I am hoping like mad that the Coalition under Abbott will address the dreadful legacy of Labor's Public Service appointments & promotions to the extreme levels of incompetence we have witnessed. We must rid ourselves of the heads of departments & all those other senior bureaucrats who simply fail to perform yet are costing us absolute fortunes.
This notion of promoting someone simply because they applied for the position has just about cost us our future. Why on earth aren't these incompetent bureaucrats demoted or at least moved sideways ? Are the unions that callous that they literally condone such massive waste at the expense of many decent taxpayers ?
We need thinkers & decision makers not highly paid officials who follow orders without intelligent judgement.

Indi, where is you evidence for all you claim about the public service, all the gross incompetence, the massive waste etc. Or is due to your overwhelming hatred of public servants, you do display a rabid intolerance for certain sections of the PS. At the same time you have those that you perceive as 'good' servants of the people, police, nurses, firemen etc.
Because of your distorted and somewhat irrational view of public servants you would like nothing better than to see thousands of your fellow hardworking Australians and their families consigned to the scrap heap of unemployment and poverty all to satisfy some irrational hang up of yours!

Paul1405,
I seem to be hitting a nerve with with you at almost every post. I have the proof, can you prove me wrong ?

Individual & Paul,

I certainly hope that the Abbott government, in tandem with Warren Mundine's new committee, hacks into the Indigenous bureaucracy and consigns " ... thousands of [my] fellow .... Australians .... to the scrap heap of unemployment ... "

I've worked in a number of Aboriginal organisations, mainly in tertiary education, and have invariably been confronted by " ... the gross incompetence, the massive waste .... " of their management, as well as the bullying, tunnel-vision, racism against both whites and their 'own' people. For example, in one case, the 'managers' assumed that all Indigenous students should do 'Black' courses not 'white', mainstream courses and dismissed staff more or less on that basis.

As well, I have been amazed at the uselessness and parasitism of so many organisations (all on the public purse), and a vile tendency to pathologise their own people and THEN pretend to provide services for them on that basis. Lifelong parasites.

Away with all pests.

Joe

Loudmouth,
Putting people on the scrap heap & increasing unemployment is not what would help this country to get back on track. Demotion & sideways movement of incompetent people achieves efficiency.

Individual, I'm with Loudmouth, keeping useless people on the public payroll is the worst policy possible.

If you see their pay as a way of getting cash into the economy, do it a different way. Raise pensions, or build a road, or fund work gangs to clear rubber vine, & prickly acacia, but stop wasting taxpayer money on these fools. In fact making an example of them may actually cause them to be of some use.

You could even employ the same people on work gangs, but paid what they are worth, & do some good, but sideways promotion is what has made higher education & the bureaucracy so damn inefficient in Oz.

Paul 1405>> Indi, where is you evidence for all you claim about the public service, all the gross incompetence, the massive waste etc. <<

Paul, public servants are less productive than the private sector because they know they will not be “consigned to the scrap heap” no matter how often they fail to fulfil their job spec.

If you want an example of incompetence, lack of duty of care and ideology over outcomes I give you the State and Federal Education Departments. These imbeciles have delivered a generation of primary age students who came dead last from all the English speaking nations in a UN global literacy study in Dec 2012. Dead last...thats achievement.

If you want an example of waste I tender the State and Federal public servants who controlled the funds given to the BER fiasco. COLA’s that cost $70K before the BER cost $260K during. Demountable buildings that cost $160K before the BER cost $400K during. I won’t bother to outline the “Pink Batts” scam that the PS administered.

Paul>> Because of your distorted and somewhat irrational view of public servants<<

Nah, Indy is not overstating it, Paul ol pal your view is tainted for some reason, but failure is failure and achievement is achievement.

As Jimmy Hendrix said:

"Hey Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand,"

Loudmouth I appreciate your straight down the line impartial logic. So many are tied to the left or the right....but there is a centre, it’s called the bullsheiser free zone, where spades are spades and "to thine own self be true" is practiced rather than the team spin we are bombarded with.

About the first Aussies, if only 30% of all moneys allocated to indigenous and government bodies had reached their recipients by way of self determination programs our indigenous kids wouldn’t have third world mortality rates and adults would not die twenty years earlier than the average Aussie.

Yes bastards on both sides, bastards above and below us, but they are supported by their acolytes, individuals so desperate for an “identity” the spin becomes reality and facts are meaningless. Keep shooting Joe.

