So commerce is efficient? The GFC has demonstrated the old notion privatise profits, make public losses.

Sydney is beset by PPP fiascos, the Airport train line, a multitude of tunnels let alone construction contracts all propped up by the public purse. The Lane Cove tunnel should not benefit from “traffic calming measures” to try to force customers into the tunnel. Let them either win customers or close – that is commerce.

IPA’s criticism is that the Public Service exists. The real criticism should be it has become a play thing of politicians; it exists to make the political masters look good by providing advice. Crean once opined the service exists to provide advice to the minister of the day not serve the public.

The service must have mandates as to what service it is to provide to the public and be given QANGO status to be allowed to get on with the job not be diverted by Ministerial whim. Senior staff’s future must be tied to this, not to short term contracts arbitrated by a politician.

The service does become bloated by middle management. NSW DPI has shrunk by 2/3 yet maintains pretty well the same amount of middle management. That Department also demonstrates the main quality for promotion is sycophancy not competence.

DPI furthermore proves following policies regarding promotions and appointments for other political purposes leads to people who are inept assuming managerial roles. That particular Department, which is representative of all such Departments, now lacks any semblance of credibility or purpose yet the clear community benefit of assuring food security remains.

The Service should be creating value not busily destroying it. IPA’s answer of getting rid of the service won’t solve the community’s need for what the service can achieve. Rebuilding the Service is required.

If commerce is so good why then is the USA going to hell in a hand basket on the back of GFC and all that led to that?

Some of the biggest rip-offs have come via outsourcing government functions.

The halo of evidence-based policy is no more immune from spin and influence than any other approach to policy. Who provides the evidence and how much consultation is involved. Policy has always been evidence-based really - it is not usually made up out of thin air but a response to need. EBP is just a new phrase trotted out by the PR apparatchiks.

While I am highly critical of public service operations from experience, I also know that there are many hard working and committed public servants who are providing necessary services. Unfortunately not many of them are in positions of power and those who do rise through the ranks become subject to the same entrenched cultural barriers as those before them, and if you want a career...well you have to change your loyalties, and those loyalties are not always to the integrity of the services being provided.

There is a need for better public 'service' of that there is no doubt, ironically some of the worst examples come from outsourcing decisions, which may reflect 'savings' in one budgetary area only to find them hidden away in another.

The APS has become too politicised. Howard Government contributed greatly to this process particularly in the arena of national security. Some public servants now resemble political staffers in spinning public policy - spend some time in a Communications area and you will see all the spin you can stomach for a while.

Outsourcing functions is part of the problem. The private sector veritably salivates at the sound of cash registers ringing. versighting outscourcing properly also comes at a cost. There is often no 'real' saving. It just means moving jobs around between the private to the public sector, same cost overall just different window dressing.

But it is also the tendency to bash the public service that encourages people like Hockey and other razor gang types in winning brownie points by being SEEN to cut the APS when really a different picture emerges if you just follow the money.

That's not really evidence for or against what the IPA is saying though, is it?

Speaking in relative terms (the public sector hasn't grown in 20 years) does not validate or invalidate the IPA's claim that it is 'too big'.

Similarly, just saying that a certain portion of the population likes something doesn't mean that that portion of the population is right.

I welcome the Centre's attempt to challenge the ideas of the IPA. But it has to be evidence-based AND logic-based. Throwing out numbers and then claiming victory doesn't stand up if there is no logical consistency.

I wonder if James wages come from the public purse?

Where did you do your research James, would it have been in the Canberra government offices canteens? I doubt you asked anyone around here, if that's the answer.

How many public servants do you have in your unit, gazing at their navels, doing a totally unnecessary make work job? Send a few of them up here, to talk to real people, & you'll have to rewrite this article.

Here's an an example of why we think there are too many public servants.

We have a nice modern hospital in our nearby town.

It employs 175 people. They are,

4 doctors,
2 electronic medical people,
1 dentist,
1 & 1/2 physiotherapists,
& a dozen or so nurses.

Now perhaps, just so we don't get the wrong impression, that there are too many public servants, you could explain what the other 150 or so actually do. They sure don't look after patients.

