A public future - surviving downsizing and other inroads

Progressive PSA Annual Dinner, Kensington

Where is the NSW Public Sector heading? This is a very relevant question as governments of both labor and liberal persuasions too often resort to downsizing, job cuts, relocations and yet more restructuring.

Public service is no long a given of government policy. And too often the public sector is left to carry responsibility for the consequences of government mismanagement and budget cuts.

To answer the question of where the NSW public sector is heading I looked for the Governments Master Plan. I had no luck.

So I decided to ask questions of NSW ministers to find out why some of these changes were taking place. I asked a series of questions of each Government Minister relating to Departmental relocations.

I specifically asked whether Business cases, in accordance with Premiers Dept Guidelines, had been prepared prior to the decision to relocate Government depts.

I also asked questions relating to the impact on service delivery and the impact on public servants and their families. Unfortunately the three line answer I got from each Minister didn't relate to the questions asked and it appears from the answer that Business cases had not been prepared prior to the decision to move these depts.

One of the Dept relocations which was covered by my questions was the move of the Process Infringement Bureau from Parramatta to Maitland.

You may have read about the problems this dept has been having since its relocation. Given Carr's catch cry for moving Government departments is that it saves money, it is of interest to note that this move appears to have resulted in the loss of 32 million dollars in fines. This occurred because the staff remaining were so overworked that they were unable to collect the fines during the required statutory period.

This loss is now the subject of a Public accounts committee inquiry. In addition The Ombudsman reports that there has been a 200 per cent increase in complaints against the Process Infringement Bureau since the move.

We can only guess at the impact all this has had on Public Servants and their families.

For the Greens we strongly believe that a key government responsibility is to provide a range of quality public services. Clearly governments have the authority to make decisions and we need to ensure that they are accountable for those decisions.

What I mean by that is that it is not enough for a Minister to say in a throw away line that a departmental move will bring jobs to a Regional area and this is all the justification that is required.

There needs to be a proper cost benefit analysis undertaken for any major expenditure. Particularly expenditure on relocations which may have a devastating impact on Government employees.

It is essential that this information is provided otherwise governments leave themselves open to allegations of moving departmental operations to areas so to assist their party's chance in elections in marginal seats.

Another matter of concern to the Greens is this government's attitude to its own employees. An examination of the Premier's Department 'Public Sector Workforce Profile' is informative for what it omits. The Profile makes no mention of Professional Groupings amongst Public servants.

I suppose if you have no idea of what expertise your employees currently have then it makes it much easier to arbitrarily delete their positions. If you only ever portray Public Servants as an homogenous group of pen pushers then it is easier to justify the axing of thousands of public sector jobs.

We know on this score not to expect the government to change its attitude in the near future. This highlights the need for our union, the PSA, to actively market a positive image for Public Servants.

I believe the challenge to lift the profile of NSW Public Servants and to highlight their skills, experience and commitment needs to be addressed. Unfortunately the present government cant be relied on. I think this challenge falls to the Progressives in the PSA.

The Greens believe it is vital that the government thoroughly knows the skills of its workforce and works to foster the commitment of its employees.

If you rob the employees of a sense of commitment to their job by constantly changing the goal posts then the business will suffer.

In my line of work I obviously interact with many public servants and a common refrain I hear these days is that public servants are finding it hard to focus on their job as they are focused on if they will still have a job, and if so what type of job they will have after cutbacks and relocation plans have been put in place.

This uncertainty translates into unacceptable stress for too many public sector workers. And stress impacts on service delivery. It is vital that the Government recognize the impact in cost, service delivery and personal hardship constant unproductive stress results in.

In many public sector workplaces it is thought that about one in five workers compensation claims submitted by NSW Public servants are for stress related illness.

Now those figures are anecdotal - I am still trying to track down studies on this matter. It would be interesting to ascertain these figures as two years ago the Carr government introduced restrictive changes to make it much harder for people to successfully claim for work related stress.

I am sure all these changes - relocation, downsizing and the rest - would be a lot more bearable if public servants could see some service delivery benefits or some significant cost savings. But the changes are happening in a manner which defies logic.

A cynic might say that the issue of marginal seats is a key driver for many of these changes. Year in year out we see a merry-go-round of giving and taking away of public sector jobs from different areas.

The latest Council on the Cost and Quality of Government report (2003) suggests that the number of public servants has remained fairly stable over the five years to 2002. At the same time services provided have increased. That clearly says one-thing - public servants are working harder to maintain the same level of services. I would suggest that is not sustainable.

Curiously this same report also proudly states that office floor space for public servants has decreased by 12% since 1997/8. We could joke about public servants becoming smaller, but the reality is cutbacks are bringing hardship in working conditions.

A picture is emerging here of the profile of public servants. A workforce which can not rely on stability or continuity of employment, a workforce which has no publicly recognized skills and expertise, a workforce which is not expanding but whose workload is increasing in response to population growth.

In order for employees to have a commitment to their jobs, they must feel as if the work they are doing is of value. This is particularly so in the public Service which traditionally attracts people with a strong sense of service.

Tragically the short sighted, often self-serving approach of some governments, results in this goodwill and commitment being squandered. And as we know when there is no accountability in Government decision-making processes its not only Public Servants who suffer but also the community they serve.