Hasbeen,
Yes. I am of the notion to stop at once promoting people to their own level of incompetence i.e. the Peter Principal. Why on Earth does the public Service Union protect those who fail in the position they were promoted to ? Why is there so much defence & support from having these people demoted back to the positions they were of to us in ? Why are these people kept at such huge cost to the rest of us ?
I agree if someone is of no use in an office then put into a road gang & if they're any good then they can work their way up until the are just below their level of incompetence. Problem solved & efficiency guaranteed. I work with engineers on 200 grand plus a year plus all the gallivanting from meeting to meeting yet we lowly tradies are forever sorting out their failed designs. We're the ones who become known as crap stirrers by simply doing better than the engineers on Government contracts given to them by incompetent bureaucrats..

Gee Individual, I don't know how you manage to go on living in this world of so many dreadful '' bureaucrats' and 'academics' that you so hate.
It seems you think ALL university educated people are the scourge on humanity!

For goodness sake, can't you see that there are good and bad workers at all levels of society?
Don't even get me started on tradies, or we will be here all day...

Suseonline,
don't try a Paul1405, it doesn't suit you. Why, you must be one of those people hence your strong worded defence. No-one, not even I say that they're all bad, not even the greater majority of them are. They are however, the cause of much wastage because as the saying goes 'bad things happen when good people do nothing". We're not talking about the good ones because they're pulling their weight. Most people & by that I mean decent, logical thinking people know that & that's why 99% of the focus is on the excessively expensive non-performers commonly referred to as bureaucrats. You know the kind that has to wait for someone else to make a decision.
The ones who turn a blind eye to their superiors bad judgement etc.

Abbott is not shaping up to be a good leader if he signs this agreement.http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/abbott-open-for-business-and-multinational-law-suits/700/ Labor and John Howard refused to sign these agreements.

Arjay,
First you say he is then you say if. give the man a few moments to come to grips with his inheritance from Labor before you accuse him of doing things in your mind.
There's no denying he needs to streamline the public service which has become a career path for hangers-on.
It's time those who actually contribute to our economy rather than just take, get long overdue reward for their efforts.
There is now a very faint flicker at the end of that tunnel where there was merely a black hole until recently.

We shouldn't even call it the "public service".

Servant is the old word meaning employee. But so-called public servants aren't employees of the public at all, they're employees of *the State*. If you doubt that's true, try sacking one of "your" employees and see how you go.

Much of the success of the fraud depends precisely on the assumption, which has no basis in evidence or reason, that the state is the people and the people are the state.

And secondly, in case you haven't noticed, most of what "public servants" do is actually a disservice to the public, actively confiscating their property to pay for violating their liberties.

Even where the state provides services, such as doctors or nurses, that doesn't mean that only the state could provide them, nor that it does so tolerably well. The notion that we can't afford medical services, but somehow they become more affordable if we're forced to pay for them *and* a big fat bureaucracy, is typical of the stupidity of the socialists and statists.

Just be honest and call them state servants or state employees but please, not "public servants" - it's nauseating propaganda.

The ACT is the only mainland jurisdiction with a Labor government. It is also, by definition, the jurisdiction with the highest proportion of public 'servants'. And the highest income per capita, rivalling that of WA. Both progressive AND affluent - how good is that ?

The ACT and the WA governments are the only two which seem to favor an increase in the GST. Am I missing something here ?

Joe
www.firstsources.info

I thought politicians were 'public servants' too.
Many of our politicians appear to be working way past their level of competence from what I can see. A long way past.
As for Tradies and Engineers, there are good and bad in both camps, as there are in most disciplines.
SD

Sorry Individual, but following my experience with white ants I can say that neither Abbot's approach (sacking) or yours (demotion and sideways movement) would work.

Instead, in order to minimise the damage, they should be isolated, well-fed and undisturbed, so they don't feel any difference. Allow them to continue giving orders as usual, only that their phone-lines be crossed so they only talk with each other. Next, introduce them with free unfettered access to recreational drugs and alcohol, but keep out and be patient. It may take a few months, but by the end of the year there won't be any left to collect their salaries.

