Reith's 'compete-or-perish' plan for the public service
By Val Edwards
In November, industrial relations minister Peter Reith issued his paper "Towards a Best Practice Australian Public Service". It sounds like a discussion document, but don't be deceived. Reith's paper is a blueprint for the future of the Australian Public Service. It is also a directive for public service managers who want to get on in the world.
The paper's fundamental framework is that the industrial and staffing arrangements of the APS should be the same as those in the private sector. The idea that the public service should serve the public has been replaced by the need for it to make a profit. So the real purpose of the paper is get public servants to continue doing more with less, the story since enterprise ("agency") bargaining was introduced by the ALP government in the late 1980s.
Reith's paper compliments and reinforces the Workplace Relations Act (WRA), which became law on November 25. It covers privatisation, competition, contracting out and the removal of what Reith and Howard call "preferential arrangements" for public servants. It argues that the new APS will be "result-" not "process-driven".
Yet while the main piece of legislation governing the public service, the Public Service Act, is, arguably, outdated, the "preferential arrangements" Reith refers to are not. They underpin the working conditions of public servants and their ability to provide a decent service to the public.
Reith, like his predecessors in the ALP (and with the agreement of sections of the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) leadership) intends to get rid of the notion of permanency in the public service. This attack is camouflaged behind a high-sounding statement of key public service ethical values and principles: accountability, party-political impartiality and fairness in dealing with the public.
In summary, the major concerns about Reith's proposed new APS Act are:
- the removal of key elements such as equal employment opportunity (EEO), industrial democracy (ID), and references to occupational health and safety â although there is no indication of amending the OH&S Commonwealth Employees Act at this stage;
- the removal of appeal provisions, selection provisions and the definition of merit, all of which safeguard public service conditions of service; and
- the introduction of productivity-based pay arrangements in work where productivity is notoriously difficult to define.
As well, arrangements that allow public servants to transfer to statutory authorities for a set time are also likely to be removed. Indeed, the entire present framework of APS employment will probably be dismantled in order to achieve Reith's ideal of "flexibility". Unions will then be unable to use the legislation for workers' protection.
"Discrimination"
Reith's paper also describes a package of "administrative law" that public servants has access to as "discriminatory to workers in the private sector". This includes the Merit Protection Review Agency Act, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act, legal protection such as confidentiality and the "need-to-know" for release of information, natural justice and perhaps even access to anti-discrimination law.
The paper castigates the "entitlement mentality" and describes as "unrealistic" APS "presumptions" about terms and conditions of employment or that equity requires the identical treatment of individual workers. It also asserts that "employment arrangements such as the application of merit are bound in a grievance mentality".
The paper openly identifies the APS of the future with increased worker "mobility". It says: "Current employment arrangements derive from a framework which envisaged a centralised public service with permanent appointment to a life time career. This is to discouraged as it leads to a captive public service. New public servants will not be 'obliged' to choose a career for life, nor should they expect one."
The paper also makes it clear that the APS will move to "simplified" minimum rates awards based on the 20 matters that form the basis of award provisions in the new WRA. The focus will be on the individual agency, the individual worker and on resolving problems at the workplace. Even more power will be devolved to department heads, further limiting across-the-board conditions.
Individual workers will be pressured to enter into Australian Workplace Agreements or certified agreements for their conditions of work on everything but the WRA's 20 matters allowed in minimum rates awards.
This could mean the end of payment for higher duties and external review of selection processes, inefficiency and termination (already weakened under the WRA). The decreased role of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission would be governed by the same employment conditions that apply in the private sector.
The APS will be expected to meet the challenges of market competition. The paper states: "It is no longer appropriate for the APS to have a monopoly. It must prove that it can deliver government services as well as the private or non-profit sectors." How this will operate in the Department of Defence is not yet clear.
To "modernise" the APS, the government has promised (and delivered) "human resource development" for senior management. The theory is that this will facilitate "cooperative" workplace relations where higher productivity is encouraged.
If this recipe is applied, all the usual consequences of "labour market deregulation" will follow. Workers in the small, powerless agencies will not have the bargaining strength that the up-and-coming bureaucrats in the big departments will have. The result will be different employment conditions for staff doing the same work. The impact on services in many areas will be disastrous as harassed public servants hurry to meet their ever-rising productivity guidelines.
Performance charters
The introduction of agency bargaining under the ALP made it easier for Howard and Reith to push ahead with their workplace bargaining plans. As for the idea of linking productivity with pay, the ACT's Carnell government has been refusing to honour an agreed pay increase because the "savings", (that is, cuts to staffing and conditions), cannot be identified or agreed.
Then there's the issue of "creativity"; the paper stresses that public servants must be innovative and creative or face the sack. How will that judgement be made? A "Charter of Government Performance" will be imposed as the basis for effective performance and individual ministers will be expected to publish charters for their agencies which provide the framework against which individuals are assessed.
Government service charters will also be introduced. They will set out the quality of service that clients can expect. Service, efficiency and effectiveness will be key evaluation criteria. The "best practice values", described by the National Commission of Audit, will be enshrined in the new Public Service Act. They are:
- highest standards of probity, integrity and conduct (without protection from unfair accusation against these values);
- a strong commitment to the community;
- responsiveness to governments (despite the requirement of political independence);
- a strong commitment to accountability (without union protection from individual monitoring and the reasonable adjustment allowances for EEO target groups, this could lead to the sacking of anyone not achieving what is expected);
- a strong focus on results;
- continuous improvement through teams and individuals (public servants will monitor themselves and be monitored to continually improve); and
- merit as the basis for achieving excellence in staffing.
In December, the CPSU leadership outlined its criticisms of the Reith paper in a national bulletin. They included: no career public service; no acknowledgment of the effect that current redundancies were having on morale; no service-wide increases in pay; the attack on selection; and the emphasis on agencies dealing with staff directly.
Members were urged to detail their concerns in writing to Reith and Howard, but to date there has been no sign that the union intends to campaign against Reith's plans.
The impact of Reith's proposals for the APS should not be underestimated. His plans for the public service were made very clear by a Department of Industrial Relations notification, issued as soon as the WRA came into force, that public servants would have their pay docked if they took any industrial action.