Rise Of The Government Yes Man

The people that know me personally, know that I'm a Queensland public servant. For those that don't, there's your disclosure.

So recent events in the Queensland political sphere and Goverment moves to sack thousands of public servants have been of particular interest to me. There's been plenty to get angry about just as there's been plenty to be fearful about as well.

In saying that, I fully acknowledge that there's some elements of the Queensland public service that need a bloody good shakeup and there's some deadwood programs and areas that don't exactly stand up against a robust and thorough financial examination.

The Newman Government does have a mandate to institute change and they are well within their rights to undertake restructures and streamlining of the public service. But the thing is, what is going on is far beyond 'change' and 'restructuring'. It's a purge, an ideological one at that, and flies in the face of the history of public administration in this State.

Last week saw a new low in this whole, sorry business. In the face of a pending Supreme Court injunction applied for by the unions to stop a number of directives aimed at taking away the job security of public serants, the Government merely rode in over the top and rushed through in the dead of the night amendments to the Public Servant Act.

The amendments remove the job security of all Government workers, except police (they obviously didn't have the guts to take on the police union), and means there is now no 'permanency' associated with public service positions. My own job is therefore in jeopardy and the notion of having some security in my employment and financial situation by having a public servant job is in dust.

So the Government's cheer squads in the media and in blogs and on forums rally and start screaming "so what, we in the private sector don't have any security, why should public servants?".

And therein lies the cause of my frustration and the cause of my growing anger. Because it comes down to choice. I chose to become a public servant because I rated things such as job security, flexible working hours and work-life balance over other things such as salary, bonuses, etc. Maybe I could earn more money in the private sector, but I chose the public sector because I believe in work-life balance and job security over earning another $20,000-$40,000 a year.

And in turn, people in the private sector make a choice too. They decide that salary and other benefits that private enterprise gives them - bonuses, travel, paid-for work functions, more autonomy over their roles - are more important than job security and access to flexible working hours, etc. Different people make different choices. The essence of economics.

But the main issue I take with the call for public servants to be treated no differently to private sector employees, is the lack of any understanding whatsoever as to what the public service is there for and what it actually does. Because there is a real reason why public servants have traditionally had job security and been granted a level of permanceny in their positions. And no, its not because of the previous Labor Government and some deal done with the unions.

The notion of permanency for public servants actually goes back to the 19th century and is a core principle of the Westminster system of government (that's our system of government for those who need explaining). Up there with the Seperation of Powers no less. It's been around for over 160 years and is in place in governments and nations all over the democratic world.

The reason for it, is so that public servants can offer their political masters 'fearless and frank' advice without fear of being sacked for doing so. The whole point of having a permanent public sector is to create a professional civil service that can base its analysis and advice on the long-term and not the electoral cycle like politicians do. Basically, so they don't live in fear of being sacked just because they said to a Minister or a Premier "sorry sir, but that idea is not a good one".

Instead, with public servants now having no job security, that sort of counsel and that sort of examination of an issue will be diminished and the Government will no longer get 'fearless and frank' advice about what it wants to do and the things it's involved in. And believe me, from someone on the inside, the public service is actually the quality control measure that stops some of the crazy and inappropriate things politicians want to do.

Perhaps that's why this current Government dislikes the public service so much. They want to be surrounded by 'yes men' and they don't want advice of the 'fearless and frank' kind. They're a 'Can-Do' team after all. "Don't think. Don't examine. Don't consider. Just do!" seems to be their mantra, with apologies to the late great Hawthorn coach, John Kennedy.

And public servants are nothing but desk jockeys and no-one will miss them. We've got 20,000 too many apparently so let's change a system that's been in place for 160 years and forms the basis of our system of government just so this year's Budget can look a little better. All against the foundations of Queensland's public administration and one of the basic tenets of our democracy.

So to all those crying out and saying "why should public servants have permanency when I don't?", there's your answer. The public service is not the private sector and it should never operate like it either. You want the 'best' and most considered advice being given to government, not the advice that the Minister or the Premier wants to hear. And that's why the notion of permanency for public servants has, until now, been in place since Queensland became a functioning democracy. Not even Joh tried on what this Government is doing.

I digress a little, but it's the same with the argument that Governments need to run Budget surpluses. You know, like household budgets, as the metaphor politicians love to bring up. But why?

Governments aren't private enterprises that have profit margins as the basis of their existence. Why do you want a Government that is giving us, the public, less in services than it is taking from us in taxes? Why is that seen as such a good thing? There's obviously hundreds of other elements to that argument but that's for another blog post. But the premise remains, government and the public service are different beasts to the private sector and so they should be.

And another thing, the Premier has started saying this week that his now infamous claim that the Government has 20,000 more public servants than it can afford will end up being wrong. Apparently its 'only' 15,000 that will go now.

But hang on, if Queensland can't afford 20,000 and the Government's only getting rid of up to 15,000, doesn't that mean that we still have thousands of public servants that we can't afford? And I thought this was a Government that would make the difficult and hard decisions necessary in the best interests of Queensland? The hard decisions to fix the Budget and return it to surplus? But we'll still have more public servants than we can afford Mr Premier even with 15,000 gone?

Just goes to show what a farce that 20,000 number was, and that it wasn't based on anything resembling the actual facts and the actual reality. Especially if it can be so easily dismissed in the face of a week or two of bad polls.

And to think Queenslanders voted this Government in because it was sick of spin.

EDM.