Just as in any other large organisation, and I have worked for a few, and like society in general you are going to have the lazy, the incompetent, the useless etc, the public service is no exception to the rule.
The question here is how does one deal with what is after all a problem. Firstly you have to identify the problem people concerned, unless they are wearing a sign around their necks proclaiming their incompetence this might prove no easy task. Of course that assumes you yourself are not incompetent at determining incompetency . Then you have to decide what is to be done with these newly found truck loads of incompetents. Some suggest simply sacking is sufficient, I don't agree, much to namby pamby for me, something a public servant might suggest. Others support the harsher penalty of gassing as appropriate, now we are talking turkey! Still others, the more humane suggest some form of isolation, one even suggest the radical solution of recreational drugs, novel, but me thinks unworkable, may create a whole new problem, drug addicts. Oh, what are we going to do?

I am very much on board with this incompetent public servant thing. Just this morning I have been using the "Incompo Meter" to sus out incompetent public servants.

I have taken the liberty of drawing up a short list of incompetent PS's, starting with the "A"'s.

AARDVARK Alowishus... Head Dept of Sunshine and Lollipops $200,000 pa
ARRON Aristole....... Head Dept of Tomfoolery $300,000 pa
ABBOTT Tony.......... Head Dept of Useless Government $500,000 pa

If you should encounter any of the above listed PS's DO NOT APPROACH they are highly incompetent call triple "0" immediate and have your self vaccinated incompetency is highly contagious.

Paul1405,
I have no problem with pruning the public service although I feel that we are doing a great disservice when we lump police, nurses, firemen etc in with the suited PS leeches.
I have no problem with seeing them and their families on the scrap heap and losing their homes and fat car cars. Let them starve like the rest of us pensioners instead of gloating about their exulted positions funded by the public purse.
I think "Yes Minister" now comes home to roost.

Whenever I read attacks on public servants I remember an experience I had working for a state department. We had to monitor our work by filling out a daily timetable over two weeks, broken down into categories eg admin, report, field work. I told my staff to do this honestly (yes, I was a 'manager'). The returned forms, as I expected, included many hours outside 9-5, since we were perpetually understaffed for the work demanded of us, there was a lot of travelling, so it was often necessary to work at night or weekends to meet deadlines. People had amazing commitment, and would often not take available rostered days off, to finish a job.

I wrote a covering memo saying the forms were genuine and proof was available.

Our forms were rejected. We were ordered to redo them, only including work done 9-5. The resulting data was meaningless. My staff's genuine commitment to their work went unrecognised.

A couple of posts imply that incompetent public servants cannot be sacked. I was personally involved in the removal of three people for incompetence/misbehaviour, but it's very important that there is hard evidence and formal processes are followed, to avoid charges of incompetence being used as a cover for firing people due to personal (or political?) animosities.

The biggest problem in my experience is the wholesale removal of good people when governments change. Heads of departments are targeted, not necessarily because for incompetence but because they are seen as a threat (they might not meekly toe the new line, but attempt to give serious advice). There is often a cascade effect, where junior managers are also disposed of as a general clean-out of people with integrity, or where really competent people, who can easily get other jobs, jump before they are pushed.

The result is a loss of good staff when governments change so maybe you should blame politicians rather than public servants. My experience (both state and federal) is that Coalition Governments are more ruthless that Labour (and end up with worse staff). I could give examples, but ... (libel laws apply!)

Public service run institutions are by their very nature less efficient, as their prime objectives are seldom cost saving. A prime example of public service incompetence is Juliar / Dudd's BER school halls disaster.

A survey in 2010 showed that buildings built under the control of the public service cost twice as much as similar buildings built under the control of the independent schools funded by the government.

A recent article also showed that there is an "executive manager" in the public service for roughly 2 people on the ground.

Surgical procedures done in private hospitals are on average about 25% cheaper than in comparable public hospitals,

There is a federal department for education, that does not run a single school.

There was a climate change department whose job was to recycle information from others and justify the carbon tax lie.

The list goes on and on.

Public departments should be restricted to delivering "public" good

SM,

Have you noticed the new government has a rather ecclesiastical ring to it, with an abbott and a couple of bishops, all being run by a cardinal. As you know a cardinal always outranks an abbott, even an incompetent one.

Shadow Minister: Can you give the source of the 'recent article also showed that there is an "executive manager" in the public service for roughly 2 people on the ground.'?

I just did a rough count of the staff in the local office of a department I used to work in and now sometimes do contract work for - 1 manager : ca 15 staff. Now one of those people also has the word 'manager' in his job title, but 90% of what he does is hands-one work; another is a short-term 'project manager' which means he also does most of the work. I also know other regional offices and the HO of this department, and I can't think where the all the 'executive managers' can be (the figures given indicate that 1/3 of the total staff are executive managers.

