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.