SA Economy

[Jaymz]

That's been happening for years, if not decades. Nothings changed. The public sector is a joke in some departments.

I agree with the decades bit. I suspect it started around 30 years ago after the State Bank collapse and national recession. Australia bounced back pretty quickly, but SA was in decline for much of the 90's. I remember unemployment in SA was running close to 12% at times early in that decade, so increasing the public sector was probably a way to artificially drive the unemployment rate down as much as possible. Needless to say we still often record the highest unemployment rate in the country, aside from Tasmania for much of that time.

The problem with this strategy is it's very difficult to reverse. It would be political suicide for either of the two major parties going into a state election promising to reduce public sector employees by "x" many thousand people. The other problem is it would be ridiculously expensive to offer packages to that many ppl in one hit.

[SBD]

Looking at averages and aggregates hides too many details to be useful. Some roles probably require some extra staff for surge or covering leave. Does the state employ aged care workers? If so, it probably needs to have extra so that there is NEVER a day where residents don’t get fed or helped to clean themselves. There is a lot of difference between a specialist surgeon and a school groundskeeper, so “public servant” means a lot of different things, and the same people can’t be kept as reserve for lots of different roles.

That said, the anecdote about someone’s friend is hard to explain away instead of having them training or practising.

What is the separate superannuation figure? Is it employer contributions being set aside for current staff? Or is that amount included in the main “employee expenses”, and the extra superannuation is the cost of providing the Defined Benefit Scheme pensions for retired public servants who were in the old schemes that are no longer available as they cost too much?

[1NEEDS2POST]

What is the separate superannuation figure? Is it employer contributions being set aside for current staff? Or is that amount included in the main “employee expenses”, and the extra superannuation is the cost of providing the Defined Benefit Scheme pensions for retired public servants who were in the old schemes that are no longer available as they cost too much?

The figures for superannuation are slightly lower than what I originally wrote. Page 27 says the superannuation figure includes employer contributions to current staff, but there is also a $210 million interest expense to cover unfunded defined benefit schemes.

[rev]

That's been happening for years, if not decades. Nothings changed. The public sector is a joke in some departments.

I agree with the decades bit. I suspect it started around 30 years ago after the State Bank collapse and national recession. Australia bounced back pretty quickly, but SA was in decline for much of the 90's. I remember unemployment in SA was running close to 12% at times early in that decade, so increasing the public sector was probably a way to artificially drive the unemployment rate down as much as possible. Needless to say we still often record the highest unemployment rate in the country, aside from Tasmania for much of that time.

The problem with this strategy is it's very difficult to reverse. It would be political suicide for either of the two major parties going into a state election promising to reduce public sector employees by "x" many thousand people. The other problem is it would be ridiculously expensive to offer packages to that many ppl in one hit.

What they should do is put a freeze on hiring new staff, for X amount of years. Except for teachers, doctors, nurses and other emergency services workers/first responders.

[rubberman]

That's been happening for years, if not decades. Nothings changed. The public sector is a joke in some departments.

I agree with the decades bit. I suspect it started around 30 years ago after the State Bank collapse and national recession. Australia bounced back pretty quickly, but SA was in decline for much of the 90's. I remember unemployment in SA was running close to 12% at times early in that decade, so increasing the public sector was probably a way to artificially drive the unemployment rate down as much as possible. Needless to say we still often record the highest unemployment rate in the country, aside from Tasmania for much of that time.

The problem with this strategy is it's very difficult to reverse. It would be political suicide for either of the two major parties going into a state election promising to reduce public sector employees by "x" many thousand people. The other problem is it would be ridiculously expensive to offer packages to that many ppl in one hit.

What they should do is put a freeze on hiring new staff, for X amount of years. Except for teachers, doctors, nurses and other emergency services workers/first responders.

So, who is going to be working out timesheets and paying them? Or ordering supplies? If they need new ambulances, who is going to do the ordering and specification?

FWIW, governments have been cutting support staff for years in all departments. Now those front line staff are doing more paperwork, rather than their main jobs.

One classic case is in planning. There used to be staff who coordinated capital works of the various utilities. No more. So, check out North Terrace. Dug up for the trams and new road surface. Along comes SA Power networks and digs it up. Then SA Water. Apart from the incessant traffic disruption, the road surface is now reduced in its economic life. Buxton St in North Adelaide had a nice new pavement put down. Now it's being dug up to replace gas services. And so it goes.