Dear Chrisgaff1000: I'd be interested to know the names of the public servants you know who are "gloating about their exulted positions funded by the public purse". I might go round and personally punch them up for giving all the public servants I know a bad name.

Since no-one's responded to my previous posts on this subject, I am coming to the conclusion that all the negative comments are based on rumour and prejudice rather than personal experience.

Cossomby,
Working for nothing is a 'SIW' (self inflicted wound) and most people do it, as any social scientist will tell you, either to protect their job because they can't keep up with the work load or because they are a true (psychotic) workaholic.
Why would you want to work for nothing making money for the boss?
Given there is a difference between the public service and private enterprise money doesn't seem to play a role but it can't be denied that the outcomes for the boss are rewards in his grade promotions which are generated for him by the productivity of his staff.
The Public Service Boss loves you dunderheads.

Chris: It didn't work like that in the public service I knew or in the one I still do contract work for. I was a public service middle management 'boss' and there were no 'grade promotions' for me dependent on bullying my staff to be more productive by working unpaid over time (I encouraged people to not work excessively, saying if we don't meet the deadline I'll carry the can. I once got an essential frozen position refilled, by stopping the program - when the Minister complained, I said well, we can't do it without filling the position - it was filled.)

Most people I knew and worked with were doing it for 'public service'. Yes they needed a job to eat and live, but they also wanted to do something useful for the community and for Australia.

In fact the kind of unpleasant attitude towards public servants exemplified in this thread undermines the genuine commitment of public servants. No matter what we do, we're hated, so why bother?

"Why would you want to work for nothing?" Lots of people do - they are called volunteers (St John Ambulance, Bushfire fighters, meals on wheels) - because some things are more important. You may need them someday.

PS The names of those fat cats gloating?

Paul,

Have you noticed that the greens have a somewhat Cultist look about them. Remember a Brown outranks a Green.

There are many hard working public servants a large portion are doing work that is irrelevant. There are also many bone idle ones.

There is the Domino effect to take into consideration as well. The many ineffective can not afford to let the first block fall onto the second, third & so on. Unfortunately, this makes it impossible for the good who do useful work to prove themselves.
The corruption that is now entrenched courtesy of the public service union will rather see decent people get sacked for the wrong-doing of their union-backed superiors & prolong this inefficiency. I am particularly appalled at the amounts of money being literally shoved at consultants hired by bureaucrats to do their work for them. One just has to look at the selection process for public service positions. People are literally forced to lie in order to get a position they're not even capable of executing properly. It really is a sickening show.

As yet there is no satisfactory explanation, or even an explanation, for the explosion in the levels and numbers of middle and senior managers in the APS.

The APS once had a preponderance of juniour staff servicing the public in regions, where the top manager, a regional manager could have been at the APS6 or EL1 level.

Departments like Veterans' Affairs once managed their own buildings, hospitals, rehabilitation and other services directly. Now the clients are largely gone and the hospitals and facilities have been sold. However, while juniour positions were decimated as functions and clients were lost forever, that has not prevented the continual reclassification of senior managers, where likely the same manager was upped levels for doing less of the same work. How does that figure?

Likewise, how does it figure that a function can be privatised yet the same senior manager who managed it so unsuccessfully before that it did not survive contestability is retained and even promoted to 'manage' the contractor? Reviews should look into history.

The other noticeable feature of the federal APS is the apparent favouritism taht occurs. How is it that

My last para above that reads,

"The other noticeable feature of the federal APS is the apparent favouritism that occurs. How is it that"

should be,

"The other noticeable feature of the federal (APS) and State public services is the apparent favouritism that occurs. Particularly noticeable is the mateship among some women, the leftie Old Grrls' networks, that results in the same mates and mates of mates popping up in public agencies. This has been happening for years. It is not 'networking' or affirmative action. It is corruption, plain and simple.

I'm still waiting for some hard evidence of the statements made in this thread.

And, exactly how many of the people posting have worked for the public service?

Cossomby,

You are not for real are you? See here,

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/public-service/topheavy-department-will-shed-its-executives-20130705-2phvk.html

It is not just one report, there are many and as you should be aware, there are many.

What about this? See here,

Executives bloating the bureaucracy with one manager for every 2.5 workers - one manager to every 2.5 ordinary workers..

