise citizen engagement in policy and service design (Box ‎3.6).

In parallel, Australia could benefit from developing a civil society organisation (CSO) strategy to enhance its the quality of its engagement with the civil society sector and align with international best practices. Most OECD countries (68% of 32 respondents) have already implemented such frameworks, leaving Australia as one of only seven countries without a CSO strategy (OECD, 2024[21]). This presents an opportunity for Australia to strengthen its approach to civil society engagement. Government strategies to promote an enabling environment for CSOs typically include a definition of civil society, an assessment of the operating environment, a high-level vision for state-CSO engagement (usually focused on democracy, improved service delivery, citizen well-being, civic participation, and social cohesion), and coherent objectives that reflect these priorities (OECD, 2022[65]). A well-designed CSO strategy could support capacity-building among civil society organisations and help public institutions reap more benefits from frequent engagement with these groups.

A second lever to ensure services and programmes meet people’s needs is a robust framework for gathering feedback and carrying out policy evaluations. In 2023, 46% of Australians believed that the government would improve a public service if many people complained, surpassing the OECD average of 39%. This represents a significant increase from 42% in 2021, indicating growing confidence in the government's willingness to address public concerns. Similarly, 45% of Australians feel that a government policy would be changed if a majority expressed opposition, compared to only 37% across the OECD. This perception has also improved from 38% in 2021, suggesting that Australians are increasingly confident in their ability to influence government decisions through collective action (Figure ‎3.9).

The Australian Government employs a comprehensive framework of mechanisms to align its services with the needs and expectations of its citizens, and to facilitate feedback and complaints about various public services. This framework includes direct feedback channels, Ombudsmen at the federal and state levels, consumer protection agencies, the newly established Centre for Evaluation, as well as regular polling and survey exercises.

Despite this robust framework, the 2023 Survey of Trust in Australian Public Services found that just 64% of service users found it was clear they could give feedback about their experience. Of those who did provide feedback, 63% were satisfied with the way the feedback or complaint was handled. This suggests a need to raise greater awareness among the public as to how they can provide feedback, as well as potentially gathering additional data through the Survey of Trust in Australian Public Services as to what type of outcome people would typically seek when submitting feedback or a complaint, as well as disaggregating this data by region.

Gaps in satisfaction and outcomes between Indigenous and non-indigenous citizens tend to require the use of additional levers, as they typically result from a different set of governance failures. A 2019 OECD comparative study of five countries, including Australia, Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, and the United States, revealed that Australia faces the most severe disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, particularly in life expectancy, employment, and education. The study also identified four key governance failures contributing to poor outcomes: inadequate service delivery coherence, insufficient inter-governmental co-ordination, limited Indigenous involvement in decision-making, and inadequate community capacity. These issues stem from historical approaches characterised by spatial blindness and assimilation policies, hindering effective place-based strategies (OECD, 2019[66]).

These governance failures were all echoed by community-controlled organisation leaders interviewed in the context of this study. Interviewees flagged that grant funding model often makes it impossible to make changes in service provision in response to evolving needs, with organisations often managing dozens of funding arrangements for multiple service areas. Block funding was raised as a more promising alternative. The lack of co-ordination across government levels was also identified as a significant issue, in particular when communities straddle different jurisdictions. Innovative approaches in certain policy areas, such as mobile hubs with child welfare officers, able to work across state borders, were identified as positive developments. Crucially, all stakeholders felt a lack of shared decision-making in practice.

These challenges stem from various factors, including jurisdictional complexities, patterns of discrimination or inappropriate engagement, lack of political representation, and resource constraints faced by Indigenous organisations. The priority reform areas in the National Agreement on Closing the Gap seem to align well with the common governance failures identified by the OECD. However, the first review carried out by the Productivity Commission suggests progress in this area remains limited (Box ‎3.7).

Innovation in the public sector is vital for maintaining public trust in government over time. It allows for the development of new approaches to address citizen expectations, as traditional structures and processes in the public sector can fall short in meeting these needs [OECD/LEGAL/0450]. This is often challenging for public administrations, whose systems tend to favour the status quo, a result of the need for stable and dependable government operations.

