Mike Baird | Member for Manly - Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment Bill 2008

Change Font Size: A A A A

Email Alerts

Interviews

Car-Pool Connect

Community Heroes

Photos

Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment Bill 2008

Friday, 09 May 2008

Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [11.28 a.m.]: I lead for the Opposition in debate on the Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment Bill 2008. We do not oppose the tenets that are espoused in this bill: indeed, we support anything that will streamline employment opportunities and people's terms and conditions. However, we wish to highlight the deficiencies that we believe exist in the culture, efficiency and maintenance of independence in our fine public sector. We also believe there is a worrying trend in public sector vacancies and we will briefly reflect those concerns in this debate.

The bill proposes changes to the Public Sector Employment and Management Act to replace, in a broad sense, the requirement to advertise vacancies in public sector notices with a requirement for online advertising. It seeks to simplify provisions relating to eligibility lists—a list of applicants who have met the selection criteria for a vacant position ranked in order of merit. At present such lists remain current for 12 months for entry-level positions and six months for other positions. The bill will extend the expiry date to 12 months for all positions.

The bill also looks at simplifying the process for converting longstanding secondments of at least two years to permanent employment—including in cases where the individual has been seconded into a position at a higher grade than that held in the home agency—where the individual meets the selection criteria for the relevant position and undergoes a merit selection process. It also looks to simplify the process for converting long-term employment of at least two years to permanent employment where the individual meets the criteria and goes through a similar process. The bill also makes some minor amendments in relation to the Government and Related Employees Appeals Tribunal Act 1980.

I endorse the comments made in the other House by my colleagues the Hon. Catherine Cusack and the Hon. Greg Pearce, and also by Greens member Dr John Kaye. We have concerns about the culture in the public sector, including whether there is selection on merit for key appointments and about transparency. This bill offers an opportunity for the Iemma Government to consider the public sector as a dynamic workplace full of talent and opportunity that offers fulfilling careers to people who serve the State day in and day out but who are hidden in back rooms. Their role should not be perceived as simply achieving the aims of government. The public sector is about being independent, performing a noble job and, ultimately, serving the community—which is why we have a public service. The Opposition is concerned about its independence, and both my colleague the Hon. Catherine Cusack and Dr John Kaye picked up this point. The Hon. Catherine Cusack said:

I thank Mr John Kaye, whose thoughts I endorse on the eligibility list and the position of public servants who, unfortunately, in this political public service in New South Wales, may wish to put out feelers by applying for a job in a particular area or elsewhere in their organisation but do not wish it to be known that they are applying for the job because it could undermine their current position. Once the word is out that somebody is looking to leave, this could have a profound effect on a person's ability to perform the job well. It is also presumptive as to the wishes of that person, so I urge caution.

That comment touches on a key point regarding culture. If people are not encouraged to apply for positions that may progress their career they will feel stymied. They will feel deeply that they are unable to move forward, fulfil their desires and seize career opportunities in the public sector. People must not feel compelled to apply for jobs in an underhand manner. That issue is relevant in the case of Rudi. I return to my earlier point about efficiencies. When I asked the Premier about the average length of time people spend in the government redeployment program I received the surprising answer that it was 38 weeks. The process reflects the culture. We are very happy to put on a redeployment list people who no longer have jobs and tell them we will find them other work elsewhere but the case of Rudi reveals something very different. Rudi wrote a quite detailed letter to me from which I will quote some key points. He wrote:

The subject I want to talk about is when employees lose their jobs in the public service. They are not granted redundancies. They are forced into a non-performing redeployment process where employees are virtually doing nothing or very little on full pay for months

In my case and the 11 other valuers who lost their jobs [at the] end of February 2007, we have been doing nothing for 6 months. Actually, by now, the amount of my redundancy that could have been paid @ 1st March has been entirely spent on my wages and other expenses by August 2007. While Labor and the Unions highly criticised Tristar regarding redundancies, the NSW Labor Government is doing far worse and on a bigger scale.

It seems that the redeployment process is just in place to wear out employees and to ultimately avoid paying redundancies.

