Peter Dutton’s plan to sack 36,000 public servants comes at a cost

Editorial: Is Peter Dutton just spouting populist rhetoric, or does he fully intend sacking 36,000 public servants if his party wins office later this year? If the latter, there will likely be repercussions. These are multifaceted and could have significant impacts on several levels. Let’s look at these:

Economic Impact

Unemployment and Economic Strain: Immediately this would lead to a rise in unemployment, with 36,000 people losing their jobs. As a result, increased pressure on social services for unemployment benefits would potentially lead to higher government expenditure in the short term, despite the stated aim being to cut costs.

Local Economies: Particularly in Canberra and regional centres where a significant portion of the public service is based. Local economies could face downturns.

Businesses that rely on public servants’ spending might see reduced income, potentially leading to a broader economic impact in those regions.

As we saw after John Howard did the same in the 1990s, Canberra went into a recession. There’s no reason this won’t happen again after Dutton’s cuts.

Consultancy Costs: There’s a critique from both Labor and public sector unions that sacking public servants would likely lead to an increased reliance on consultants, contractors, and outsourcing. The use of external labour was highlighted as costing the Morrison government $20.8 billion in one financial year. The assumption here is that private sector services are more expensive, negating any intended savings from reducing public service staff.

Service Delivery

Reduced Service Efficiency: With fewer public servants, it is inevitable that there will be an increase in wait times for services such as processing social security claims, disability support, visa applications, veterans’ affairs and/or general government services.

Quality of Service: Cutting public service roles will affect the quality and reach of public services, especially if the roles cut include those in frontline positions or those enhancing diversity and inclusion, which are argued to better serve the public’s varied needs.

Political and Public Perception

Voter Reaction: While cutting public service jobs might appeal to voters looking for government efficiency, the actual implementation could lead to backlash if services deteriorate or if the public perceives the cuts as too harsh or misdirected. There’s skepticism about the feasibility and fairness of such broad cuts, with critics pointing out that the specifics of which jobs would be cut remain vague.

Political Narrative: This move would be seen by some as echoing policies from overseas, notably Trump’s approach to government efficiency, which would likely polarise public opinion further. The Coalition’s narrative of reducing waste could be overshadowed by concerns over service delivery and job losses.

Administrative and Operational

Institutional Knowledge Loss: A significant reduction in public service numbers could lead to a loss of institutional knowledge, experience, and expertise, which might take years to rebuild, potentially affecting policy implementation and government operations.

Morale and Efficiency: The remaining workforce might suffer from decreased morale, leading to lower productivity or increased turnover if job security becomes a concern. High staff turnover in critical departments could exacerbate issues with service delivery.

Long-Term Policy Implications

Policy Implementation: With fewer public servants, the government’s capacity to implement new policies or manage existing ones might be strained, particularly in areas where public servants play a key role in translating policy into action.

Public Sector Reform: This could be seen as an opportunity or a necessity for public sector reform, potentially leading to debates on the role, size, and efficiency of the public service, which might influence long-term government policy on public administration.

Summary

While the supposed intention behind such a policy might be to streamline government operations and reduce expenditure, the actual repercussions could involve economic downturns, service quality degradation, political fallout, and significant operational challenges, potentially leading to an overall negative impact unless coupled with a detailed plan on how to maintain or improve service delivery with a leaner workforce.

 

Also by Michael Taylor: Peter Dutton carries Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison baggage into the election

 

Dear reader, we need your support

Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.

One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.

With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.

Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969