[rev]

I agree with the decades bit. I suspect it started around 30 years ago after the State Bank collapse and national recession. Australia bounced back pretty quickly, but SA was in decline for much of the 90's. I remember unemployment in SA was running close to 12% at times early in that decade, so increasing the public sector was probably a way to artificially drive the unemployment rate down as much as possible. Needless to say we still often record the highest unemployment rate in the country, aside from Tasmania for much of that time.

The problem with this strategy is it's very difficult to reverse. It would be political suicide for either of the two major parties going into a state election promising to reduce public sector employees by "x" many thousand people. The other problem is it would be ridiculously expensive to offer packages to that many ppl in one hit.

What they should do is put a freeze on hiring new staff, for X amount of years. Except for teachers, doctors, nurses and other emergency services workers/first responders.

So, who is going to be working out timesheets and paying them? Or ordering supplies? If they need new ambulances, who is going to do the ordering and specification?

How about the people already doing it?
You do know a huge chunk of payroll for SA Government departments has been outsourced?

So, there needs to be staff hired who order supplies?

How about a system where the manager or some other responsible person, logs on and puts through an order for office supplies?

FWIW, governments have been cutting support staff for years in all departments. Now those front line staff are doing more paperwork, rather than their main jobs.

Hire the right people, based on merit, qualifications, experience....retain whats left of experienced staff.

One classic case is in planning. There used to be staff who coordinated capital works of the various utilities. No more. So, check out North Terrace. Dug up for the trams and new road surface. Along comes SA Power networks and digs it up. Then SA Water. Apart from the incessant traffic disruption, the road surface is now reduced in its economic life. Buxton St in North Adelaide had a nice new pavement put down. Now it's being dug up to replace gas services. And so it goes.

North tce example...do you really need a small army of staff from different departments and agencies or can it be done by implementing better policies and methods?
Why isnt there a wider government system in place whereby agency x can look up a road they need to dig up to do maintenance on utilities below or whatever may be the case, where agency z is already going to be digging that same road up and has 'logged' that they'll be doing that work and when.

They don't call South Australia a backwater for no reason you know.


These are things that can be implemented.
Instead of the millions wasted on CEOS of various advisory boards which have done sweet fuck all for the state.

But hey what do I know im only a tax payer not a beuracrat.

[rubberman]

What they should do is put a freeze on hiring new staff, for X amount of years. Except for teachers, doctors, nurses and other emergency services workers/first responders.

So, who is going to be working out timesheets and paying them? Or ordering supplies? If they need new ambulances, who is going to do the ordering and specification?

How about the people already doing it?
You do know a huge chunk of payroll for SA Government departments has been outsourced?

So, there needs to be staff hired who order supplies?

How about a system where the manager or some other responsible person, logs on and puts through an order for office supplies?

FWIW, governments have been cutting support staff for years in all departments. Now those front line staff are doing more paperwork, rather than their main jobs.

Hire the right people, based on merit, qualifications, experience....retain whats left of experienced staff.

One classic case is in planning. There used to be staff who coordinated capital works of the various utilities. No more. So, check out North Terrace. Dug up for the trams and new road surface. Along comes SA Power networks and digs it up. Then SA Water. Apart from the incessant traffic disruption, the road surface is now reduced in its economic life. Buxton St in North Adelaide had a nice new pavement put down. Now it's being dug up to replace gas services. And so it goes.

North tce example...do you really need a small army of staff from different departments and agencies or can it be done by implementing better policies and methods?
Why isnt there a wider government system in place whereby agency x can look up a road they need to dig up to do maintenance on utilities below or whatever may be the case, where agency z is already going to be digging that same road up and has 'logged' that they'll be doing that work and when.

They don't call South Australia a backwater for no reason you know.


These are things that can be implemented.
Instead of the millions wasted on CEOS of various advisory boards which have done sweet fuck all for the state.

But hey what do I know im only a tax payer not a beuracrat.

Yes. Some of those things can be done. But they take people to do it. It's all well and goid to wave your hands and say "implementing better policies and methods". That's a cop out. You need people to design and implement those better policies and methods. Many of those people are gone.

