.

(Continued …)

.

Likewise, there can be no justice without rule and order. The state is there for that. Somebody has to administer the affairs of the state. The so-called bureaucrats or civil servants are there for that. The state cannot function without them.

Bureaucrats are not entrepreneurs. They are employees – just like all other employees – except that their employer is the state, not some private company or individual.

If, as you suggest, they are too numerous, too expensive, too profiteering, too ineffective, incompetent, obstructive, or counter-productive, it’s not their fault. It’s the fault of the government agencies that employ them and, ultimately, the fault of the government itself.

It’s poor management and waste of public funds, i.e., our hard-earned tax money, thrown out the window.

Of course, maintaining them on the payroll could also be a delusive means of hiding an excessively high unemployment rate – which is not good for whatever political party happens to be in power.

.

Banjo Paterson,
I have never really objected to employing the unemployables however, they should not roam the halls of Govt offices nor should they be on above award Govt salaries !
Why is it not so ? You'll need to ask the Public Service Unions & other unions that pushed wages to unaffordable levels.
Maybe they thought they were doing a good thing but it all ended in a bad unaffordable situation !
We could have a Civil national Service for people who don't manage to meet any criteria other than menial work. Such a scheme could be implemented by having such people work for minimum wage for Councils who could be compensated by Centrelink. Anyone proving more capable or indeed, more actively inclined will score a wage rise.
It's all about initiative not only by people but also by officialdom. Effort needs to be rewarde, it's as simple as that. Those bureaucrats not doing their job & just putting up hurdles for everyone need to be randomely appraised & dealt with accordingly. Which Union & which Civil liberties Group would approve of such a scheme ?

.

Dear Individual,

.

You wrote :

« … they [public servants] should not roam the halls of Govt offices nor should they be on above award Govt salaries !

« … the Public Service Unions & other unions … pushed [public servants’] wages to unaffordable levels »
.

As I indicated in my previous post, Individual, that is a problem for the management of the government agencies that employ them to sort out if it is within their authority. If it is political it is beyond their authority. The government alone takes the political decisions.

If you do not agree with the government’s decisions (or laisser-faire policies), your only recourse is through your vote at election time. That’s the way democracy works.

It can be quite frustrating at times, particularly as this is just one factor that could determine your vote – and even if it did, there is no guarantee a change of government would change anything so far as this particular issue is concerned.

It's a handy and discreet political tool for regulating the unemployment rate – appreciated by political parties on both right and left.

Personally, I see greater injustice in the immensely rich accumulating huge fortunes without lifting a single finger, just because the share price and interest rates of their investments increase regularly, year after year, despite the swings and roundabouts and volatility of the markets.

The public servants’ “above award Govt salaries” and “wages pushed to unaffordable levels” are a mere pittance compared to the billions being raked in every year by the immensely rich – not because they do any work at all, or employ anybody, but simply because of their investments on the stock exchanges and other lucrative markets.

.

your only recourse is through your vote at election time. That’s the way democracy works.
Banjo Paterson,
It's been done at every election & no matter which Govt we get, the Public Service is always Labor & that's why we can never have what you call a democratic process !
Unions dictate & they're far from what could safely be called Democracy !
The only way to achieve a democratic process in Australia would be for no Public Servants allowed to vote !
We might even get a Flat Tax then !

.

Dear Individual,

.

You wrote :

« … no matter which Govt we get, the Public Service is always Labor & that's why we can never have what you call a democratic process ! »
.

There are almost two million local, state, and federal public servants in Australia, Individual, and I am not aware of any evidence, statistics etc., indicating that “the Public Service is always Labor”. If you have any, perhaps you would be kind enough to share them with me.

What I do know is that the Australian Public Service (APS) serves the government of the day which, since 2013, has always been and continues to be, the Liberal-National Coalition. Our chief mandarin (the most senior public servant in the administration of Government in Australia) is Phil Gaetjens who was appointed Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in 2019 by Scott Morrison.

Gaetjens had previously occupied various governmental positions for more than 40 years. He was Chief of Staff to Treasurer Peter Costello under the Howard government.

The Public Service Act 1999 clearly establishes an “apolitical and professional public service” in Australia. This was upheld in an important High Court decision in 2018 where an employee of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship used her Twitter account to post anonymous “tweets” critical of the Department. The Department terminated her employment under s15 of the Public Service Act 1999 on the basis that she used social media in breach of ss13(1), 13(7) and 13(11) of Australian Public Service Code of Conduct.

The Court concluded that :

• The fact that Banerji (the employee) tweeted anonymously was not relevant, as the communications could later lose their anonymity

• Even if the communications remained anonymous, they could still damage the reputation of the public service and,

• The implied freedom of political communication was not a mandatory consideration in deciding the appropriate disciplinary action to be taken – the implied freedom only prevents the legislature from passing statutes that unduly impinge on the public’s right to communicate freely about political matters.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

In short, the High Court placed greater weight on the Federal Government’s ability to rely on an apolitical and effective public service than a single public servant’s perceived ‘right’ to freedom of speech.

For government employers, this case reinforces their capacity to control their employees’ expression of political views and take appropriate disciplinary action, including termination of employment, where such views are harshly critical of the public sector and the government.

This will still be the case where such views are expressed anonymously. For public sector employees, this is an opportune reminder about the perils of airing one’s political views in public.

.