The OECD Trust Survey found 48% of Australians believe public institutions would adopt innovative ideas to improve services, ranking Australia third in this aspect (Figure ‎3.10). Furthermore, innovation has emerged as a driver of trust in both the federal government and parliament in Australia (see Chapter 2). This contrasts with the OECD overall trend, where innovation only drives trust in local government. These findings suggest that Australia's efforts to foster public sector innovation have been well-received overall and are positively contributing to public trust.

Once a primary focus of public sector reform in Australia, innovation has now become integrated across various objectives, serving as a means rather than an end. This shift is evident in the disbanding of the Public Sector Innovation Network in 2021 and the end of the Public Sector Innovation Awards in 2020 (Australian Government - Department of Industry, 2021[68]) (IPAA, 2024[69]). The 2019 Independent Review of the Australian Public Service highlighted the need for a revitalised innovation culture, redesigned processes, and enhanced capabilities to drive meaningful change, emphasising openness, collaboration, and calculated risk-taking (Independent Review of the APS, 2019[70]). Notably, it found that only 27% of APS employees at the time believed appropriate risk-taking was rewarded, and 44% reported insufficient time for innovation. The independent review’s recommendations included guidance to establish public service innovation incubator, but this item was closed in favor of integrating innovation across various initiatives (Australian Government - APS Reform, 2023[71]).

The Australian government has been actively pursuing digital transformation in the public sector to drive innovation and improve access to government services. Key initiatives include the establishment of the Digital Transformation Agency (DTA) in 2015, which provides strategic leadership and expertise on ICT and digital matters (Parliament of Australia, 2019[72]). The government has also implemented various strategies, such as the Data and Digital Government Strategy released in May 2023, along with other initiatives focusing on hosting, service platforms, cloud technology, and cybersecurity (Australian Public Service Commission, 2023[73]; ILO, 2022[74]) (Parliament of Australia, 2019[72]). These efforts have yielded positive results, with Australia ranking 5th in the OECD's 2023 Digital Government Index and scoring first in the 'digital by design' category (Figure ‎3.11). Additionally, more than 7 in 10 Australians were satisfied with the ease of using a digital service.

One key challenge in delivering on these strategic objectives is the shortfall in digital capabilities within the Australian public service (APS) workforce (Leahy, 2023[75]). The APS Data, Digital, and Cyber Workforce Plan is expected to be released in early 2025. In the meantime, the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) is attempting to address the digital skills gap in APS through a mix of learning opportunities (Burtscher, Piano and Welby, 2024[76]). This includes formal training programs like the "Digital Traineeship Programme" and "Emerging Talent Programmes," which offer work-and-study arrangements to develop digital talent. The APSC has also implemented support activities for digital professionals, such as a career pathfinder tool, communities of practice, and a mobility pilot. Additionally, they offer informal learning activities targeting executives and women in digital leadership roles to strengthen their role in digital transformation. While these initiatives, in particular formal training opportunities, primarily focus on digital professionals, there is potential to expand efforts to target civil servants in non-digital roles more broadly, as is done in Korea for instance (see Box ‎3.8). These efforts could notably involve the APS academy.

Digital transformation can also improve services through data interoperability—the seamless sharing and integration of information across government departments and systems. This can lead to a smoother experience for service users and more comprehensive insights, enabling policymakers to create better-targeted and more efficient public services. Australia performs below the OECD average on openness of government data. The most recent OECD Open, Useful, Reusable Data Index (OURData) ranked Australia 28th out of 36 OECD countries on data openness which measures data availability, data accessibility, and government support to data re-use (OECD, 2023[77]). This gap emerged clearly from interviews held in the context of this study. Interviewees felt data sharing within the Australian government still faces significant challenges due to complex legislative and policy barriers. The situation is further complicated by the federal structure, with states and territories often controlling crucial datasets, for instance academic progression disaggregated by population groups. Trust issues permeate these interactions, with state governments potentially fearing that shared data could be used against them in funding decisions. This lack of trust creates a significant hurdle for evidence-based policymaking and service delivery improvement. The impact of these data sharing difficulties extends beyond government agencies. Indeed, Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations (ACCOs), which play a vital role in service delivery, report substantial challenges in accessing data that could enhance their operations.

