As a direct result of the CPSU’s high profile public campaign against arbitrary budget cuts such as the ‘efficiency dividend’, the Rudd Government has announced a Parliamentary enquiry.
The powerful and bipartisan Public Accounts Committee will consider the impact of the ‘razor gang’ on smaller agencies and Canberra's national institutions.
Both Liberal and Labor politicians have expressed concern that bodies such as High Court, the Australian National Audit Office, the Ombudsman and the parliamentary departments were unreasonably affected by the one-off 3.25per cent across-the-board cut.
Stephen Jones, National Secretary of the Community and Public Sector Union, warmly welcomed the inquiry as victory for the community's growing concern about the effects of public service budget cuts.
"The efficiency dividend is a blunt, one size fits all instrument, that is hampering government agencies ability to deliver critical nation building architecture and services for the public.
"We welcome the inquiry as an opportunity to throw the spotlight on the damage being caused by these on-going budget cuts.
"Just this week we have seen the effects of the efficiency dividend with revelations that War Memorial's travelling exhibitions are being cut in half.
"We need to be building a better public service able to assist the government in tackling the nation's long term challenges, not continually cutting and axing its operations.
The CPSU will made a submission to the enquiry and strongly argue for a more sustainable model for all public sector funding.
I have no objection to achieving savings as we should all be striving to deliver government initiatives as efficiently as possible. In far too many cases this is not uppermost in the minds of so many of our managers. There are too few with sufficient skill to accurately cost the implementation of gov't initiatives. Often there are far too many middle (and senior) managers in the Public Service. Their functions/roles need to be properly rationalised. This should easily achieve any savings dividend however to ask for such savings year after year is patently ridiculous.
Posted by:Anne Adams - 16 Jun 2008, 3:43pm
An organisation (such as Defence) that is highly dependant on outsourcing and centralisation will never achieve efficiencies. Centralisation, where they take all the jobs and leave all the work, is only a success in the centre with a subsequent loss of service and increase in workload in the regions. Outsourcing ensures a drop in service at an inflated cost.
Posted by:Me - 15 Jun 2008, 2:20pm
I would like to think the intention of the efficiency dividend was not to realise substantial job losses across the APS or to close regional offices. It appears that the easy out for Angency Heads is find the efficiency dividend within the salaries budget. Once the Public Service has lost their "best and brightest" (because they are the ones who will most easily gain employment elsewhere), the APS will be left with the ongoing problem of attracting quality employees. Who you gonna call?
Posted by:Fin - 13 Jun 2008, 8:51pm
Among other things, APS Certified Agreements provide transparency. When AWAs were first introduced in my workplace, those on them were quite candid about the fact that their contents were a 'secret'. In small agencies in particular, this lack of transparency could quite easily be perceived as a veil for actual or potential rorts ('deals' between individuals, with no collective oversight or scrutiny) with a trickle down effect of less bargaining room for those negotiating CAs. At the very least, transparency should be a given where public expenditure is concerned, especially on APS salaries. The audit should look carefully at the workforce impact of spikes in executive salaries across all departments. Meanwhile, the PM should keep up the efficiency pace !
Posted by:Phil Joyce - 13 Jun 2008, 8:22pm
In considering the impacts of any efficiency dividend, no matter what public service you belong to, not only do the actual services delivered suffer, but, and in many case more importantly, those public servants left behind are faced with excessive workloads in order to fill the gap. Having just gone through and still recovering from the trauma of executive burnout, I know firsthand how excessive workload and diverse responsibilities takes its toll. I have learnt the importance of looking after oneself and your team first, before trying to do the impossible to meet the many priorities faced following budget cuts. It is not always easy and requires strong leadership, but it isn't impossible. I am so concerned about this, that I wrote to the Prime Minister upon hearing how Commonwealth Public Servants were, and still are, being asked to do the impossible. I implored him to recognise, before it was too late, the importance of managing public service stress levels, as without an effective public service we all suffer. I haven't had any response, and judging from the recent press, it would seem that any argument presented about managing stress levels means nothing. While we all recognise that within any public sector environment money will always be tight, our Executives and our Ministers need to reconsider the urgency of many of their priorities and ensure that the delivery of these are reassessed according to available human resources. Ultimately, the delivery of briefs etc to advise a Minister on an issue or the implementation of a program is simply not important in the bigger scheme of things, should those, who have sweated long and hard in providing that information or program, end up breaking down. It simply isn?t worth it and we need to get the message across. Better still get the media to move offshore, as they are often the catalyst that causes the problem in the first place, and often for no other reason other than a headline.
I have no objection to achieving savings as we should all be striving to deliver government initiatives as efficiently as possible. In far too many cases this is not uppermost in the minds of so many of our managers. There are too few with sufficient skill to accurately cost the implementation of gov't initiatives. Often there are far too many middle (and senior) managers in the Public Service. Their functions/roles need to be properly rationalised. This should easily achieve any savings dividend however to ask for such savings year after year is patently ridiculous.
An organisation (such as Defence) that is highly dependant on outsourcing and centralisation will never achieve efficiencies. Centralisation, where they take all the jobs and leave all the work, is only a success in the centre with a subsequent loss of service and increase in workload in the regions. Outsourcing ensures a drop in service at an inflated cost.
I would like to think the intention of the efficiency dividend was not to realise substantial job losses across the APS or to close regional offices. It appears that the easy out for Angency Heads is find the efficiency dividend within the salaries budget. Once the Public Service has lost their "best and brightest" (because they are the ones who will most easily gain employment elsewhere), the APS will be left with the ongoing problem of attracting quality employees. Who you gonna call?
Among other things, APS Certified Agreements provide transparency. When AWAs were first introduced in my workplace, those on them were quite candid about the fact that their contents were a 'secret'. In small agencies in particular, this lack of transparency could quite easily be perceived as a veil for actual or potential rorts ('deals' between individuals, with no collective oversight or scrutiny) with a trickle down effect of less bargaining room for those negotiating CAs. At the very least, transparency should be a given where public expenditure is concerned, especially on APS salaries. The audit should look carefully at the workforce impact of spikes in executive salaries across all departments. Meanwhile, the PM should keep up the efficiency pace !
In considering the impacts of any efficiency dividend, no matter what public service you belong to, not only do the actual services delivered suffer, but, and in many case more importantly, those public servants left behind are faced with excessive workloads in order to fill the gap. Having just gone through and still recovering from the trauma of executive burnout, I know firsthand how excessive workload and diverse responsibilities takes its toll. I have learnt the importance of looking after oneself and your team first, before trying to do the impossible to meet the many priorities faced following budget cuts. It is not always easy and requires strong leadership, but it isn't impossible. I am so concerned about this, that I wrote to the Prime Minister upon hearing how Commonwealth Public Servants were, and still are, being asked to do the impossible. I implored him to recognise, before it was too late, the importance of managing public service stress levels, as without an effective public service we all suffer. I haven't had any response, and judging from the recent press, it would seem that any argument presented about managing stress levels means nothing. While we all recognise that within any public sector environment money will always be tight, our Executives and our Ministers need to reconsider the urgency of many of their priorities and ensure that the delivery of these are reassessed according to available human resources. Ultimately, the delivery of briefs etc to advise a Minister on an issue or the implementation of a program is simply not important in the bigger scheme of things, should those, who have sweated long and hard in providing that information or program, end up breaking down. It simply isn?t worth it and we need to get the message across. Better still get the media to move offshore, as they are often the catalyst that causes the problem in the first place, and often for no other reason other than a headline.