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/executives-bloating-the-bureaucracy-with-one-manager-for-every-25-workers/story-fn59niix-1226610536522#

onthebeach,
You hit the nail on the head. Nepotism is rife and the best example I can give is Medicare where the jobs are handed to middle aged and over wives and siblings of senior public servants. They don't need the job other than for poker machine money.
Then there are the indigenous community councils where nepotism is the rule. Look at the AEC and the hourly rate they pay teachers to work during the election period.
Look at the housing department staff levels and the child services staff levels. Friends of friends of friends with little qualification (you can pick that up on the job) after you collect your government car.
Read the transcripts of the Royal Commission first session and you will see just how easy it is to get a well paid position without even a Child OK card just so long as you have rels in the job.
Sure the are a few dedicated PS personnel but most are more interested in their pay packet and the superannuation attached to it.
Personally I believe public service jobs should be time shared with unemployed people and spread the money round.

A lack of ethics that flowed down from the top:

http://www.news.com.au/national-news/tony-abbott-warns-gillard-government-over-key-appointments-before-september-14-poll/story-fncynjr2-1226625047282

The first error Rudd made when he beat Howard was not flushing out all the Howard-appointed Godwin Grech's from the Public Service and naively handing out overseas appointments to ex-Liberals.

Howard happily replaced all the Public Service mandarins with his own people and the size of Public Service grew at a higher rate under him than under Labor Governments before and after.

Other public enterprises were flogged off to mates or their boards were stacked with supporters and we will soon see more of the same under Abbott.

Cossomby, we have no doubt that some in the PS work hard but the rules and regulation they create,are killing our economy.

Thank you, onthebeach.

The Australian won't let me read that article without paying.

The Canberra Times is interesting. The Dept Human Services is huge, partly because it is the merger of three already big departments, and it is understandable that there will be some sorting out at management levels.

But that article stated:
"Despite the department's concerns about staffing, it is one of the least top-heavy workplaces in the federal bureaucracy. Only 11.1 per cent of its staff are EL1 or EL2, and only 0.5 per cent are senior executives."

A large staff would be expected in a department with many regional offices. This website gives the details for Centrelink offices: http://data.gov.au/dataset/location-of-centrelink-offices/resource/8873ad66-1093-48a8-87b1-eb2f5fd26dd8.

There are 911 listed, about 300 are full Centrelink Offices, most of the rest are agents, and there are some 'remote area access' points.
The number of offices and the range of things Centrelink handles explains why there are so many staff.

The article also states: "This compares with 26.1 per cent and 1.7 per cent respectively for the bureaucracy as a whole. The Rudd government capped the number of SES officers in the public service in 2010, in response to concerns that the bureaucracy's top ranks had grown too quickly. However, middle-management ranks - the EL officers - have expanded far more quickly than any other group of staff. Over the 10 years to June 2012, the number of EL1 staff grew at triple the rate of the overall bureaucracy."

To assess this, you have to know what sorts of jobs EL officers do, whether the EL category is the result of internal upgrades of existing staff or new appointments. Since EL numbers grew at triple the rate of the overall bureaucracy (ie the El growth was independent of the overall rate), the former explanation seems more likely. Was there organisational restructures, or did an existing category just get a name change?

This is find-outable, but not tonight. But it doesn't immediately prove that the public service is full of no-hopers.

And Chrisgaffe's comments on nepotism don't sound credible - hard evidence please.

Cossomby,

It is simply amazing how easily you pass off a management to staff ratio of one manager to 2.5 staff.

The entry pay to the EL1, the most junior level manager is $115,571 (Office of Financial Management example). That is pay without any other benefits included.

Here is a section of the article you said you could not read,

<THE Australian public service is increasingly top-heavy, with 45,000 officials, or 29 per cent of all permanent employees, now classified as executives.

Analysis by The Australian has found there is now one manager for every 2.5 ordinary workers in the federal bureaucracy.

And the rise in the top five pay grades in Canberra accounts for almost all of the growth in the public service during the past five years, with an annual cost to taxpayers of $1.3 billion for the 10,000-plus extra executives.

Since 1998, the number of middle managers in the federal bureaucracy, known as EL1s and EL2s, has jumped 132 per cent, while the elite, three-grade Senior Executive Service has expanded 78 per cent.

The total number of so-called "ongoing" employees in the Australian Public Service increased by 42 per cent over that period, compared with a 22 per cent rise in the nation's population.

The annual cost to the federal budget of executive remuneration, including salary, superannuation, vehicle allowance and bonus payments, is $6bn.

