As the Examiner Editorial says there is lot wrong when Tasmanian public servants' incomes rival or exceed those of some of the larger nations like China, Russia and India.
When some Tasmanian public servants' salary packages exceed $500,000 and President Obama gets $443,000 and David Cameron gets a mere $256,000 something is wrong ... very, very, very wrong.
When some local government general managers get up to $300,000 a year there is really something very wrong. After all, these operations are micro operations by any measure.
It's especially concerning when there is a public servant for every 20 Tasmanians – while in Victoria it's one for every 210 Victorians. One might well ask, are Tasmanians any better serviced than their Victorian counterparts?
Supposedly Tasmania pays more to attract the best. But, is that what Tasmania gets? Are Tasmanian public servants delivering on promise that they will deliver more if they are paid more? Do they in fact meet their Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)? Indeed how often are their performances measured against a set of relevant KPIs?
As The Examiner editorial says, "your average bureaucrat should not be so expensive". And, a great many are rather average, and as they say, are simply "big fish in small ponds" at best.
Somewhat poignantly The Examiner editorial asks, "how is it possible, that a senior public servant in the nation's smallest state, earns as much as the nation's prime minister, and much more than the leaders of the world's super powers?"
Not only is Tasmania over governed, Tasmanians are generally paying way too much for far too little. How did this come about and especially so in Local Govt.?
Indeed it seems that public servants' salary packages are not matched by qualifications and many times these qualifications, academic and/or experiential, or the lack of same, are kept a close secret along with the 'actual' salary packages received. Why should this be the case? If there is nothing to hide why hide it?
It's all in stark contrast to the prevailing circumstances in the case of university executive salaries for instance. University academics who move into operational roles draw their salaries from the public purse and they are widely reported in the press.
In this arena performances are measured against goals kicked ... its the culture. Generally non-performers quietly fade into the background as an outcome of internal critical review. Apparently not so in public service in Tasmania!
What seems to be missing in public service are the rigorous mechanisms by which the evident excesses in top end public servant's remuneration packages can be rationalised, addressed and reassessed.
It appears as if senior public servants in Tasmania are 'Teflon Coated' and that they have placed themselves beyond the reach of criticism or critical review.
Indeed, this excessive largess must be challenged well away from the self-serving sycophantic administrations that, essentially, have visited this fiscal burden upon a largely helpless, hapless and an increasingly impoverished constituency.
Where there is the will there will be ways to hold these apparently armour-plated high-fliers to account.
The political class who are themselves held to account by their constituency seem far too reluctant to hold the public servants they appoint accountable – in local government in particular. Why?
The political class who are themselves held to account by their constituency seem far too reluctant to hold the public servants they appoint accountable – in local government in particular. Why?
When the political leadership doesn't, or wont, face up to this issue perhaps this might be a task that could be passed to mechanisms like 'citizens' assemblies' and 'citizens juries' in a process of Participatory Action Research.
Interestingly, these mechanisms are gaining significant public support with the arguments against them typically coming from the top end of public service regimes. BUT, it would wouldn't it?
Right here two quotes spring almost immediately to mind:
Interestingly, these mechanisms are gaining significant public support with the arguments against them typically coming from the top end of public service regimes. BUT, it would wouldn't it?
Right here two quotes spring almost immediately to mind:
- “When it comes to privacy and accountability, people always demand the former for themselves and the latter for everyone else.” ― David Brin
- “The right thing to do and the hard thing to do are usually the same.” ― Steve Maraboli ... Life, the Truth, and Being Free
No comments:
Post a Comment