|
Couple that with both sides of politics publicly reducing the perceived worth of public servants by saying every time you sack one of them it's an efficiency gain(but heaven forbid you lose three auto workers), and it's no wonder if people don't give a poo poo about their work
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:52 |
|
|
It's not just issues at the top. I think even a lot of people in the APS don't fully (yet) appreciate the impact of so many successive years of efficiency dividends and budget cuts. New funding tends to be tied to new program implementation so there has been a massive hit to the capability of most department's policy areas. Many of the most knowledgeable staff took redundancies and work for the big 4 or private consultancies. But our population keeps growing, the work gets more complex and the pace of modern politics demands more new initiatives ("announceables") with less time for implementation and less resourcing for administration. Additionally, the rate of political change (new PMs/Ministers) keeps resetting the clock on influencing government on facts, theory and data. The net result is the APS has become increasingly reactive and short term focussed, as anything that takes longer than a year or two is at high risk of cancellation, either because the political environment changes or scant resources are needed elsewhere. Turnover in many areas is very high and internal restructures happen frequently as departments frantically pivot their few experienced staff to whatever area is the highest priority that year. This will almost certainly result in more and more problems for government (whether it be pink bats or Medicare debt) - it's just a question when someone will connect the dots. The constant focus on avoiding deficit spending (rhetorically if not in reality) means that departmental budgets keep getting raided for things that really need new funding attached. If you look at agencies like Treasury I think they lost something like a third of their staff under Abbot's first term, and the amount of stuff they are supposed to be across is immense. Witness the worse and worse results in terms of papers, modelling etc - anyone remember Hockey's tax white paper? You can't just keep cutting budgets year on year without some kind of negative impact. The APS is far more efficient than many give it credit for, but the lack of resources will make it harder and harder to do a decent job on either services or policy as it underinvests in technology and employee capability. The amount of internal turnover in so many departments is just astonishing, it would destroy any business.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 07:00
|
|
|
Blamestorm posted:Many of the most knowledgeable staff took redundancies and work for the big 4 or private consultancies. At least in my experience this is a huge issue, and the public service desperately needs more technical expertise. In a lot of cases the people commissioning the analyses don't know what they need or even what's possible. The people who have those technical skills know they can get a job in the private sector where they'll probably be paid more, won't have to deal with as many arbitrary rules and won't have to deal with the government calling them bludgers, so why wouldn't they leave?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 07:07
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:Okay, took a couple days off to clear out the cobwebs because when I post angry I'm never as clear as I want to be. Yeah their position is lovely and this is a good clear-up post,
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
open24hours posted:At least in my experience this is a huge issue, and the public service desperately needs more technical expertise. In a lot of cases the people commissioning the analyses don't know what they need or even what's possible. There is a vicious cycle where experienced high performers get replaced at a more junior level, the APS invests in training them, and as soon as they have some experience the replacements get recruited away. This is made worse by caps at management level in many agencies and no other promotion path for experts, so leaving is often the only avenue for career progression. Then agencies have periodic more dramatic cuts where entire functions get outsourced once the capability falls below a certain level due to the turnover.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 07:22
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:Bingo. All you need to do for compliance is to politicise the top level and they'll do the damage for you, it's the same mechanism that Murdoch uses to get an understood line in his media. But it has a nasty consequence: when you need them, they aren't there for you, because you've destroyed the frank and fearless chain. People at the bottom of that chain have no loyalty any more and those at the top can say nothing to help. Yep. Further to this destruction of specialised institutional knowledge is real. When people can't work their way up based on merit because management positions are based on nepotism and politics then they're quite happy to just watch the whole house catch fire when poo poo goes wrong. You already know you're completely disposable so why stick your neck out for higher ups who literally wish they didn't have to pay you to make their own budgets look better while they pad their resumes for the next senior jobs shuffle?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 07:26
|
|
|