But governments change and that's why we need an active Progressive PSA.

Public service is no long a given of government policy. And too often the public sector is left to carry responsibility for the consequences of government mismanagement and budget cuts.

To answer the question of where the NSW public sector is heading I looked for the Governments Master Plan. I had no luck.

So I decided to ask questions of NSW ministers to find out why some of these changes were taking place. I asked a series of questions of each Government Minister relating to Departmental relocations.

I specifically asked whether Business cases, in accordance with Premiers Dept Guidelines, had been prepared prior to the decision to relocate Government depts.

I also asked questions relating to the impact on service delivery and the impact on public servants and their families. Unfortunately the three line answer I got from each Minister didn't relate to the questions asked and it appears from the answer that Business cases had not been prepared prior to the decision to move these depts.

One of the Dept relocations which was covered by my questions was the move of the Process Infringement Bureau from Parramatta to Maitland.

You may have read about the problems this dept has been having since its relocation. Given Carr's catch cry for moving Government departments is that it saves money, it is of interest to note that this move appears to have resulted in the loss of 32 million dollars in fines. This occurred because the staff remaining were so overworked that they were unable to collect the fines during the required statutory period.

This loss is now the subject of a Public accounts committee inquiry. In addition The Ombudsman reports that there has been a 200 per cent increase in complaints against the Process Infringement Bureau since the move.

We can only guess at the impact all this has had on Public Servants and their families.

For the Greens we strongly believe that a key government responsibility is to provide a range of quality public services. Clearly governments have the authority to make decisions and we need to ensure that they are accountable for those decisions.

What I mean by that is that it is not enough for a Minister to say in a throw away line that a departmental move will bring jobs to a Regional area and this is all the justification that is required.

There needs to be a proper cost benefit analysis undertaken for any major expenditure. Particularly expenditure on relocations which may have a devastating impact on Government employees.

It is essential that this information is provided otherwise governments leave themselves open to allegations of moving departmental operations to areas so to assist their party's chance in elections in marginal seats.

Another matter of concern to the Greens is this government's attitude to its own employees. An examination of the Premier's Department 'Public Sector Workforce Profile' is informative for what it omits. The Profile makes no mention of Professional Groupings amongst Public servants.

I suppose if you have no idea of what expertise your employees currently have then it makes it much easier to arbitrarily delete their positions. If you only ever portray Public Servants as an homogenous group of pen pushers then it is easier to justify the axing of thousands of public sector jobs.

We know on this score not to expect the government to change its attitude in the near future. This highlights the need for our union, the PSA, to actively market a positive image for Public Servants.

I believe the challenge to lift the profile of NSW Public Servants and to highlight their skills, experience and commitment needs to be addressed. Unfortunately the present government cant be relied on. I think this challenge falls to the Progressives in the PSA.

The Greens believe it is vital that the government thoroughly knows the skills of its workforce and works to foster the commitment of its employees.

If you rob the employees of a sense of commitment to their job by constantly changing the goal posts then the business will suffer.

In my line of work I obviously interact with many public servants and a common refrain I hear these days is that public servants are finding it hard to focus on their job as they are focused on if they will still have a job, and if so what type of job they will have after cutbacks and relocation plans have been put in place.

This uncertainty translates into unacceptable stress for too many public sector workers. And stress impacts on service delivery. It is vital that the Government recognize the impact in cost, service delivery and personal hardship constant unproductive stress results in.

In many public sector workplaces it is thought that about one in five workers compensation claims submitted by NSW Public servants are for stress related illness.

Now those figures are anecdotal - I am still trying to track down studies on this matter. It would be interesting to ascertain these figures as two years ago the Carr government introduced restrictive changes to make it much harder for people to successfully claim for work related stress.

I am sure all these changes - relocation, downsizing and the rest - would be a lot more bearable if public servants could see some service delivery benefits or some significant cost savings. But the changes are happening in a manner which defies logic.

A cynic might say that the issue of marginal seats is a key driver for many of these changes. Year in year out we see a merry-go-round of giving and taking away of public sector jobs from different areas.

The latest Council on the Cost and Quality of Government report (2003) suggests that the number of public servants has remained fairly stable over the five years to 2002. At the same time services provided have increased. That clearly says one-thing - public servants are working harder to maintain the same level of services. I would suggest that is not sustainable.

Curiously this same report also proudly states that office floor space for public servants has decreased by 12% since 1997/8. We could joke about public servants becoming smaller, but the reality is cutbacks are bringing hardship in working conditions.

A picture is emerging here of the profile of public servants. A workforce which can not rely on stability or continuity of employment, a workforce which has no publicly recognized skills and expertise, a workforce which is not expanding but whose workload is increasing in response to population growth.

In order for employees to have a commitment to their jobs, they must feel as if the work they are doing is of value. This is particularly so in the public Service which traditionally attracts people with a strong sense of service.

Tragically the short sighted, often self-serving approach of some governments, results in this goodwill and commitment being squandered. And as we know when there is no accountability in Government decision-making processes its not only Public Servants who suffer but also the community they serve.

But governments change and that's why we need an active Progressive PSA.