Every ten years or so public debate in Australia starts to focus on big issues we face and the long term policies we need to meet these challenges, writes CPSU National Secretary, Stephen Jones.
Because of the nature of their work, CPSU members will be at the forefront of Australia's response to these big challenges.
The new government has an ambitious agenda on global warming, health reform, education , workplace relations, indigenous disadvantage, telecommunications infrastructure, federation and reshaping our role in the region and the world.
The CPSU wants to work cooperatively with Government to achieve progressive policy objectives. But to make it happen, Australia will need a properly resourced public sector that is made up of skilled, educated, motivated, creative and well paid workers who are committed to long term outcomes.
Our Agenda for Change:
The new Government has inherited a public service with many strengths, but to secure the future it must confront some big challenges. A narrow focus on short term costs and cutting jobs does nothing to address the significant challenges our nation faces.
As CPSU members we too need to develop a new agenda for change. In the short-term we must continue to strive to ensure members' wages keep pace with cost of living increases in an inflationary environment. This is core business. But there are some longer term issues that need to be addressed including:
pay gaps between public and private sector and between APS different agencies
maintaining a skilled workforce in a tight labour market
managing the imminent baby-boomer exodus
ensuring workers with caring responsibilities can balance their work and life
protecting and promoting the value of the public sector
Over the coming months we'll be holding nationwide forums to start a conversation with members about a new CPSU agenda for change. I encourage everyone to get involved and have their say.
agree that unions should focus on pay and conditions but that doesn't mean we can't have a broader effect. I think its important that Australians, generally, know that public servants, while doing their job, have views that don't always coincide with the government of the day and that the policies they administer don't always sit comfortably with their personal and/or collective views. On 1 point: As long as we have "maternity" leave instead of "parental" leave women will continue to be discriminated against in the workplace, for positions and promotions. It's time fathers also took on some of this responsibility and were given equal leave and were expected to take it. I can't really see this working unless it becomes a national system rather than as part of individual agreements. But as a national system a child could be granted a certain amount of parental care (say 12 months) and both parents could take up to (say 6 months). The ideal would be 2 years, in my view, and this could be taken anytime in the first 6 years (sometimes going to school needs some extra care too). This would have to be split equally between parents to make the scheme work.
Posted by:Majah - 4 Aug 2008, 10:55am
I would like to see more succession planning and less 'cannabalism'. Currently many Departments are unwilling (benefit of the doubt says they are unable) to train staff to meet the needs of their areas, preferring to tempt and lure skilled workers to transfer across Government. This is only leaving more 'holes' in Departments and keeps leading to the promotion of people into the empty positions (often before their time). These newly promoted people then don't have the skills to meet the position needs and also get very little training or support. Graduate programs seem to be the only areas that have training and support budgets, grads are able and are more often, encouraged to participate in training, often to the detriment of ongoing employees who have joined through other means (application, transfer etc). Succession planning and common training across Australian Government would allow Departments to promote suitably skilled people and would allow for the need for promotion/mobility particularly attractive to my generation ie. 'Gen Y'.
Posted by:Sharon - 22 Jul 2008, 2:44pm
I would like to see the Rudd government open up a transfer system for Government workers to be able to transfer to another dept at their level or higher as it stands at the moment if you work for one dept and it comes under the same umbrella ie:dept Human Services and you work in Medicare and a job comes up in Centrelink you have to apply externally, making a transfer sysytem would enhance peoples skills in learning and development gaining valuable experience.
Posted by:Lefty From Brisvegas - 1 Jul 2008, 2:13pm
Easy solution to the problems in the public sector: "GET RID OF THE CRUSTY SHELLBACKS WHO JUST WANT TO BUILD AN EMPIRE AND STIFFLE INOVATION". You know, the ones who tell you to do it their way or find another job.
Posted by:Jane - 24 Jun 2008, 1:16pm
I look forward to reading CPSU's Agenda for Change. I'd particularly like to see the CPSU speak out in support of the public sector as the sector best able to deliver government services and programs efficiently and effectively. For too long under the Howard Government, ideology that was biased in favour of the private sector meant that hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars were thrown at the private sector to subsidise them to do what the public sector can do best anyway. Job Network is the obvious example of this bias and waste. For many government services, the profit motive is not appropriate, nor as effective in providing quality services. If the Rudd Government keeps to its commitment to a level playing field as between the public and private sectors, and any assessment of provider is done on the basis of merit not ideology, then this is a good start for future public policy debate.
agree that unions should focus on pay and conditions but that doesn't mean we can't have a broader effect. I think its important that Australians, generally, know that public servants, while doing their job, have views that don't always coincide with the government of the day and that the policies they administer don't always sit comfortably with their personal and/or collective views.
On 1 point:
As long as we have "maternity" leave instead of "parental" leave women will continue to be discriminated against in the workplace, for positions and promotions. It's time fathers also took on some of this responsibility and were given equal leave and were expected to take it.
I can't really see this working unless it becomes a national system rather than as part of individual agreements. But as a national system a child could be granted a certain amount of parental care (say 12 months) and both parents could take up to (say 6 months). The ideal would be 2 years, in my view, and this could be taken anytime in the first 6 years (sometimes going to school needs some extra care too). This would have to be split equally between parents to make the scheme work.
I would like to see more succession planning and less 'cannabalism'. Currently many Departments are unwilling (benefit of the doubt says they are unable) to train staff to meet the needs of their areas, preferring to tempt and lure skilled workers to transfer across Government. This is only leaving more 'holes' in Departments and keeps leading to the promotion of people into the empty positions (often before their time). These newly promoted people then don't have the skills to meet the position needs and also get very little training or support. Graduate programs seem to be the only areas that have training and support budgets, grads are able and are more often, encouraged to participate in training, often to the detriment of ongoing employees who have joined through other means (application, transfer etc). Succession planning and common training across Australian Government would allow Departments to promote suitably skilled people and would allow for the need for promotion/mobility particularly attractive to my generation ie. 'Gen Y'.
I would like to see the Rudd government open up a transfer system for Government workers to be able to transfer to another dept at their level or higher as it stands at the moment if you work for one dept and it comes under the same umbrella ie:dept Human Services and you work in Medicare and a job comes up in Centrelink you have to apply externally, making a transfer sysytem would enhance peoples skills in learning and development gaining valuable experience.
Easy solution to the problems in the public sector: "GET RID OF THE CRUSTY SHELLBACKS WHO JUST WANT TO BUILD AN EMPIRE AND STIFFLE INOVATION". You know, the ones who tell you to do it their way or find another job.
I look forward to reading CPSU's Agenda for Change. I'd particularly like to see the CPSU speak out in support of the public sector as the sector best able to deliver government services and programs efficiently and effectively. For too long under the Howard Government, ideology that was biased in favour of the private sector meant that hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars were thrown at the private sector to subsidise them to do what the public sector can do best anyway. Job Network is the obvious example of this bias and waste. For many government services, the profit motive is not appropriate, nor as effective in providing quality services. If the Rudd Government keeps to its commitment to a level playing field as between the public and private sectors, and any assessment of provider is done on the basis of merit not ideology, then this is a good start for future public policy debate.