If you are a tax payer, then you should be interested in practical solutions, not ideology.

[Nort]

So, who is going to be working out timesheets and paying them? Or ordering supplies? If they need new ambulances, who is going to do the ordering and specification?

How about the people already doing it?
You do know a huge chunk of payroll for SA Government departments has been outsourced?

So, there needs to be staff hired who order supplies?

How about a system where the manager or some other responsible person, logs on and puts through an order for office supplies?

FWIW, governments have been cutting support staff for years in all departments. Now those front line staff are doing more paperwork, rather than their main jobs.

Hire the right people, based on merit, qualifications, experience....retain whats left of experienced staff.

One classic case is in planning. There used to be staff who coordinated capital works of the various utilities. No more. So, check out North Terrace. Dug up for the trams and new road surface. Along comes SA Power networks and digs it up. Then SA Water. Apart from the incessant traffic disruption, the road surface is now reduced in its economic life. Buxton St in North Adelaide had a nice new pavement put down. Now it's being dug up to replace gas services. And so it goes.

North tce example...do you really need a small army of staff from different departments and agencies or can it be done by implementing better policies and methods?
Why isnt there a wider government system in place whereby agency x can look up a road they need to dig up to do maintenance on utilities below or whatever may be the case, where agency z is already going to be digging that same road up and has 'logged' that they'll be doing that work and when.

They don't call South Australia a backwater for no reason you know.


These are things that can be implemented.
Instead of the millions wasted on CEOS of various advisory boards which have done sweet fuck all for the state.

But hey what do I know im only a tax payer not a beuracrat.

Yes. Some of those things can be done. But they take people to do it. It's all well and goid to wave your hands and say "implementing better policies and methods". That's a cop out. You need people to design and implement those better policies and methods. Many of those people are gone.

If you are a tax payer, then you should be interested in practical solutions, not ideology.

Exactly. Techincal and documentation debt is a thing. Cut resources and in the short term it will often be fine, but more of the focus goes onto what is needed to get the job done right this moment, with less ability to plan for how it affects other things in the future.

The QUICK-CHEAP-GOOD triangle is a standard rule of most works for a reason.

[rev]

So, who is going to be working out timesheets and paying them? Or ordering supplies? If they need new ambulances, who is going to do the ordering and specification?

How about the people already doing it?
You do know a huge chunk of payroll for SA Government departments has been outsourced?

So, there needs to be staff hired who order supplies?

How about a system where the manager or some other responsible person, logs on and puts through an order for office supplies?

FWIW, governments have been cutting support staff for years in all departments. Now those front line staff are doing more paperwork, rather than their main jobs.

Hire the right people, based on merit, qualifications, experience....retain whats left of experienced staff.

One classic case is in planning. There used to be staff who coordinated capital works of the various utilities. No more. So, check out North Terrace. Dug up for the trams and new road surface. Along comes SA Power networks and digs it up. Then SA Water. Apart from the incessant traffic disruption, the road surface is now reduced in its economic life. Buxton St in North Adelaide had a nice new pavement put down. Now it's being dug up to replace gas services. And so it goes.

North tce example...do you really need a small army of staff from different departments and agencies or can it be done by implementing better policies and methods?
Why isnt there a wider government system in place whereby agency x can look up a road they need to dig up to do maintenance on utilities below or whatever may be the case, where agency z is already going to be digging that same road up and has 'logged' that they'll be doing that work and when.

They don't call South Australia a backwater for no reason you know.


These are things that can be implemented.
Instead of the millions wasted on CEOS of various advisory boards which have done sweet fuck all for the state.

But hey what do I know im only a tax payer not a beuracrat.

Yes. Some of those things can be done. But they take people to do it. It's all well and goid to wave your hands and say "implementing better policies and methods". That's a cop out. You need people to design and implement those better policies and methods. Many of those people are gone.

If you are a tax payer, then you should be interested in practical solutions, not ideology.

The loss of experienced, seasoned staff is a shame and a great loss.
The solution though isn't a hiring spree by Labor, usually consisting of their immediate and extended family, friends, friends of family, friends of friends etc.

There should be a hiring freeze, and maintaining current staff levels, for any department that's "struggling".
An independent audit done to look into what's needed, what they're struggling with, or lacking, identify areas that could be improved.