Another significant challenge in the digital transformation of public services is ensuring equal access and inclusion. As more services move online, the cost of providing offline alternatives increases, potentially disadvantaging those without internet access or digital skills (OECD, 2024[78]). This "dematerialisation of services" risks creating a divide where the digitally excluded face limited choices and higher costs. Currently, 20% of recent users of an administrative service in Australia report being dissatisfied with the ability to access administrative services through their preferred channel, on par with the OECD average of 21% (Figure ‎3.7). The Australian Digital Inclusion Index (ADII) measures digital inclusion across Access, Affordability, and Digital Ability, and provides some insight as to who might be most at risk of exclusion (Thomas et al., 2023[79]). While national digital inclusion is improving, significant disparities persist. A substantial digital gap exists between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, widening dramatically in remote areas. 9.4% of Australians are considered "highly excluded," particularly older adults and those with lower education levels. Digital inclusion correlates strongly with education, employment, and income, potentially limiting access to crucial government services for those most in need. These findings echo the experiences shared with the OECD during interviews conducted for this study. A leader of an Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisation highlighted a challenge with "MyGov," the online portal for accessing Services Australia's administrative services. The portal only allows one phone number per account, creating difficulties in communities where mobile phones are often shared. To address the exclusionary effects of this digital approach, Services Australia assigned a staff member to work in person at the ACCO's building. This initiative was extremely well-received and proved to be effective in re-building trust with service users, as people needing support could now consult someone face-to-face within a community-controlled organisation.

According to the OECD Trust survey, 56% of Australians feel confident a government institution would only use their personal data for legitimate reasons (see Figure ‎3.12). While this is above the OECD average of 52%, Australia ranks 10^th out of the 30 surveyed countries. This underscores the need to maintain a careful balance between promoting data interoperability and privacy protection. As citizens entrust their personal information to the government, robust safeguards must be in place to prevent privacy violations and inappropriate uses that could erode public trust (Australian Government - DPMC, 2023[17]). The public’s fear in this regard might be informed by the growing number of data breaches experienced by the government, as well as the experience of the Robodebt scheme (OAIC, 2024[80]) (see Box 4.4 in Chapter 4).

In conjunction with efforts to strengthen privacy and security frameworks, as set out in the Data and Digital Government Strategy, Australia could potentially improve trust by allowing citizens greater visibility into what data the government holds about them and how it is used (see also Section 4.1 in Chapter 4). Australians have the right to access government records containing their personal information under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) (OAIC, 2024[81]). However, requests must be made to each agency separately, and organisations can withhold information deemed "frivolous" or charge a fee for providing access. As a result, individuals may find it challenging to gain a comprehensive understanding of the information the government possesses about them or their community, as well as how this data is used. Estonia, for instance, has developed a data tracker that allows citizens to see what data the government holds about them and how it has been used (Box ‎3.9).

According to the 2023 OECD Trust survey, Australia shows better perceptions of government responsiveness compared to OECD averages, though there's room for improvement. While Australians are generally content with essential services, their satisfaction with administrative services only slightly surpasses the OECD average, despite this being a key driver of institutional trust. Population disparities exist, suggesting the need for a more human-centred approach, notably with regards to measurement, engagement, and feedback loops. Regarding public sector innovation, Australians maintain a more positive outlook than other OECD countries, though less than half believe institutions would implement innovative improvements. This belief in institutional innovation uniquely correlates with trust in federal government and parliament in Australia. However, Australians also express stronger concerns about equity and ethics in this context. Notably, public trust in national government and civil service is strongly tied to perceptions of appropriate data handling by public agencies, with this connection being particularly pronounced in Australia compared to other OECD nations.

To improve perceptions of government responsiveness, and strengthen trust, Australia could consider the following:

• Improving the use experience of government services to maintain high satisfaction with essential services

  • Continue to address workforce shortages in key domains, notably teaching staff and health professional occupations, and frontline staff working for Services Australia.

