MikeAqua:

 

michaelmurfy:

 

To anyone who thinks this is a good thing; glad you're sorted and only care about yourself. Having been through uncertainty myself because of this government at a previous job then being made redundant the main thing people really don't understand is the toll it takes on peoples mental health and well-being. I'm really glad I had an incredibly supportive wife and friends around me during that time.

 

 

I've been through three restructures in my life.  Including one where I was made redundant.  It absolutely sucks.  The feeling of rejection is awful. Even when your job isn't at risk but your colleagues are, it's a bad feeling.  Even when you quietly believe the organisation genuinely doesn't need that role. There is no good restructure, fast (suspense = pain), lawful and effective are as close to good as it gets.   I'm fortunate to have always been able to find other employment during the restructure process. 

 

I have skin in this particular game, as I have immediate family and friends who work in govt.  But ... govt isn't a welfare scheme.  Govt doesn't exist to employ people for the sake of employing people.  That's the road to economic ruin.

 

The purpose of a job is to create value.  Value will mean different things in different roles, but the basic exchange is consistent - employee creates value for employer, who pays them.  If a position is no longer creating value for the employer, then it has to go.  That applies to govt as much as it does to business.

 

From 2017 - 2023 core govt service headcount increased from ~45k to ~65k.  That's about a 44% increase, in difficult economic circumstances.  The PSA and media seem to gloss over that.

 

From 2023 to present head declined to ~63k.  That's a 3% decrease, during even worse economic times.  Willis is now talking about reducing headcount from 1.2% of population to 1%.  That's a decrease of 10.5k.  If my maths are mathsering in a maths-like manner ... that would leave us at ~52k, which is still 15% up on the 2017 headcount.

 

There is a valid argument that a major restructure close to an election, which either party could win, isn't appropriate.  The counter argument is that the current government should carry on as if they're going to win until parliament rises.  I've always been taught to plan for success but have contingencies for when the eff-up fairy comes to visit.  There are no contingencies for elected officials who lose an election, of course

 

This was well stated to happen last election and I believe it was in the coalition agreement. I assume it has taken this long to get full agreement between parties.

Their plan is to do it over a few years and it will not happen at once and will require some serious work before it can happen.

Aussies have 16 Government Departments and we have how many?? So only 16 back office admin areas etc. We have close to the largest number of single Depts in the OECD.