We have 125k state government employees, about 7% of the states population.
NSW has 495k, or about 6% of their state population.
Roughly 4 times the public servants but nearly 5 times the population.

We need smaller government, not more.

Total spending on public sector wages & salaries Australia wide, across all 3 levels is costing us $180 billion. Thats an obscene amount of money when you consider how poor our infrastructure is in general and the services we get are becoming worse.
No value for money at all.

Unless its emergency services or front line defence personnel, we should be looking at reducing the size of government.

Take from the hard lessons other countries have had to endure rather then repeat their mistake of employing more and more public servants.


https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labou ... government.

[gnrc_louis]

How about the people already doing it?
You do know a huge chunk of payroll for SA Government departments has been outsourced?

So, there needs to be staff hired who order supplies?

How about a system where the manager or some other responsible person, logs on and puts through an order for office supplies?



Hire the right people, based on merit, qualifications, experience....retain whats left of experienced staff.



North tce example...do you really need a small army of staff from different departments and agencies or can it be done by implementing better policies and methods?
Why isnt there a wider government system in place whereby agency x can look up a road they need to dig up to do maintenance on utilities below or whatever may be the case, where agency z is already going to be digging that same road up and has 'logged' that they'll be doing that work and when.

They don't call South Australia a backwater for no reason you know.


These are things that can be implemented.
Instead of the millions wasted on CEOS of various advisory boards which have done sweet fuck all for the state.

But hey what do I know im only a tax payer not a beuracrat.

Yes. Some of those things can be done. But they take people to do it. It's all well and goid to wave your hands and say "implementing better policies and methods". That's a cop out. You need people to design and implement those better policies and methods. Many of those people are gone.

If you are a tax payer, then you should be interested in practical solutions, not ideology.

The loss of experienced, seasoned staff is a shame and a great loss.
The solution though isn't a hiring spree by Labor, usually consisting of their immediate and extended family, friends, friends of family, friends of friends etc.

There should be a hiring freeze, and maintaining current staff levels, for any department that's "struggling".
An independent audit done to look into what's needed, what they're struggling with, or lacking, identify areas that could be improved.

We have 125k state government employees, about 7% of the states population.
NSW has 495k, or about 6% of their state population.
Roughly 4 times the public servants but nearly 5 times the population.

We need smaller government, not more.

Total spending on public sector wages & salaries Australia wide, across all 3 levels is costing us $180 billion. Thats an obscene amount of money when you consider how poor our infrastructure is in general and the services we get are becoming worse.
No value for money at all.

Unless its emergency services or front line defence personnel, we should be looking at reducing the size of government.

Take from the hard lessons other countries have had to endure rather then repeat their mistake of employing more and more public servants.


https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labou ... government.

This vague matra of we "must reduce the size of government!" is tiresome and should've stayed in 1980 with Reagan where it belongs. If you want an effective government to deliver things like infrastructure, then you need a sufficiently staffed government. There's ways the public service could be improved, but cutting back on full time staff just means more consultants. These people are paid absurd money to deliver often second rate products, that the public sector can no longer offer because decades of cuts. Direct your anger at these grifters who pillage taxpayer money and laugh about it to the bank: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-17/ ... y/10132264

Regarding increasing the ADF, good modern militaries aren't reliant on just size. There's numerous recent examples of much larger militaries losing to smaller adversaries. It's all about training - which the ADF are excellent at and having the right equipment. A considerably larger ADF wouldn't offer any guarantee of it faring any better than it would currently in a major conflict.

[rev]

There's a lot of capabilities the ADF doesn't have, like a credible layered air defence network, or MLRS systems, But that's another discussion.. All of which would require a couple thousand more ADF personnel no doubt.
In that regard, if they're adding capabilities that don't exist and would aide in national defence, that was what I was referring to with regards to the ADF.


Big government in general is not a good thing. Never has been and never will be.

[SBD]

The trouble with hiring consultants to do an "independent audit" of services is that any knowledge gained is written into the report, and then put on a shelf as nobody has the time to read it.

Having enough experienced staff to work with any external consultants means that the knowledge is not just in the written report, it is also in the heads of people who are able to implement and guide any changes needed.

Capability development is a key function of military, civilian and contractors, but not front-line defence.