IIRC a lot of people got asked to take redundancy with the implication that coming back as a consultant was the way to go, I know of a few people who took that up. What I don't understand is what possible good that was ever going to do in the first place, but the APS has gotten beyond caring any more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 07:28
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:IIRC a lot of people got asked to take redundancy with the implication that coming back as a consultant was the way to go, I know of a few people who took that up. What I don't understand is what possible good that was ever going to do in the first place, but the APS has gotten beyond caring any more. It's short term planning in the extreme. You save money on this salary budget which makes you look good in your report. Those consultants don't count as "salary" so it comes out of another bucket of money which is someone else's problem. Yes, it's as stupid and short sighted as it sounds but it also automagically becomes someone else's problem so is popular with managers who give no fucks about anything other than looking after themselves. After all if you job/portfolio shuffle you can't be held responsible 5 years later when it's a serious issue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 07:35
|
|
|
Also it hurts the CPSU.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
So what you're saying is that if I'm interested in public policy and research I shouldn't do a degree in it and try to get a job doing that and should instead toil away in something I don't care about but which isn't actively trying to screw me?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 07:43
|
|
|
DancingShade posted:Yes, it's as stupid and short sighted as it sounds but it also automagically becomes someone else's problem so is popular with managers who give no fucks about anything other than looking after themselves. Yeah this is part of that consequence I was talking about, because in the end there's nothing to back up the politicians, it all becomes empty. Bad things will happen when the electorate see that. Doctor Spaceman posted:Also it hurts the CPSU. That's a fringe benefit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 07:47
|
|
|
hooman posted:So what you're saying is that if I'm interested in public policy and research I shouldn't do a degree in it and try to get a job doing that and should instead toil away in something I don't care about but which isn't actively trying to screw me? You could always work for the IPA. The public service is still a solid career choice, and the skills you learn working in it are generally pretty portable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 07:47
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:IIRC a lot of people got asked to take redundancy with the implication that coming back as a consultant was the way to go, I know of a few people who took that up. What I don't understand is what possible good that was ever going to do in the first place, but the APS has gotten beyond caring any more. hooman posted:So what you're saying is that if I'm interested in public policy and research I shouldn't do a degree in it and try to get a job doing that and should instead toil away in something I don't care about but which isn't actively trying to screw me?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 07:50
|
|
|
Look into becoming an unpublished utopian sci-fi novelist
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 07:51
|
|
|
look into dehumanising yourself and facing to bloodshed
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 07:52
|
|
|
hooman posted:So what you're saying is that if I'm interested in public policy and research I shouldn't do a degree in it and try to get a job doing that and should instead toil away in something I don't care about but which isn't actively trying to screw me? If you don't have blood or political connections you're going to find it hard going but do whatever you want. Just be very clear as to how you progress from 'degree' to 'entry level applicant' before you start, also be aware of your competitors for those jobs. Did I make it sound like dynasties are real? They are. Poxy and petty, but real. BBJoey posted:look into dehumanising yourself and facing to bloodshed Protip right here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:organisational units in the APS have staffing limits, and if you go over the senior executive gets very mad because it looks bad for them. contractors don't count towards those staffing limits. why? ~john howard~ I'll have you know that John Howard was a good man, and perhaps Australia's greatest leader. *was born in 1999*
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 07:55
|
|
|
quote:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/aliceworkman/turnbull-minis-tree?utm_term=.vm1y9yA7j#.ckVdndXzG
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
DancingShade posted:It's short term planning in the extreme. You save money on this salary budget which makes you look good in your report. This is pretty endemic in a lot of big non-government companies too. I've been "priveleged" to work for serious players in mining, oil and gas, and pharma for fairly extensive periods of time and the upper layers of management are absolutely chock full of fuckwits who only care about pushing their costs of operation into someone else's cost centre for as long as it takes them to hop up a rung and leave some poor gently caress to clean up the dysfunctional mess left behind. Its somewhat better in a project environment where very clear physical and financial outcomes are expected with a fixed timeframe and budget which are often operating with significant budgetary or expenditure exemptions from the more operational side of the business. But once you're in the ops side of things, all fuckin bets are off. Politics and quarterly excel graphs are literally the only things that most of the "successful" managers spend any time on. Vvvvv this is also extremely true aejix fucked around with this message at 08:28 on Jan 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 08:03