Public finance experts point to so-called "classification creep" as one of the reasons behind the growth in executive ranks, particularly at the top end, as people move to higher pay grades without a change in the nature of work being performed. Put another way, in many cases executives are performing work that used to be done by staff on lower grades>

Over the past twenty years the imperative in the private sector has been to remove costly management overheads.

Firstly you have to identify the problem people
Paul1405,
Yep, that's where a non-military national service comes into play. It is there that the skills & competence levels can be ascertained & those lacking can then be prevented from becoming a huge burden from the very start. Many public servants aren't bad people they're just not as decent as they should be in order to help stamp out the fort culture. Once they have their foot in the door that's it. The trick is not to let them near the door in first place. After two years, aged 21 in national service at least 85% of freshly minted adults will enter the world of work with a much more defined outlook on life then is presently the case. End result ? A better society !

stamp out the fort culture.
oops, typo, should be rort.

http://www.vexnews.com/2009/05/double-life-why-does-a-lefty-queensland-senator-secretly-live-full-time-in-canberra/

Just spotted the above. A typical rort supported by our tax dollar.

Indi, that is almost as bad as the way Abbott was caught with his snout in the public trough. Ripping off the tax payer to the tune of $9,400 promoting his rubbishy book in 2009. Just can't trust a deceitful politician.
If I rob a bank and get caught will all be forgiven if I simply pay the money back?

Indi. I thought your 'boot camp' idea was dead and buried, not so, I see your have resurrected it again. Is it it still going to be up there in the Deep Deep North, somewhere in wilds of Cape York? Have you put your scheme to Abbott yet? I'm sure he will be very receptive to the idea. How much to do think the government should set aside to get the ball rolling, $20 billion, $30 billion, more? Well if the young folk don't learn anything else at "Boot Camp" they should learn at least how to pluck figures out of the air;
"After two years, aged 21 in national service at least 85% of freshly minted adults will enter the world of work with a much more defined outlook on life" 85%? where did you get that figure from?

where did you get that figure from?
Paul1405,
Two wrongs make a right might cut it with you lot but not with me.
I arrived at 85% from my own observations of watching, listening etc. on decent peoles' remarks re all things society. A little like what can we contibute to our country rather than your notion of how much can we bludge off our country. I found that ex national service people albeit military rather than non-military, are mostly well adjusted & logical unlike your illogical, confused & selfish lot.

On the beach, It's a bit much to criticise me for 'passing off' something I hadn't read. But thank you for the quote from the Australian.

There's a bit of a contradiction between the two articles.
Canberra Times: "... 26.1 per cent (EL) and 1.7 (executive) per cent respectively for the bureaucracy as a whole." This would make roughly a manager : staff ratio of 1:4.

Australian: "Analysis by The Australian has found there is now one manager for every 2.5 ordinary workers in the federal bureaucracy."

Whatever the case, The Australian confirms my guess that this is 'classification creep' - people doing the same job but at a higher grading. Maybe they are really 'ordinary workers' just with a fancy title and more pay? Does having the title 'manager' suddenly turn committed hard-working public servants into gloating fat cats?

As someone said earlier, there are going to be crooks, lazy people etc. in the public service just as there will be in any human organisation. What I'm challenging is the generalisation that all public service managers = lazy rorters, which is as silly as saying all white people = racists.

Re Senator Jan McLucas. Why is her living mainly in Canberra "a typical rort supported by our tax dollar." It might actually be saving us money. She would have to fly back and forward anyway whether she lived most of the time in Canberra or Cairns.

If she was claiming living away from home allowance for time in Canberra outside parliament sitting days (and other work commitments such as committees etc.) then it would be a problem, but the article doesn't make that clear. Nor does it say whether she and/or her partner own the Canberra residence.

The language of the article undermines its credibility; from either side of politics it's easy to pick a dirt job.

For an alternate view on Qld rorts, see the interview with Tony Fitzgerald in last Saturday's The Weekend Australian Magazine. It's the first he's ever given. "Party politics leave me absolutely cold. I cannot believe that people yield up the ability to act in accordance with the directions of he party." It's nice to read something that totally avoids left-bashing or right-bashing.

I mistyped the quote from Tony Fitzgerald:

"Party politics leave me absolutely cold. I cannot believe that people yield up the ability to act in accordance with their conscience in order to act in accordance with the directions of the party."