One important member of staff is the groundsman. He keeps the helipad, & the ambulance parking nice & tidy, so patients can be sent off else where.

It appears all those office staff don't like having sick or injured people around, makes the place so untidy. They move heaven & earth to get rid of anyone before 5.00PM, to avoid overnight stays.

When a friend wanted his aging mother transferred back to the local hospital, after she had a broken arm plastered at a big inner city one, he was told no. They had found she had a high platelet count, & the hospital was not equipped to deal with such patients.

Their suggestion, have her transferred to a local nursing home. It had no doctors, 3 nurses, & about 20 staff, but they considered it better equipped than the hospital, to deal with his mother. Yes right!

Please suggest why we pay 175 public servants to spend their time avoiding doing anything useful.

Then tell us why we should not be rolling on the floor laughing at your article.

I think the author must be right, on the basis of available anecdotal evidence - viz the failures of Serco, the wastage in the school halls project, the deficiencies in the home insulation scheme, the failure of health care to keep up with demand and the consequential rise and rise of private hospitals and clinics, the unenlightening state of the public schools system across Australia, and various debacles in defence provisioning, for example. Some may well argue that such problem areas point to less than prime performance of the public services, state and federal, but there is clear indication of government interference in both prioritising and procedural implementation of programs, mostly for political purposes rather than service to the public, with inevitable consequences. The virtual castration of the various home solar schemes is a prime example of government changing its mind in mid stride through having miscalculated costs and take-up, but equally by shifting priorities with little regard for the consequential damage to industry, to households, and to credibility regarding the supposed underlying objective of taking positive action to reduce emissions.

A public service cannot function efficiently and effectively if policy and programs are changed on whim of the political tide. Neither can a country. Long term objectives and policy need to be set on the basis of determined need and budgetary capacity, and so be immune from whim and fancy or a looming election.

Private sector and public sector both have their place, but the short-sighted quick fix approach of contracting out without adequate evaluation and scrutiny, which is becoming increasingly prevalent, is proving to be an increasingly costly error. If we want the best results and the best bang for our buck, we can only achieve this with an efficient and adequately funded public service, and a far more stable approach to policy development and implementation.

Serco is a disaster, from start to finish.

*Some of the biggest rip-offs have come via outsourcing government functions.*

Pelican, the public service set the terms and conditions. All
that you are implying is that they could not even get that right

The good old IPA never gives up. It caused substantial damage to Victoria in the 1992-99 period, giving the subsequent Labor government a huge job in rebuilding the state over the following eleven years. For an analysis of how the IPA chooses its figures, go to:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/11/02/newspoll-57-43-to-labor-in-victoria-2/comment-page-1/#comments.

If you want to look more specifically at the damage it caused to education in that 1992-99 period and the way in which Labor rebuilt it, go to;
http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/462500.aspx.

I have a very simple chain of logic that I humbly put forward in an effort to resolve the public vs private debate which typically pits the 'left' side of politics against the 'right'.

1. Private is usually more efficient than public, because private has competition.

2. On the other hand, the prime goal of private services is to turn a profit, not to serve the public.

3. This means that if the service is necessary, but real competition is unlikely (for example, the prospect of two hospitals in a small town, or if there is only one set of infrastructure) then it's better to keep it in public hands, because the situation will inevitably result in a monopoly. It will probably be less efficient, but will at least serve the public in a half-assed manner.

4. Public-Private partnerships are the worst possible choice - the inefficiency of the public sector combined with the profit motives of the private, create an unholy alliance of waste and corruption.

There. Was that really so hard?

Yabby
"Pelican, the public service set the terms and conditions. All
that you are implying is that they could not even get that right"

Umm... yes.

Government incompetence does not completely absolve the private sector of rorting, but it is entirely government failure to oversight and to rectify. I thought my post was pretty clear on that.

Saltpetre said it best, there is a place for private and public functions and working out what works in our best interests is the tricky bit. Some of the outsourcing failures are glaring.

TRTL
Well put and there is much in what you summarise

For evidence, attend any major tertiary hospital admissions at the time patients are advised to attend.

