It looks like Rudd may have backed down on his criticism of the public service:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1173068900/1009#1009

Has anyone here ever worked in the public service, or better yet, in both public and private? How do they compare? Are public servants as lazy as Rudd made out? Is it inefficient, or is it inevitable that productivity will be low when your ultimate boss may get voted out and replaced with someone who wants you to do the opposite?

I also have worked in both.
Like deepy the people in both are similar.
The main difference is in private, if it does not go well the boss may lose his home.
In public, not so.

deepthought wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 4:11pm:


Senior public servants in all states, I believe, are fixed term contract based (which can be terminated at any time by the respective department's minister) and have KPIs to meet. They either perform or they're gone and that includes not impeding the government's agenda. The days when senior public servants could stand defiant against the government of the day are over.

deepthought wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 4:31pm:


Source some info on the Senior Executive Service. The SES staff are considered public servants (not just contracted staff from private companies) generally on a five year contract which can be terminated at any time by the minister.

departmental and divisional heads are NOT invariably permanent public servants.

freediver wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 4:39pm:


The core SES selection criteria are the five key elements identified in the Senior Executive Leadership Capability Framework:

    * Shapes Strategic Thinking
    * Achieves Results
    * Exemplifies Personal Drive and Integrity
    * Cultivates Productive Working Relationships
    * Communicates with Influence

The Minister of a department will most likely assign a list of KPIs to the departmental head that he must achieve within a given timeframe.

freediver wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 4:46pm:


That depends on the government's legislative agenda. If part of it is to build infrastructure then the KPIs for the Chief Executive or the Director General of the state or federal government's Infrastructure department will reflect the government's vision for its term in office. A prospective DG will need to have a proven track record in successfully achieving outcomes in complex infrastructure development projects. The KPIs will reflect that.

freediver wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 5:06pm:


Now that would be telling!!

deepthought wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 5:46pm:


Your original statement was that 'departmental and divisional heads are invariably permanent public servants' and this is not correct. Ongoing or fixed term SES public servants are not permanent public servants, their employment can be terminated by the government of the day. Non-SES public servants (and those who are not on Public Service fixed term contracts - which differs from SES contracts) are permanent public servants and no permanent public servant in any state, so I believe, is employed at senior level. The senior level includes directors, executive directors, divisional and departmental heads. All these positions are occupied by non-permanent public servants. If the Government of the day can terminate your employment at any time, you are not a permanent public servant.

deepthought wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 6:02pm:


Where in the stats you googled up did it state that senior public servants were permanent? Fixed term and ongoing SES public servants are not permanent public servants.

Do you think ongoing means forever?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 6:11pm:


It's not a case of googling up stats, I got the figures from the annual report.  Fixed term employees are not classified as 'ongoing'.  They are known as 'non-ongoing' and are not permanents, they are contract or 'temporary' staff.

There are three categories of employment for public servants and two acts which apply to the employment of people working within the public service.

The Public Service Act 1999 states what the three categories are.  They are

(a)  as an ongoing APS employee (indefinite duration, ie permanent); or

(b)  for a specified term or for the duration of a specified task (temporary); or

(c)  for duties that are irregular or intermittent (casual).

And that's it.

If you are a public servant you are one of those categories.  And at the end of last financial year there were 143,525 ongoing staff (permanent) and 11,957 non-ongoing staff (temporary).

No googling required.

Incidentally I suspect this is not what the thread is about but I know this stuff like I know the back of my hand, I'm happy if you want to keep being wrong.  But I told you I have worked in both the private and the public sector and there isn't much I don't know about the legislation and the resourcing aspects of the PS.

Still it gives freediver an opportunity to make himself look silly as he flames.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 6:48pm:



Ha ha ha ha ha ha

I'm not that bored that I feel a need to educate you dudes.

Hey freediver, perhaps you can help him mate?   Could you tell him

"I'm pretty sure he gets it deepy. He just doesn't want to admit he's wrong."


Ha ha ha ha ha

DT...

Quote:


I don't believe you.

It was you who, with that post, referenced your private life.

Wanna prove it?

Aussie wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 7:35pm:


I don't mind whether you believe me or not mate.  If you don't that's cool.

deepthought wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 8:30pm:


Not much point, you wouldn't know what to report.

deepthought wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 8:33pm:


Come on with all your claimed experience with the public service, surely you know something about the status of SES public servants and their prevalence in executive administration within the PS...

What happens to them when their tenure in their roles is complete? Why and when are they considered ongoing?

deepthought wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 8:41pm:


Ah, but you see I don't have to google it... I will give you a clue...

a permanent public servant applies and attains SES certification...

deepthought wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 8:49pm:


Aw come on... I know you're not the PS guru... Departmental heads... permanents? I tell you what... quid pro quo... google Brian Burke's role in WA in reforming the public service to eliminate permanent departmental heads which is now par for the course in Australia.

deepthought wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 9:58pm:


No surprise there! Its the same text we use locally to define SES criteria.

How many SES definitions do you think there could be?

How are you going with SES departmental secretaries/Directors General?

deepthought wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 10:28pm:


Departmental heads and senior executives... invariably permanent?

deepy - nah, i don't think he will give in.
would be interesting to see him and fd debating different sides.

the irrestable force and the immovable object

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 4^th, 2008 at 2:11am:


You mean like your Islam thing? Monstered by one too many Maoris in a past life, maybe?