Why is her living mainly in Canberra "a typical rort supported by our tax dollar."
Cossomby,
It is extremely typical of particularly ALP supporting Public Servants. You see, there are many & I mean many who apply for posts in remote area communities. Now this is where the rorts start. They then fly back to the offices for example in Brisbane & Cairns & whilst there on "government business" they stay in not so cheap Hotels whilst they're raking in rent from their vacated & now rented home. Whilst staying in their home town they receive $256.00 a day living away from home allowance plus several various benefits plus they're building up Gold frequent flyer points for airfares paid for by the taxpayer. You should look into these rorts, it might change the way you view the public service.

Individual: Let's analyse your scenario.

Public servant applies for remote area position; while away, they rent out city home; returning to city office on business, they stay in hotel, receiving living away from home allowance. Because they fly a lot they build up frequent flyer points.

So what would they have to do for you not to label them as rorters?

1. Not apply for remote position? Presumably someone will be appointed. Will all applicants for remote areas positions be rorters by definition? [Assume that it's not applicant's fault that a remote position exists, or that there is no local who could fill it - that's another argument.]

2. Not rent out their house? What if they are paying a substantial mortgage? Should they leave it empty and keep paying the mortgage? If their family stayed in the house while they were away, it would be a typical FIFO situation, OK for companies but not public servants? If the house rented this assumes family goes with them. They would presumably carry the costs of family flights back and forth, schooling if high school age kids stayed behind. They may be paying storage for furniture as well in order to rent out the house (cont.)

(cont.)

3. Refuse to come back to HO meetings? If this was a job requirement, that might be difficult.

4. Refuse to stay in hotels? Of course, they could have left the house empty for this reason. How often would they have to return for you to expect them to stay in the empty house? Once a month? 3-months? 6-months?

5. Refuse to accept the living away from home/ travel allowance? They could carry all the expenses themselves - eating air terminal meals, taxis, eating out when staying in hotels. Surely the issue here is the existence of these allowances - if they exist, can you expect people not to claim them? Should people be out-of-pocket by doing their job? When I was a public servant the daily travel allowance was expected to cover hotel accommodation as well as other expenses.

6. Refuse to accept frequent flyer points? It might be reasonable to have all frequent flyer points for public servants' work travel to be credited to the agency. If that was the official rule, and then an individual took them personally, that would be rorting; but if it's not the official rule, then why is the public servant rorting the system if they take FF points?

How much of this would be necessary for you not to label them a 'rorter'.

I realised as I wrote this that I have been in this position. Appointed by a federal agency to a one-year position (extended to 5) in a rural/remote town; I lived in Sydney, and was able to get my son to house-sit; accommodation was provided - upstairs room over rented office. I had to fly to Canberra regularly. Travel allowance just, sometimes covered expenses. And yes, I did get frequent flyer points. Never worked so hard in my life eg phone call from CEO Friday night, instructed to do field work Saturday, write report Sunday, send it to Canberra for Ministerial meeting Monday morning - (overtime - what's that?)

Cossomby,
They are rorts, accept it or not. We have tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of communication equipment yet these people still gallivant around the country as if there was no tomorrow. So, tell me, what's wasted then, the communication equipment or the airfares ?
If you had any inkling (I believe you actually have hence your objection to my highlighting this) then you would seek the information yourself rather than just defending the rorting.
How about a trip a week ? Are these people so useless that they can't sort things out over the phone or email ? Stop defending it, it IS RORTING ! Full stop ! Some officials have clocked up to $40,000,- in travel in just one month. I'm certain that person isn't a Robinson Crusoe.
And, yes, they should not be able to collect frequent flyer points, they should be pooled for the departments. The reason why it isn't so is proof of the rorting.

Paul1405,
You are A complete pacifistic dunderhead.
Boot camp (and I argued against it) is not a military copycat. It is an attempt bu certain indigenous organizations to improve their cash flow. It will fail.
individual,
The senator from way up north has been a rorter from the first day it entered Parliament. It also has a penchant for sexual encounters of the third kind. I believe they are called 'cougars'

Cossomby,

I am not calling all public servants rorters.

However it is so self evident that it is not worth arguing that political appointments, affirmative action, and the reduction in the powers and scrutiny of the Public Service Board to name a few, have brought corruption into the APS, as well as the claimed but so often untested and unproved, benefits.

The public want an apolitical and merit based public service with core values of professionalism, integrity, impartiality and objectivity. The Northcote-Trevelyan Review (that modernised the UK Civil Service in 1854), could be conducted all over again and come up with the same findings and recommendations in Australia's public services, State and federal.

chrisgaff1000, "Paul1405, You are A complete pacifistic dunderhead." Why the attempt to insult? Which is water off a ducks back. Your post "It is an attempt bu certain indigenous organizations to improve their cash flow. It will fail." Not that I was "talking" to you, and for good reason, your post is senseless clap trap, What are you "talking" about, do you think you have a monopoly on brains or something?