Like arriving early for an airline flight, patients are advised to arrive a couple of hours early to enable admission and processing, prior to being prepped and ready for surgery.

A senior doctor will be patrolling the operating suite and will want to know of any theatre why they were not cutting at 8.00am sharp. (pun culturally compulsory)

The patients will typically still be in admissions, which had only skeleton staff until eight, and that grudging number unable to cope with the load, which dutifully turned up early.

Meanwhile upstairs, our hospitals most expensive and skillful people languish.

It's a hospital. As far as I am concerned, hospital admin staff should be available in proper proportion and sufficiently ahead of the full clinical staff, who can and do turn up. If admin want a nine-to-five or eight-to-four, they should go to a branch of the public service that only does those hours.

Don't believe me, go and survey for yourself. The angry senior surgeon might be Dr North, *trying* to fix the problem.

Other staff are underutilised in the absence of surgeons (at say holiday times) because of merely administrative rules limiting the number of holidaying nurses to "three" rather than "in proportion" or "at coordinator's discretion" or even "subject to operational needs". This results in some theatres having 4 or 5 nurses when they would otherwise operate with three and often two if they have to. These same underutilised staff are all accumulating holidays they cannot take because of the rule I mentioned. The recent wardies' strike involved a lot of this.

Go figure. Queensland health must have too much money, just not for health.

Rusty

Well it seems to me that some of these Depts need what any good
business would occasionally do. Examine things from another
perspective.

Like old businesses, where people have been there for years, very
often those near the top just want to preserve the status quo,
as long as their wages are secure, not much else matters.

So bring in a specialist team which looks at waste and how things
are done. They would talk to everyone, from the janitor upwards. Ask
their opinions and how things could be changed for the better.

The job of the team would be to clear out the dead wood and to
suggest management changes to reduce waste.

I betcha they would achieve heaps.

Yabby
Part of the failure of reviews in government depts is the failure to consult with the people actually performing the core functions. Many times consultants are bought in to validate the wishes of the prevailing ethos or management team.

It is a great idea in theory but I am not sure the public service possesses the moral wherewithal to embrace it fully. It certainly neesd another look from the ground up rather than the top down.

Now if we had public service employment contracts, which limited consecutive employment to a maximum of 5 years, we might start to get somewhere. With a minimum 2 years private employment, [not unemployment], before a public position could be recommenced, we just might start to train some of these people in work ethic, & decision making.

We certainly could not do any worse than we do with "career" public servants.

*It certainly neesd another look from the ground up rather than the top down.*

Exactly, Pelican. Sometimes those in positions of power have
absolutaly no interest in changing anything or rocking the boat,
as long as they keep earning their healthy paycheck.

Yet valid suggestions and solutions are plain as day, for others
further down the line. They just don't get a say or a hearing.

An objective analysis from outside the present system, provided
its properly organised and structured, could bring about welcome
changes which simply won't happen while those belligerent ones
with power, rule the roost completely and without proper
scrutiny

We certainly could not do any worse than we do with "career" public servants.

Just for your information, Hasbeen, most public servants do training on ethics and decision-making and other such areas as a matter of course.

People choose to work in the public sector for security. Sure, a lot of us could earn more out in the private sector, and there is steady stream from my area (mining) that leave for that reason. I have worked in both on and off.

It would also be useful to insist that people in the private sector do a couple of years working for government - so that they understand the system they are dealing with.

Working in many government areas is, sometimes, a thankless task. Nobody gives you thanks for doing your job well, but they sure as hell will roast you for doing it badly.

It's a furphy (for shame Graham that such a wonderful Australian colloquialism as "furphy" is deemed a spelling mistake!) that privatisation is more efficient! It depends how you define "efficient". If you mean a service utterly dehumanised, cut to the bone till an equilibrium of maximum profit and minimum service is acheived, then privatisation is the modus operandi. Or if you mean a service or producer cynically devoted to the paying customer, and thus promoting a social ethos of "user pays" and stuff the rest, then yes that's efficient!
When I think of the public service I think of "Yes Minister", but those are romantic bygone days. I listened to a public lecture given by Mungo Maccallum the other week and he assured us that the public service has been put in its place, at least in Australia, and that there's a wall of separation between government and process engineered by the neoliberal assualt against Westen welfare democracies.
How you can have an "efficient" service devoted to excellence that is maximally raped for its profit, is beyond me. Privatisation is predicated on cutting the service/product to the minimal standard permissible without compromising the viability of the business and the dividends to shareholders. There's no margin for pride, satisfaction, craftsmanship or service, unless you pay a premium, and then you get a semblance of the above--patronage, that is.

