A HOW To Guide was released this week by the Department of Premier and Cabinet to assist heads of government agencies meet the government's public service shrinkage targets. Premier Will Hodgman has promised no forced redundancies, but the language in the guide would make the Hollow Men proud. What unions would describe as drastic job cuts are rephrased as "natural attrition", "negotiated redundancies", "vacancy control" and "work force renewal incentive programs". Strategic Option 2 in the guide is titled "Managing employees whose positions are no longer required". The advice to bosses is: "these employees may be either placed in other positions which have not been abolished or they may choose to leave the State Service". But, no pressure. The state government hopes that's enough to shed 700 jobs. But it's only part one of its plans for the public sector. More controversial is its one-year public sector wage freeze legislation. If the government fails to get it through the upper house, it might need to come up with a new toughened-up version of those guides. Mr Hodgman said in his second reading speech on the public sector wage freeze legislation that it was "time to draw a fiscal line in the sand". Given the dire state of Tasmania's finances, asking our public servants to forgo a 2 per cent pay rise for a year doesn't seem like too much to ask. The alternative, we're told, is 500 more job losses. But it is cleverly spun to put the pressure on the upper house with language such as "we want those 500 families to have a job". Political blackmail is never good public relations, nor is poisoning the relationship with bureaucracy this early into a term of government. About $50 million a year over the forward estimates is riding on the legislation passing separately to the budget. With the legislation expected to sail through the lower house later this month, those 500 jobs are now on the Legislative Council if they don't pass the bill. It is risky to factor in savings to the budget that rely on legislation passing an independent upper house. Many MLCs have already expressed concern over the legislation, and both Labor and the Greens want it thrown out. There is no question that Tasmania's public service needs to be made more efficient. Economists have called for a Productivity Commission report, which would be a great place to start. In recent years it has ballooned out by 25 per cent, growing from 20,000 full time positions to more than 25,000. It takes up half the state's budget, and is the second most expensive public service in Australia, behind only the Northern Territory. Tasmanian public servants get paid only four per cent less than their national counterparts, and compared to the private sector are well remunerated, taking in about 25 per cent more. The budget papers say this leads to economic inefficiency if wages are not justified on a productivity basis. This allows the government to form the argument that stopping automatic pay rises, but not promotions, for a year isn't that bad, and clears the way for a tougher conversation down the track. A wage freeze is a band-aid fix to an ongoing problem, and if savings are continued to be sought through pay pauses it means the government isn't just cash strapped, but idea poor. It shouldn't be replacement for smarter ways to grow the economy and make the public service more efficient. Destroying the morale of the public sector at this stage will only reduce productivity further.
A HOW To Guide was released this week by the Department of Premier and Cabinet to assist heads of government agencies meet the government's public service shrinkage targets.
Premier Will Hodgman has promised no forced redundancies, but the language in the guide would make the Hollow Men proud.
What unions would describe as drastic job cuts are rephrased as "natural attrition", "negotiated redundancies", "vacancy control" and "work force renewal incentive programs".
Strategic Option 2 in the guide is titled "Managing employees whose positions are no longer required".
The advice to bosses is: "these employees may be either placed in other positions which have not been abolished or they may choose to leave the State Service".
But, no pressure.
The state government hopes that's enough to shed 700 jobs.
But it's only part one of its plans for the public sector.
More controversial is its one-year public sector wage freeze legislation.
If the government fails to get it through the upper house, it might need to come up with a new toughened-up version of those guides.
Mr Hodgman said in his second reading speech on the public sector wage freeze legislation that it was "time to draw a fiscal line in the sand".
Given the dire state of Tasmania's finances, asking our public servants to forgo a 2 per cent pay rise for a year doesn't seem like too much to ask.
The alternative, we're told, is 500 more job losses.
But it is cleverly spun to put the pressure on the upper house with language such as "we want those 500 families to have a job".
Political blackmail is never good public relations, nor is poisoning the relationship with bureaucracy this early into a term of government.
About $50 million a year over the forward estimates is riding on the legislation passing separately to the budget.
With the legislation expected to sail through the lower house later this month, those 500 jobs are now on the Legislative Council if they don't pass the bill.
It is risky to factor in savings to the budget that rely on legislation passing an independent upper house.
Many MLCs have already expressed concern over the legislation, and both Labor and the Greens want it thrown out.
There is no question that Tasmania's public service needs to be made more efficient.
Economists have called for a Productivity Commission report, which would be a great place to start.
In recent years it has ballooned out by 25 per cent, growing from 20,000 full time positions to more than 25,000.
It takes up half the state's budget, and is the second most expensive public service in Australia, behind only the Northern Territory.
Tasmanian public servants get paid only four per cent less than their national counterparts, and compared to the private sector are well remunerated, taking in about 25 per cent more.
The budget papers say this leads to economic inefficiency if wages are not justified on a productivity basis.
This allows the government to form the argument that stopping automatic pay rises, but not promotions, for a year isn't that bad, and clears the way for a tougher conversation down the track.
A wage freeze is a band-aid fix to an ongoing problem, and if savings are continued to be sought through pay pauses it means the government isn't just cash strapped, but idea poor.
It shouldn't be replacement for smarter ways to grow the economy and make the public service more efficient.
Destroying the morale of the public sector at this stage will only reduce productivity further.