  • Mitigate the effects of intergovernmental co-ordination failures on the provision of dependable essential services, notably by better connecting government services across agency and jurisdictional boundaries.

• Continue investing in a human-centred approach to public service, including through Tailoring policies, programmes, and services to the diverse needs of the population

  • Work towards developing measures of service satisfaction that are representative of different population groups, including Indigenous Australians.

  • Further institutionalise citizen engagement upstream during the problem identification and design phases of the policy cycle.

  • Develop a civil society organisation strategy to enhance civil society capacity and improve the quality of engagement.

  • Raise greater awareness among the public about how they can provide feedback and potentially gather additional data through the Survey of Trust in Australian Public Services as to what type of outcome people would typically seek when submitting feedback or a complaint.

  • In line with the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, move towards shared decision-making and enhanced capacity for community-controlled organisation to improve service responsiveness and policy outcomes for Indigenous Australians.

• Improving the impact of innovation by taking advantage of the digital transformation

  • Expand training opportunities to target civil servants in non-digital roles more broadly.

  • Address shortcomings with regards to the existing legal and institutional framework for data interoperability and political incentives for data sharing, including with ACCOs.

• Balancing digital transformation with ethical and equity considerations:

  • Ensure efforts to promote digital transformation do not compound existing inequalities, notably for Indigenous Australians. Access to services through one’s preferred channel should remain a priority.

  • Continue initiatives to strengthen privacy and security frameworks, as set out in the Data and Digital Government Strategy and explore ways for citizens to gain a comprehensive understanding of the information the government possesses about them or their community and how this data is used.

[12] Ablong, M. (2024), “National resilience Lessons for Australian policy from international experience STRATEGY”, https://www.aspi.org.au/report/national-resilience-lessons-australian-policy-international-experience (accessed on 27 October 2024).

[4] Ablong, M. (2024), National resilience: lessons from Australian policy from international experience, https://ad-aspi.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/2024-02/National%20resilience.pdf?VersionId=i7v1J.m1quta2TKhuQMpzyTKqmMz9eMW.

[45] Angeles, M., P. Crosland and M. Hensher (2023), “Challenges for Medicare and universal health care in Australia since 2000”, The Medical Journal of Australia, Vol. 218/7, pp. 322-329, https://doi.org/10.5694/MJA2.51844.

[32] APS Reform (2023), Recommendation: 26 | Thodey Review Progress Report, https://www.apsreform.gov.au/resources/reports/thodey-review-progress-report-november-2023/recommendation-26 (accessed on 29 October 2024).

[20] APSC (2024), APS Values | Australian Public Service Commission, https://www.apsc.gov.au/working-aps/information-aps-employment/aps-values (accessed on 29 October 2024).

[22] Assemblée citoyenne pour le climat (2024), Cycle 1, https://forum.assembleeclimat.brussels/processes/cycle-1.

[43] Australian Government - AIHW (2024), Health workforce, https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/workforce/health-workforce (accessed on 23 October 2024).

[47] Australian Government - AIHW (2024), Welfare expenditure, https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-welfare/welfare-expenditure (accessed on 13 October 2024).

[63] Australian Government - APS Reform (2024), Good Practice Guidance – Charter of Partnerships and Engagement, https://www.apsreform.gov.au/news/good-practice-guidance-charter-partnerships-and-engagement (accessed on 25 October 2024).

[71] Australian Government - APS Reform (2023), Thodey Review Progress Report as at November 2023: Recommendation: 27, https://www.apsreform.gov.au/resources/reports/thodey-review-progress-report-november-2023/recommendation-27 (accessed on 26 October 2024).

[13] Australian Government - DCCEEW (2024), “National Climate Risk Assessment First pass assessment report”, https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/national-climate-risk-assessment-first-pass-assessment-report-2024.pdf (accessed on 27 October 2024).

[25] Australian Government - DCEEW (2024), Australia’s emissions projections 2024, https://www.dcceew.gov.au/climate-change/publications/australias-emissions-projections-2024.

[40] Australian Government - Department of Education (2024), How schools are funded, https://www.education.gov.au/schooling/how-schools-are-funded#:~:text=Schools%20are%20funded%20through%20a,other%20parental%20or%20private%20contributions. (accessed on 15 October 2024).