|
|
|
DancingShade posted:It's short term planning in the extreme. You save money on this salary budget which makes you look good in your report. More specifically, salaried staff are projected as ongoing costs forward into the future (so over 10 years someone on 100k will add 1.25m to the forward budgets, including super, insurance etc) whereas contractors usually are attached to specific work items and charged to a project or are only approved as a temporary solution (e.g. six month contract) while other restructuring is occurring, or to cover someone on maternity/long term leave. In reality they are often extended over and over again under a variety of rationales, the most common being that they subsequently started doing work that would otherwise require the hire of a full time employee...and the cycle goes on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 08:23
|
|
|
DancingShade posted:If you don't have blood or political connections you're going to find it hard going but do whatever you want. This is not true for many agencies, but it is true pure policy and research roles are rare. The bigger issue is that you may be hired to do public policy work on the strength of your expertise, but may end up spending years doing correspondence, procurement, administration etc as in a tight financial environment there is often not enough time to do the long term considered policy stuff so the immediate bureaucratic work takes priority. Edit: and arguably it's even worse when you do have to do policy work but it's on the run, and you are keenly aware what you are doing may cause a debacle further down the track like the pink bats thing because you only have a day to do it and no prior knowledge of the issue area. Blamestorm fucked around with this message at 08:37 on Jan 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 08:29
|
|
|
Well I've been convinced it's a shitshow and I should stay doing what I'm doing now. Back to destroying the environment I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 08:38
|
|
|
Porque no los dos?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 08:46
|
|
|
hooman posted:Back to destroying the environment I guess. A legitimate career choice. If you turn Australia into Mad Max before you lose your job, you don't have to worry about getting another one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 08:58
|
|
|
Cleretic posted:A legitimate career choice. If you turn Australia into Mad Max before you lose your job, you don't have to worry about getting another one. HOOMAN RUN BARTER TOWN EDIT: for reals I wish the government would change the energy policy of this country so that destroying the planet with climate change was economically unfeasible. I support the eventual end of the need for my job. Working in renewables would be a lot better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 09:00
|
|
|
Blamestorm posted:Edit: and arguably it's even worse when you do have to do policy work but it's on the run, and you are keenly aware what you are doing may cause a debacle further down the track like the pink bats thing because you only have a day to do it and no prior knowledge of the issue area. the alternative, of course, is that you spend 2 years developing a wide array of policy options for your minister, but because they have trouble deciding where to fly their charter plane to to have lunch let alone what they want their landmark political legacy to be, they never actually decide on anything; at the end of the 2 years you spend $500,000 on a review by [deloitte/pwc/ey] and accomplish absolutely nothing. those are your two options: develop a policy from scratch in five hours and have it go catastrophically wrong in entirely predictable ways, or spend years developing policy and have nothing to show for it. e: in my experience public servants tend to be pretty okayat their jobs, even the executive can pull their weight sometimes, but unless you win the lottery your minister is probably barely qualified to attend kindergarten let alone run the country and their advisors are all tragics from young libs/labs who are afraid of sunlight BBJoey fucked around with this message at 09:55 on Jan 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 09:53
|
|
|
I know The Hollowmen is meant to be a joke, but it's just barely. Because the bottom line really is is this going to hurt the Minister in this cycle? and if the answer is no then it's all good. But as departments develop a more shall we say adversarial relationship with the public you get the siege mentality of the
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 10:06
|
|
|
Every time I pass someone in Border Force they look like a self satisfied smug jackboot fake valor wanker. Seriously all that poo poo grade bling? It's impressing precisely nobody. Sorry anyone in Department Formerly Known As Customs who is a nice person but your image sucks and your uniform is garbage. I won't take a thug seriously unless they regularly wear flak with the plate inserts. Anything less is a poser.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 10:24