Hay Phil, does that training include making a decision not to make any decision that might endanger their career.

It must include putting off until after the next election, anything that might cause their masters any problems.

It must include how to pass the buck to the next in tray, & it must include how to get the maximum number of people involved, to maximise the staff level, & minimise the danger of doing anything.

Ethics courses? Yes, and there is a Code of Conduct but these are only as good as the people in management who apply those standards in any complaint managing process.

This is not about bashing the PS only about how it can be improved. Squeers is absolutely right about distinguishing between profit motives and service provision under the umbrella of government services (as paid by taxpayers). Not all services, especially essential services, benefit from private involvement.

It is underfunded because it is just too big.Stop feeding this monster than is stealing our freedoms and lowering our living standards.Public Servants know how to work don't they? Well they can find jobs in private enterprise.

*How you can have an "efficient" service devoted to excellence that is maximally raped for its profit, is beyond me.*

Squeers, I think that you massively overestimate the amount of
actual profit made by many businesses. In many its down to 5%
of turnover.

Far more then that can be saved by simple basic time motion
studies, and systems studies of how people do things. We've
all seen 5 council workers standing around a hole whilst one
actually digs it. etc.

There can be waste in any business, often its just about working
smarter, not harder. Competition simply reminds us that we live
in the real world. All those people staring out of windows watching
the cars going by, are a cost to somebody.

There have been some interesting studies done, about how much
time people actually really spend working at work. Take out the
time on the internet, the time spent on private affairs and all the
rest, some actually don't do a great deal of real work at all.
But they are extremely good at looking busy when the boss is around.

All that waste is at somebody's cost, even if its the taxpayer.

Yabby,
I can't argue with some of your criticism of inefficiencies, but it's not peculiar to the public sector. Just as you say profit margins are often small, but the margins of inefficiency in public-owned industries are not as grotesque as they're often represented by privateers either. I do not believe that the only way to make a business efficient is to expose it to competition, nor that competition necessarily drives efficiency; you can't call the obscene corporate salaries and bonuses and perks and tax breaks and government largesse to attract big business "efficient". Indeed it is grossly inefficient and inflationary and destructive and unsustainable in every way.
In my opinion the whole vast private enterprise sector is at a precipice with competition gone mad and marketing going from hyperbolic to hysterical as the internet age takes over and jaded consumers sicken with their consumptive lifestyles.
In my opinion there may well be a renaissance of publicly-owned and not for profit industries in the not to distant. Even whole communities established on an ethos of sustainable, fulfilling and modest lives--I'd move there!

*Even whole communities established on an ethos of sustainable, fulfilling and modest lives--I'd move there!*

But it already exists, Squeers. Cuba. Only its perhaps not
the perfect nirvana after all, as a whole new set of problems
are created, the law of unintended consequences is never far
away.

"Even whole communities established on an ethos of sustainable, fulfilling and modest lives--I'd move there!"

Me too Squeers.

If you are of my generation that was the experience of my childhood. No rampant consumerism, modest living and a much more caring and sharing culture or mindset.

Rampant consumerism had not raised it's ugly head. And, no I wasn't living in Cuba but 1960s Australia.

*Rampant consumerism had not raised it's ugly head.*

Hang on Pelican. Going shopping is not compulsory!

It's your
generation which has raised a bunch of brats, given them life on
a plate and they now expect it on a plate, with everything that
opens and shuts, right now.

As parents, you and Squeers only have yourselves to blame

Yabby,

The reasons for rampant consumerism are complex in our society. It takes resolve and presence of mind to stop and construct values that differ from the mainstream. In all societies most of the population just drifts in the general direction following the majority.
We have, after all, developed a consumerist paradigm in almost all facets of our daily lives - and that is compounded by a factory-style education system that readies children for their participation in consumer culture.