[39] Australian Government - Department of Education (2024), The Better and Fairer Schools Agreement (2025-2034), https://www.education.gov.au/recurrent-funding-schools/national-school-reform-agreement/better-and-fairer-schools-agreement-20252034 (accessed on 23 October 2024).

[5] Australian Government - Department of Home Affairs (2024), “Strengthening Australian democracy A practical agenda for democratic resilience Report of the Strengthening Democracy Taskforce”, https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about-us-subsite/files/strengthening-australian-democracy.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2024).

[10] Australian Government - Department of Home Affairs (2022), “Fact Sheet - National Resilience Taskforce”, https://minister.homeaffairs.gov.au/ClareONeil/Documents/factsheet-national-resilience-taskforce.pdf (accessed on 15 December 2023).

[68] Australian Government - Department of Industry, S. (2021), Public Sector Innovation Network relaunch project: Discover | Department of Industry, Science and Resources, https://www.industry.gov.au/news/public-sector-innovation-network-relaunch-project-discover (accessed on 14 December 2023).

[7] Australian Government - DHAC (2024), About the interim Australian Centre for Disease Control (CDC) | Australian Centre for Disease Control, https://www.cdc.gov.au/about/about-interim-australian-centre-disease-control-cdc (accessed on 27 October 2024).

[31] Australian Government - DISR (2024), “Safe and responsible AI in Australia consultation: Australian Government’s interim response”, https://doi.org/10.14264/00d3c94.

[8] Australian Government - DPMC (2024), “Australian Government Crisis Management Framework”, https://www.pmc.gov.au/resources/australian- (accessed on 27 October 2024).

[17] Australian Government - DPMC (2023), “How might artificial intelligence affect the trustworthiness of public service delivery?”, https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/resource/download/ltib-report-how-might-ai-affect-trust-ps-delivery.pdf (accessed on 28 October 2024).

[52] Australian Government - DSS (2024), Disability Reform Roadmap | Department of Social Services, Australian Government, https://www.dss.gov.au/disability-and-carers/disability-reform-roadmap?HTML (accessed on 24 October 2024).

[15] Australian Government - Treasury (2024), Intergenerational reports, https://treasury.gov.au/intergenerational-report (accessed on 29 October 2024).

[33] Australian Public Service Commission (2024), APS Professions, https://www.apsc.gov.au/initiatives-and-programs/aps-professions (accessed on 28 October 2024).

[73] Australian Public Service Commission (2023), Data and Digital Government Strategy, https://www.apsc.gov.au/initiatives-and-programs/workforce-information/research-analysis-and-publications/state-service/state-service-report-2023/aps-future/data-and-digital-government-strategy (accessed on 27 October 2024).

[51] Australian Royal Commission (2023), Final Report | Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/final-report (accessed on 15 December 2023).

[55] Baredes, B. (2022), “Serving citizens: Measuring the performance of services for a better user experience”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 52, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/65223af7-en.

[1] Brezzi, M. et al. (2021), “An updated OECD framework on drivers of trust in public institutions to meet current and future challenges”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 48, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b6c5478c-en.

[76] Burtscher, M., S. Piano and B. Welby (2024), “Developing skills for digital government: A review of good practices across OECD governments”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 303, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f4dab2e9-en.

[26] Climate Action Tracker (2024), Australia, https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/australia/.

[2] Department of Home Affairs (2022), “Department of Home Affairs | Corporate Plan 2022-23”, https://www.pmc.gov.au/government/commonwealth-coat-arms. (accessed on 15 December 2023).

[83] e-Estonia (2019), Data tracker - tool that builds trust in institutions, https://e-estonia.com/data-tracker-build-citizen-trust/ (accessed on 27 October 2024).

[34] European Commission/OECD (2022), “Building capacity for evidence-informed policymaking in governance and public administration in a post-pandemic Europe Athina Manta, DG REFORM”.

[11] FEMA (2024), DRC Locator, https://egateway.fema.gov/ESF6/DRCLocator (accessed on 27 October 2024).