Rudi was ultimately paid a redundancy after close to 38 weeks of redeployment. Why was he on the redeployment program? Why was he sitting around doing nothing for the State? Why did we play with his mind, denigrate him and then finally pay him a redundancy? It is a mystery, and reminiscent of an episode of Fawlty Towers. The entire public sector redeployment program is farcical. Forty per cent of the people involved in it last year were paid a redundancy. They were on the list for about 38 weeks while being paid a full salary to do nothing and then received a redundancy payout. Why did that happen? It is inefficient and nonsensical. On the human side, losing one's job is culturally significant. Rudi received a wonderful letter from the human resources section of the Department of Commerce—this is HR at its best—which read:

Keep working on yourself; believe in your skills and ability to combine your strong valuation background into a new line of work. Please make sure you take time to work throe the emotions—

I note the misspelling of "through"—

that you might be feeling and give yourself time to "grief" the loss—

the word should be "grieve"—

of the work with Commerce.

That is no way to treat someone. People who unfortunately no longer have a job do not need to receive letters telling them to believe in themselves. They should not be sat in an office for 38 weeks doing nothing while their employer says it will redeploy them. They should be treated like people. That example reveals the culture in the public sector. Moving to the appointment process, I will not elaborate on the Joe Scimone affair—my colleague the Hon. Greg Pearce did that. We believe strongly that every single appointment must be transparent and based on merit; there should be nothing to hide. The Iemma Government has a history of appointing mates rather than the best person for the job. This State would be better off beyond words if we started employing the best people.

My final concern relates to public sector vacancies. Again, this reflects the public sector culture: people cannot talk to anyone about the jobs they want, they are not sure about transparency when applying for a job, and appointments are not based on merit. How does that culture manifest in this State? It is shown when one considers public sector vacancies, which have increased significantly. Australian Bureau of Statistics figures reveal that the number of unfilled public service positions in February was at a six-year high of 5,400. That figure rose from 4,900—an increase of more than 10 per cent—in the previous survey in November. Some of those vacancies were Federal but the bulk of them were in the New South Wales public sector. The trend continues across various other areas. Experienced officers are leaving the New South Wales Police Force in droves—780 police left in 2006-07. Of the 57 officers who left in October 2006, 16 were of the rank of sergeant and above and 29 were senior constables. Almost 70 per cent of the force has fewer than 10 years experience. The force is losing experienced officers not because they dislike their jobs but because they are disgruntled with the organisation and their conditions. These figures come from a University of New South Wales survey.

Two-thirds of doctors and nurses have seriously considered quitting in the past year because they are exhausted and disaffected. As the health system in New South Wales lurches from crisis to crisis, it is not surprising that it is having an impact on the morale of our public servants. Imagine what doctors and nurses have to deal with day in, day out. They do not have adequate resources, they have no assistance, they are working double shifts and there are not enough beds. It is an absolute nightmare, and they are at the coalface—which is why they are considering leaving. Only 17 per cent of employees trust management in the health sector compared with the industry average of 71 per cent. Even the majority of junior doctors are considering leaving, according to a University of Sydney Workplace Research Centre study involving 2,860 doctors and nurses in New South Wales.

According to a national survey of 1,732 public school teachers by the Australian Education Union almost half of all new teachers are planning to leave the profession within 10 years. A crisis in the education sector could be imminent in view of the increasing ages of nurses and teachers. I highlight that the Opposition is extremely concerned about this trend. Other States provide incentives to attract employees. The Opposition believes that the lack of transparency, lack of merit selection and lack of resources provided to nurses and doctors in New South Wales will lead to a loss of our best assets in the public sector.

My final point addresses contract employment in the public sector. The bill refers to the need to make it easier for contractors to become full-time employees. In attempting to understand employee statistics in various departments we identified a rampant increase in the number of contractors across every department. A private sector employer will engage contractors to reduce its number of full-time employees. With Treasurer Michael Costa imposing punitive costs, departments are employing contractors to minimise their number of full-time employees.

The Opposition calls on the Iemma Government to be transparent about public sector full-time employment statistics. It is difficult to establish the number of contractors employed in the public sector because they are hidden under a blanket of secrecy. Not only is the ultimate cost of using contractors higher; the State loses continuity of employment history and skill, requiring the training of new staff. It is an inefficient way to run a service organisation. In conclusion, the Opposition supports the tenets of the bill but believes that New South Wales should have a stronger public service. If the Iemma Government employed the simple principle of employing the best people in the best jobs we would be the best State.

Add to:

Write Comment

Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article. Personal verbal attacks will be deleted. Please don't use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed.
Name:
E-mail
Subject:
Comment:
Code:*

Be first to comment on this article