|
|
|
God these jackboots have got hardly any human teeth stuck in them, and what kind of limp wristed brown is that shirt? Bloody beigeshirts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 10:56
|
|
|
and then Bill Shorten appeared to me in a dream:
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 10:56
|
|
|
I had to google that quote to make sure it was real. You can bet it will never happen if he gets elected though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 11:29
|
|
|
I'm starting my policy job next Tuesday, we aren't government but are a funded statutory body so quite close
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 11:33
|
|
|
what if shorten is the one person who successfully Changed From Within 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 11:34
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:what if shorten is the one person who successfully Changed From Within Riding into parliament on a unicorn atop a leprechaun's rainbow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 11:38
|
|
|
Recoome posted:Yeah their position is lovely and this is a good clear-up post, Agreed. Still, I know laws have changed since the 70's-80's but my issue is "laws put in place to force police to act." are as good as the police are at following any proscription especially when it comes to helping people who are more disadvantaged. What hope is there they consistently act when necessary when they Magog fucked around with this message at 12:39 on Jan 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 12:30
|
|
|
Quote is not edit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 12:31
|
|
|
Ousted senator Rod Culleton is refusing to vacate his electoral office in Perth despite being removed from his job last week, insisting today that he is not a bankrupt and he will continue to fight the government over his ejection. The eccentric West Australian also boasted that in his five months in the Senate he had “made an “indelible mark on history’s page.” Mr Culleton admitted, however, that he has begun a “self-imposed moratorium” from his duties, during which time he will not attend any functions as a senator for WA. The former One Nation MP turned independent was given his marching orders by Senate president Stephen Parry last Wednesday after the Federal Court declared him bankrupt just before Christmas. Mr Culleton has lodged a last-ditch appeal against the bankruptcy ruling and the Federal Court has agreed to extend a stay on his estate being seized until this Friday. But he remains an undischarged bankrupt. “My lawyers have politely written to Senator Parry, I believe the government has prematurely shot the gun,” Mr Culleton said during a media conference at his Perth office today. Mr Culleton described the bankruptcy finding as erroneous. “I am not a bankrupt and a lot of information was filed before the court that day which showed that we have at all material times had sufficient funds held in trust not only to run that action but to run further actions,” he said. He refused to answer question about whether his salary was still being paid and said he’s “not going anywhere”. Culleton has rare win In a separate case today, Mr Culleton had a rare legal win after one of his estranged associates, WA farmer Frank Bertola, failed in an attempt to lodge another creditor’s petition with the court. Mr Bertola is claiming to represent almost 40 creditors owed about $5 million by Mr Culleton. But Federal Court registrar Russell Trott told Mr Bertola his submission was “incompetent” and threw it out of court. In a statement released today Mr Culleton said he had achieved several significant milestones for his constituents and for the nation during his time in the Senate. He said through his actions the rules of the High Court had been changed to ensure that all writs were issued in the name of the Queen. “History will record that, in spotting this error in the implementation of the High Court rules, Senator Culleton has demanded correction and made his indelible mark on history’s page,” the statement said. Mr Culleton said he had also formulated the terms of reference for a royal commission into the banking sector, as well as supported farmers and small business owners in the courts against the big banks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
Next week they're going to find him in there with the lights off, door barricaded and a sleeping bag. The walls will be covered in his Great Manifesto which will be illegible but there will be hints about something called an "admiralty flag". There will be a 500 page notebook filled with nothing but "sovereign", underlined, over and over.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
What a surprise that those associated with him are almost as cracked as he is. Bertola isn't deterred, he's vowed to re-file the petition pending Culleton's appeal against the bankruptcy order in the Federal Court.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:52 |
|
|
I would blow Dane Cook posted:and then Bill Shorten appeared to me in a dream: It's been their plan all along, scorching their dirty pasts, removing witnesses, dropping older MP's who are too dirty to keep, raising up the young blood would be MP's. Getting ready to fire all cannons, making themselves unimpeachable before clamouring for a Federal ICAC. Bill Shorten is a political genius. If only.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 15:10
|
|