[30] Gillespie, N. et al. (2023), “Trust in Artificial Intelligence: A global study”, https://doi.org/10.14264/00D3C94.

[44] Government of Australia (2023), Health system overview - Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-health/health-system-overview (accessed on 30 October 2023).

[48] Government of Australia - DSS (2024), Services Australia delivers 900,000 claims, reduces call wait times | Department of Social Services Ministers, https://ministers.dss.gov.au/media-releases/15451 (accessed on 24 October 2024).

[38] Heffernan, A. et al. (2022), “‘I cannot sustain the workload and the emotional toll’: Reasons behind Australian teachers’ intentions to leave the profession”, Vol. 66/2, pp. 196-209, https://doi.org/10.1177/00049441221086654.

[74] ILO (2022), “CASE STUDIES Case studies on digital transformation of social security administration and services AUSTRALIA”, http://www.ilo.org/publns (accessed on 13 December 2023).

[19] Ilott, O. et al. (2016), “Making policy stick Tackling long-term challenges in government”, https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/5225%20IFG%20-%20Making%20Policy%20Stick%20WEB.pdf (accessed on 29 October 2024).

[70] Independent Review of the APS (2019), Our public service our future, https://www.pmc.gov.au/resources/independent-review-australian-public-service.

[69] IPAA (2024), Public Sector Innovation Awards - Institute of Public Administration Australia (ACT) Limited | Institute of Public Administration Australia (ACT) Limited, https://act.ipaa.org.au/psinnovationawards/ (accessed on 14 December 2023).

[75] Leahy, P. (2023), Future-proofing the Australian public service, Gov Tech Review, https://www.govtechreview.com.au/content/gov-digital/article/future-proofing-the-australian-public-service-556883435 (accessed on 13 December 2023).

[23] Leandro, A. (2024), “Achieving the transition to net zero in Australia”, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1794, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9a56c9d2-en.

[6] Murphy, J. and E. Arban (2021), “Assessing the Performance of Australian Federalism in Responding to the Pandemic”, Publius, Vol. 51/4, pp. 627-649, https://doi.org/10.1093/PUBLIUS/PJAB026.

[50] NDIS Review (2023), “Working together to deliver the NDIS Independent Review into the National Disability Insurance Scheme”, https://pmc.gov.au/cca (accessed on 24 October 2024).

[54] Nordesjö, K., R. Ulmestig and V. Denvall (2022), “Coping with tensions between standardization and individualization in social assistance”, Nordic Social Work Research, Vol. 12/4, pp. 435-449, https://doi.org/10.1080/2156857X.2020.1835696.

[81] OAIC (2024), Access your personal information, https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/your-privacy-rights/your-personal-information/access-your-personal-information (accessed on 27 October 2024).

[80] OAIC (2024), Report shows highest number of data breaches in 3.5 years, https://www.oaic.gov.au/news/media-centre/report-shows-highest-number-of-data-breaches-in-3.5-years (accessed on 27 October 2024).

[36] OECD (2024), Education at a Glance 2024 OECD Indicators, https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en. (accessed on 23 October 2024).

[14] OECD (2024), “Framework on management of emerging critical risks”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 49, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2f2eddd8-en.

[78] OECD (2024), OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2024 (Volume 1): Embracing the Technology Frontier, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a1689dc5-en.

[24] OECD (2024), OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions – 2024 Results: Building Trust in a Complex Policy Environment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9a20554b-en.

[21] OECD (2024), The OECD Reinforcing Democracy Initiative: Monitoring Report – Assessing Progress and Charting the Way Forward, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9543bcfb-en.

[77] OECD (2023), “2023 OECD Open, Useful and Re-usable data (OURdata) Index: Results and key findings”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 43, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a37f51c3-en.

[28] OECD (2023), Business innovation statistics and indicators, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/business-innovation-statistics-and-indicators.html (accessed on 28 October 2024).

[41] OECD (2023), “Education policy outlook in Australia”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 67, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ce7a0965-en.

[53] OECD (2023), Government at a Glance 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3d5c5d31-en.

[42] OECD (2023), Health at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7a7afb35-en.

