Whelan offers a reminder that -
Public services are an integral part of our lives. From cradle to grave, Australians receive the benefit of services that are directed, managed and delivered by government employees. The most visible of these public servants are those engaged in direct or ‘frontline’ service delivery: the health professionals and teachers in the public health and education systems, police, armed forces and defence personnel, public transport workers and immigration and customs officers. Less visible, perhaps, are the many public servants who develop and implement the wide range of government policies and programs that address climate change and protect our environment and natural resources, manage Australia’s finances, uphold human rights and enforce our laws.Whelan comments that -
The Australian Government shares responsibility for the delivery of public services with the governments of five states and two territories. To acquit its responsibilities, the Australian Government employs almost 300,000 people [ie 1.5% of the workforce] in its agencies and departments, statutory authorities and government business entities. Over half of these government employees are employed by the Australian Public Service (APS), making it one of our largest employers and most significant investments. By comparison, Australia’s two largest retail companies, Woolworths and Coles, employ 188,000 and 100,000 people respectively.
Since its inception at the time of Australia’s federation, the APS has grown to constitute approximately 160,000 employees in 130 agencies. To some extent, the activities of these public servants are invisible and taken for granted. Many of us would be hard-pressed to accurately describe our many daily interactions with them. This relatively low level of visibility makes the Australian Public Service a vulnerable target for attack: taken for granted and ignored when it does its work well and criticised when it doesn’t.
Our research has examined APS staffing trends and metrics during the last two decades and found:In asking 'How many public servants are enough?' the report notes that -• The APS experienced a dramatic fluctuation in staffing between 1990 and 2010. Approximately one-third of the APS workforce was retrenched between 1991 and 1999, under the Keating and Howard governments. Most of these retrenchments happened in the early years of the Howard government, when it sacked almost 30,000 APS staff over three years. Although APS staffing levels have almost returned since then to 1991 levels, the Australian population has increased more rapidly.Our analysis contradicts the prevailing rhetoric about a burgeoning public service. On the contrary, the growth of the Australian Public Service has lagged behind the growth of the Australian population.
• Since 1990,there has been a gradual shift towards a more ‘top-heavy’ APS. An increasing proportion of ongoing employees are in Executive or Senior Executive Service (SES) positions. Correspondingly, a decreasing proportion of employees are now in lower level positions.
• There are significant gender-based disparities within the APS workforce. Women are significantly more likely than men to be employed part-time and in non-ongoing (shortterm or casual) positions, and are less likely to be employed in SES positions.
• The APS workforce is less diverse than the Australian community in general, with fewer people with disabilities, fewer Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander employees, and a continued under-representation of women in the senior levels
The size of the public service generates heated political debate. Anti-public service commentators typically resort to the ‘big government’ frame to promote the idea that the APS has too many employees. Conservative politicians, researchers and think tanks assert that the Australian Public Service has grown excessively and that, as a consequence, Australian citizens are over-regulated and excessively taxed.
Julie Novak, a research fellow with the right-wing Institute of Public Affairs, epitomised these arguments recently when she described civilian employees of the Department of Defence as an “army of pen pushers” and referred to public servants engaged in the national preventative health service as “federal health bureaucrats that consume our health budget without providing any medical services”.
Brushing aside the many APS agency functions that are not directly involved in service delivery, Novak sledged the 25% of public servants who “deliver no front-line public service of any kind.” Novak is not alone in this anti-public service rhetoric; she is joined by many Liberal and National Party politicians and, not infrequently, by Labor politicians. Despite speaking highly of the APS, Kevin Rudd also referred to growth in APS staff during the latter years of the Howard Government as “administrative bloating”.
Pledges to reduce the size of public service agencies are a regular feature in the political cycle. In his response to the May 2011 Budget, for instance, Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey promised to “slash” 12,000 public service jobs if the Opposition wins the 2013 election. His pledge is consistent with the Liberal Party’s record: the Howard government cut 10,000 public service jobs in each of the three years after being elected in 1996 before then beginning to restore agencies’ staffing levels. Mr Hockey denied he was ‘Canberra bashing’, and argued that a reduction in APS staff would achieve some kind of equity: "How can you ask Australians to take a haircut if you are not going to do it yourself?" Gary Gray, Special Minister of State & the Public Service, pointed out the inconsistencies of Mr Hockey’s argument by noting the immediate economic consequences of the threatened retrenchments. During the following week, the Minister pointed to a short-term decline in APS staff numbers as evidence that "the bureaucracy has not blown out on Labor’s watch".
Conservative politicians and their allies in right-wing think tanks routinely refer to 'bloated public services'. This rhetoric follows an established pattern. Public service critics assert that there has been an unsustainable growth in public service employees and argue that to balance the budget, the incumbent government must axe thousands of these unnecessary jobs. What exactly is an 'unnecessary' public servant? Logically, one might assume that employees are unnecessary if the public service agency’s function can be effectively performed with fewer employees. In the to-and-fro of political debate, however, 'unnecessary' is rarely defined so carefully. New South Wales Premier Barry O’Farrell justified the retrenchment of 390 public servants because they were not in permanent positions; accusing the former Labor state government of "rorts" by "allowing hundreds of workers without jobs to remain on the payroll".
Public servants on casual, short-term and other forms of non-ongoing tenure are sometimes described as ‘unattached’, and are the first targets for retrenchment. Most people on this ‘unattached’ list are still doing their jobs and have been technically redefined as ‘excess’ to meet budget targets or in response to mergers. Without doubt, the Australian Public Service is larger today than it has been at earlier times. Since its formation, the APS has grown to encompass more than 100 agencies, which collectively employ approximately 160,000 people. Three APS agencies account for almost half this total: Centrelink (16.7%), the Australian Tax Office (14.5%) and Defence (13.2%). The comparative sizes of Centrelink and the ATO are likely to reflect their ‘frontline’ or direct service delivery function.
To interpret the growth in public service employment, contextual factors must be considered including:• the potential for efficiency through technological innovation and program simplificationThe case for a ‘bloated’ public service is generally based on short-term employment patterns and is contradicted by longer-term trends. Between 1991 and 1999, the Keating and Howard governments reduced staff levels across the APS by approximately 50,000 (about one third of the total APS workforce). Since the low point of 1999, staff numbers have gradually returned to early 1990s levels ...
• community expectations about service provision: there is no evidence that we expect less of the Australian Public Service or of state public services. In fact, attitudinal research suggests the contrary. Is it realistic to demand continuous improvement in service provision while cutting thousands of jobs from public service agencies?
• growth in the Australian population: public services are required by a growing number of citizens and
• medium and long term public service employment trends.