Try stepping out of the mainstream while residing amidst it - you'll find you not only have to deal with the quizzical inquiry of your fellows, but also the interrogation of your own psychological patterning.

I was a bit before you Pelican, the 50s.

Yeah, I have some great memories, but some aren't that great either.

I remember playing football with the high school football team, at a place called Millthorpe. We were good, & pretty tough, but we lost that one.

It wasn't the 60 square meter pool, in the centre of the field, or the snow. No it was the thick ice on the pool, & the fact that with 3/4 of us playing bare foot, we could not get a grip on the ice.

I remember dad managing to spring for some running shoes, when I made the state titles my last year at school. I'd never had any, & he got them just before the big meet. Pity those new shoes gave me such blisters, I had to run barefoot anyway. Never did tell him.

Then someone gave me a horse. Dad made a bridle out of second hand bailing twine. I platted up reins out of 9 strands of the stuff, but they used to break.

You don't think anyone gave a kid a horse that was any good do you? The damn thing used to bolt, & pull so hard those reins broke. Mum would have had a fit if she'd known. Gee I would have loved some leather ones.

Yeah, I remember the simple times. I'll take a bit more consumerism, rampant or otherwise thanks. Believe it or not, life can get a bit too damn simple.

Have you worked in the Public Sector Hasbeen? Becasue all you are really doing is spouting a caricatured view of the the Public Servant. The opposite of this would be the private sector worker who did nothing but look after himself at the expense of others. Neither of these is correct.

You are obviously very bitter.

No Phil I married one, almost as bad.

Then I had to deal with the buggers, but I had to get things done, not stop them getting done.

Plenty too much experience with them thanks mate.

Hasbeen,

It sounds as though you needed a good "bit" to dampen the ardour of that headstrong nag, and that's an age-old tool. I think the arabs developed some pretty fancy gear early on to manage their preferred choice of feisty transportation, their "chasers of the wind". Lack of means can be a hard task-master, and necessity may not always be matched by inventiveness.

So how can anyone survive nowadays without a mobile, TV, Foxtel and Internet, even a reliable car? We are a gregarious and articulate species, and high tech provides an irresistable means to connect, to be part of the bigger picture, part of a global family. We may ignore our next door neighbour, but we can't stand being our of the loop.

Means must certainly be found to balance needs with sustainability, want with capacity, ambition with wisdom and vision.

Sqeers, Pelican, Poirot, Yabby, and Hasbeen,

We may be getting quite off topic here, but such is life. I suspect Squeers may be a little younger than we other five, but I think we may all recall the "communes" experimentation by some of our era, and some still exist - I'm pretty sure some are persisting in the likes of Byron Bay, Nimbin and Seal Rocks, and there's even one near Gloucester Tops, but of course they'd have a lot more mod-cons these days, with the introduction of solar, etc. Those early commune days were around the start of the free-love era, of the musical "Hair", of Woodstock, and of the "tune in, turn on, and drop out" mantra. Quite a range of motivations, and not all naturalistic, methinks. Nonetheless, good luck to them, but I think the availability of welfare contributed more than a little to the attraction, and I doubt there were too many thriving veggie gardens, and almost certainly nothing like full self-sustainability.

Still, I always felt a bit left out in those days, having entered Nasho's in '65, and missed the rise of Normie Rowe, and a lot more besides. Truth beknown I doubt I have ever caught up, more's the pity.

Getting back to the article. Given the mess private enterprise has made of just about everything, financial, environmental, and copy-catted by public finance extravagance in so many quarters, we are in something of a quandry - greater regulation or greater public sector scope and control? Business as usual certainly does not appear to be a viable option.

I think it will be essential for the public sector to be expanded to have a finger in every pie, but with much greater accountability and transparency than has applied thus far, for there to be any great assurance of the future sustainability of humanity and the environment.