[27] OECD (2023), OECD Economic Surveys: Australia 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1794a7c9-en.

[35] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume I and II) - Country Notes: Australia, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2022-results-volume-i-and-ii-country-notes_ed6fbcc5-en/australia_e9346d47-en.html (accessed on 23 October 2024).

[16] OECD (2022), “Foresight and Anticipatory Governance in Practice Lessons in effective foresight institutionalisation PUBE”, http://www.oecd.org/strategic-foresight/ (accessed on 14 December 2023).

[62] OECD (2022), “OECD Good Practice Principles for Public Service Design and Delivery in the Digital Age”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 23, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2ade500b-en.

[64] OECD (2022), OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f765caf6-en.

[65] OECD (2022), The Protection and Promotion of Civic Space: Strengthening Alignment with International Standards and Guidance, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d234e975-en.

[3] OECD (2019), Good Governance for Critical Infrastructure Resilience, OECD Reviews of Risk Management Policies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/02f0e5a0-en.

[66] OECD (2019), Linking Indigenous Communities with Regional Development, OECD Rural Policy Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3203c082-en.

[46] OECD (2015), OECD Reviews of Health Care Quality: Australia 2015: Raising Standards, OECD Reviews of Health Care Quality, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264233836-en.

[82] OECD (n.d.), Building Trust in Public Institutions, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b7d1e606-en.

[9] Parliament of Australia (2024), Chapter 2 - Responding to natural disasters, https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Disaster_Resilience/DisasterResilience/Report/Chapter_2_-_Responding_to_natural_disasters (accessed on 27 October 2024).

[72] Parliament of Australia (2019), Public sector digital transformation: a quick guide – Parliament of Australia, https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1819/Quick_Guides/PSDigitalTransformation (accessed on 13 December 2023).

[58] Productivity Commission (2024), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are born healthy and strong - Dashboard | Closing the Gap Information Repository, https://www.pc.gov.au/closing-the-gap-data/dashboard/se/outcome-area2 (accessed on 26 October 2024).

[59] Productivity Commission (2024), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are not overrepresented in the child protection system - Dashboard | Closing the Gap Information Repository, https://www.pc.gov.au/closing-the-gap-data/dashboard/se/outcome-area12 (accessed on 26 October 2024).

[57] Productivity Commission (2024), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people enjoy long and healthy lives - Dashboard | Closing the Gap Information Repository, https://www.pc.gov.au/closing-the-gap-data/dashboard/se/outcome-area1 (accessed on 26 October 2024).

[56] Productivity Commission (2024), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students achieve their full learning potential - Dashboard | Closing the Gap Information Repository, https://www.pc.gov.au/closing-the-gap-data/dashboard/se/outcome-area5 (accessed on 26 October 2024).

[61] Productivity Commission (2024), Social housing dwellings per 100 households by location - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people secure appropriate, affordable housing that is aligned with their priorities and need - Dashboard | Closing the Gap Information Repository, https://www.pc.gov.au/closing-the-gap-data/dashboard/se/outcome-area9/social-housing (accessed on 26 October 2024).

[60] Productivity Commission (2024), Strong economic participation and development of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities - Dashboard | Closing the Gap Information Repository, https://www.pc.gov.au/closing-the-gap-data/dashboard/se/outcome-area8 (accessed on 26 October 2024).

[67] Productivity Commission (2024), “Volume 1 - Study report - Review of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap”, http://www.pc.gov.au (accessed on 26 October 2024).

[37] Productivity Commission (2022), “Study report - Review of the National School Reform Agreement”, http://www.pc.gov.au (accessed on 23 October 2024).

[18] Public Service Amendment Act 2024 (2024), Public Service Amendment Bill 2023.

[49] Services Australia (2024), “2024-2025 Budget - Additional resources”, https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-05/budget-2024-25-services-australia-1.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2024).

[79] Thomas, J. et al. (2023), Australian Digital Inclusion Index, https://doi.org/10.25916/528s-ny91.

[29] WIPO (2023), Global Innovation Index 2023: Innovation in the face of uncertainty, https://www.wipo.int/web/global-innovation-index/2023/index (accessed on 28 October 2024).