Individual: all you are doing is repeating unsubstantiated allegations. "Some officials have clocked up to $40,000- in travel in just one month" - evidence please.

Some are not credible: "How about a trip a week?" Back to Canberra from a posting in remote Australia once a week? Come on - logistically ridiculous. Some positions might involve a lot of travel to or between several remote locations, but most people stay where the job is located, and yes email and phone and video conferencing is used.

And you are letting anger take over when you "RORT!" - about standard job conditions - pay, travel expenses etc.

I have taken this personally. You are impugning my integrity and that of very many honourable public servants that I know. Further, you scare me. It's disturbing to think that as a really committed Australian public servant, there were other Australians out there who believed I was corrupt by definition, just because I was a public servant.

The increase in this kind of unjustified anger may explain why paramedics and hospital staff get physically attacked these days, and why so many committed public servants get stressed and leave

Come on - logistically ridiculous.
Cossomby,
Really, why not spend a week at Cairns Airport & observe for yourself, why not ask the Public service club err, I mean Qantaslink for their passenger lists & who paid for those airfares. Contact the big flash hotels & ask for their bookings & who paid for most of them. Yes, it does sound far fetched doesn't it but it only sounds far fetched because it is fact. You're asking for evidence on the 40 grand worth of travel. Well, if you're so up to date with the public service then you surely also know that such figures can only be revealed at great cost both financially & in stress level.
Those abuses you talk about are a direct result of people losing it because of too much rorting & nothing being done to stop it. I talk to a lot of people about the situation & let me assure you there's a 99% agreement rate that rorting is more than rife in the public service. You may well feel offended by these allegations but the rest of us are offended by the rorting.

Cossomby,
Come to think of it, there are hundreds of inquiries from someone farting to someone else declaring they're hard done by but, where is there ever an inquiry into public service rorting ?
How is it that half the country believes in these rorts yet no-ne looks into it on an official level ? I tell you why, because it is so big that they're too scared to ruin the rort industry, that's why.

individual,
On the ball as usual you are.
When I was running the only pub/motel in Croydon in west QLD most of my (always the best) accommodation, food and grog was on the government tab usually by indigenous (always half and quarter castes) suits out to help the poor downtrodden brothers of the west. They would stay three or four days and then drive (individually) back to Cairns in their government supplied V8 turbo Toyota 4x4s. Could they drink.
I never ever saw them with clients though.

individual: "You're asking for evidence on the 40 grand worth of travel. Well, if you're so up to date with the public service then you surely also know that such figures can only be revealed at great cost both financially & in stress level."

In other words your allegations are based on speculation and rumour.

Of course there will be some people who take whatever they can get away with, that happens in every human organisation (political parties, business, footie clubs, churches). I'm not condoning it, and there need to be tighter controls everywhere.

What I am challenging is your assumption that all public servants are corrupt and that acceptance of standard pay and conditions is rorting.

Come back when you have hard evidence.

I am challenging is your assumption that all public servants are corrupt and that acceptance of standard pay and conditions is rorting.
Cossomby,
Stop twisting my words ! I didn't say all public servants are rorting, I said there's a lot of rorting going on in the public service. As for hard evidence I suggest you open your eyes & ears & move around outside your comfort zone occasionally.

Talking about management overheads in central office as it were, how come up until relatively recently governments were able to manage with far fewer ministers, parliamentary secretaries and the like that is the case now?

It seems that almost every pollie who is on the government side gets some title that pays mega dollars more and a healthier golden handshake at the end.

I can't be bothered checking, but what is it, 40 or so get a boost? Then there are the committees and so on. Ye gods, if the private sector operated like that.

It seems that it isn't only the bureaucracy that has experienced a proliferation of top dogs to feed. Fortunately the taxpayers have endless patience, or do they?

Fortunately the taxpayers have endless patience, or do they?
onthebeach,
Well, it does look as though taxpayers are finally seeing some of the real picture hence the result of the last election. All that's needed now is to introduce a requirement for teachers to think education instead of themselves & our society will get back on track again. Once the Peter Principle is no longer used in public service promotion things will improve. One of the challenges is to make the sheeple see & work on improving their mentality.