*Try stepping out of the mainstream while residing amidst it - you'll find you not only have to deal with the quizzical inquiry of your fellows, but also the interrogation of your own psychological patterning.*

Hang on Poirot, I've done that all my life lol. People will always
judge and squabble. Ask anyone who works for a large govt dept
or corporation, about that one.

The thing is, I think our society has actually become more tolerant
of alternate views and lifestyles. You can go and live the hippie
lifestyle in the South West forests or you can go and work in central
Perth for a bank or mining company, its really up to you.

Whatever you do, you will never have blanket approval from others.
Best you just do what you think is right and if others don't approve,
well tough titties.

Yabby,

You're right, of course, that if you wish to buck the surrounding cultural trend it is always possible to make your own choices regarding lifestyle. However, for the most part, humans tend to not only mimic, but also compete. Capitalism has proved the perfect system for the display of conspicuous consumption - where man consumes often just to show that he can - not for need or even desire for the product.

Saltpetre,

I enjoyed your reminiscences of the flower-power era. You ask Yabby. I'm sure he thinks I live in the base of tree, wearing cheesecloth and taking great pleasure in tie-dying the family's underwear and chewing sprouts when I'm not posting on OLO : )

*Capitalism has proved the perfect system for the display of conspicuous consumption - where man consumes often just to show that he can - not for need or even desire for the product.*

Well yeah some do. In my experience they are low self esteem
individuals, trying to pretend to be something else to gain
acceptance and praise. The problem is largely psychological IMHO.

OTOH there are also plenty saying they have enough stuff, they
quite enjoy a simpler lifestyle.

*I'm sure he thinks I live in the base of tree*

Not at all Poirot. I think that you probably have a quite successfull
partner, who has a very conventional job, like a shire CEO or
something similar. But you were also born with an enquiring mind,
so all that reading has made you question the system. You might
grow a few vegies and do the simple living thing, but you also mix
within your partners more conventional social circles, thus feel
judged by them about your unconventional viewpoints, like home
schooling etc.

Saltpetre - just one point. I was one of the hippies trying a new way of living in the Northern Rivers district back in the '70's.

It was not the availability of welfare that led us to try and establish alternative lifestyles; it was the lack of jobs;the difficulty of living with the insecurity that comes from an economy that allows such high levels of unemployment, that meant that some of us thought, why knock outselves out looking for jobs that aren't there; lets try and do something different.

It was that far back that some of understood that 'the market' wasn't the solution to all of our problems; that 'working for the man' and climbing the ladder of material success and seeking social status, wasn't going to bring us happiness and freedom.

The appalling blaming of the victim that went on then, the cries of lazy dolebludgers, were damaging to those of us naive enough to believe that we could do something good and right. We were far too naive but I think it is even more obvious now that an alternative to 'the market' is needed for humans to make any more progress.

Mollydukes,

Those were exciting times, and turbulent times, and I look back on them with more than a little fondness. Life certainly did seem simpler then, and all possibility lay before us - albeit the Vietnam war was an absolute downer; I was even arrested at an anti-war rally, and that wasn't one of my most memorable experiences. And two years later I was called up, won the lottery, who would have thought, and the rest is history - but fortunately I didn't go to Vietnam, and only had one near-death experience - with a tree. No regrets there anyway, just part of the journey.

I didn't mean to cast any aspersions on the alternative lifestylers; truth beknown if I wasn't such a staid and whimpy youth I would have liked to have given it a go myself - but we are prisoners of our own skin as it turns out. I had to settle for bushwalking, bagging the occasional bunny, and surf lifesaving. Staid as always. Failed at nearly every opportunity to do something different. More fool me.

"We were far too naive but I think it is even more obvious now that an alternative to 'the market' is needed for humans to make any more progress."

May be you weren't all too naive at all, bucking the system is never easy, and the world has to be grateful for the perennial exhuberance and idealism of youth, without which many wrongs would not have been exposed, or alternatives properly explored, and so it remains today. Our current system has proven itself to be mortally flawed, so something has to change, and we have to hope there will be the right changes. I guess "Occupy" is holding up the banner in one sector, and others are laying down their lives elsewhere for a fair go. God (or at least our thoughts) be with them.