Mr BAYLEY – Just a couple of quick questions on the efficiency and productivity unit. Again, just out of interest, who is actually sitting on that unit? Who are the members of that unit and how are they chosen?
Mr ABETZ – That’s in the Department of Premier and Cabinet, so it should have been asked then. To facilitate because Premier and Cabinet has been I’m happy to try to take that question on notice and feed it through to DPAC or to the Premier’s office and see if we can get an answer for you.
Mr BAYLEY – Thank you. That’s appreciated. When it comes to the efficiencies and productivity questions, obviously we note in the PEFO, Treasury has identified that the State Service is unaffordable for want of other words. That it’s expensive and that we need to make savings, but there is no advice that it is delivering ‑
Mr ABETZ – Can I correct that? Of course, the State Service is affordable. The only question is the correct size of it. It’s like public service pay increases. Of course they’re deserving of a pay increase. The only discussion is the extent of it.
Mr BAYLEY – And so the question I was going to go to is advice on the size of it delivering on the needs of Tasmanians. For example, we have a housing waitlist that’s at record levels. You’ve just abandoned, or effectively acknowledged, the failure of the banning ambulance ramping policy. There is no suggestion that the size of the public service is adequately meeting the needs of Tasmanian people. How do you ensure that service levels are increased to meet the needs while at the same time delivering these kinds of efficiencies and 2800 positions to be removed from the public service?
Mr ABETZ – The number of people engaged in a particular activity does not necessarily translate to efficiency and service delivery. In relation to the housing issue, we are seeking to address that across a whole range of fronts. That said, having more people in offices, mainly in Hobart, does not necessarily assist in getting more houses built out in the community. With some of these issues we can ask ourselves the question with the bureaucracy: is the extent of the bureaucracy serving the needs of the people of Tasmania and ensuring good service delivery?
I’m reminded that public sector employment at the moment is at historically high levels. As at 30 June, full-time equivalents employed within the GGS totalled 33,359. In the figures I mentioned before, the total GGS FTEs increased by 40.9 per cent in comparison over the same period that Tasmania’s population increased by an estimated 11.9 per cent. That was between 2015 to 2025, so that decade. We’ve had a 40 per cent growth in the public service whilst the population has only increased by 12 per cent, rounded out.
Mr BAYLEY – You’d have to agree, though, that across that period, the needs, particularly the unmet needs of Tasmanians, have increased as well. I’ve mentioned housing. We’ve talked about health. What about speech pathologists and other professionals in schools, and the waitlists of students waiting for support? The needs are immense at the moment. It seems that your approach is to look to cut the public service and find measures there that will cost less money, as opposed to raising revenue, as we’ve discussed before, or other measures that can maintain and, in fact, improve the level of service that Tasmanians are receiving.
Mr ABETZ – We heard from the independent member for Clark earlier that growing the economy was not going to be the only solution. I agree. Part of the expert advice is that we have to right‑size the public service as well. Rhetorically, I would ask you, would you right‑size the public service or are you satisfied with the number of public servants that we currently have, keeping in mind that it takes up 46 per cent of the state budget?
We do need to address this issue, and if we could at least have a discussion about the number that would be a start. But I have not heard one single word suggesting that there is a need to right‑size the public service. If you were to say, look you should only right‑size it by 800 or 1000, as opposed to 2800, at least we would have a discussion point to start talking. But there is no recognition by you, despite having voted for that motion that sent us to an election, that budget repair needs to occur.
Mr BAYLEY – The point is I don’t look at it through the lens of how many public servants or the growth in public servants. I am looking at it through the lens of the needs of the Tasmanian community, particularly the unmet needs of the Tasmanian community. When it is clear that this government is unable to meet the needs of the community in so many different sectors, be it health, be it education, be it housing, be it the needs of the community service sector, having an approach that just looks at the pure numbers of it is a flawed approach because they’re not meeting the needs of Tasmanians –
Mr ABETZ – Wait a minute. That is where you’re misrepresenting the position. We are also looking at efficiency and productivity to which over 200 of – and I can say because we’re all public servants around this table, our fellow public servants have had an input into suggesting how genuine savings may be able to be achieved. That is one element. Rightsizing the public service is another. Seeking to grow our economy is another aspect. This is a holistic approach that we are taking and will have more to say about all that in the May Budget.
Mr SWAIN – A point that is mathematically obvious is that the comparison, of course, has to be, if you don’t do budget improvement, what the size of the public service could then be. If there is more debt and more interest payments, a future public service will, by definition, have to be smaller. It’s not so much a case of whether the public sector needs to be smaller or not; it’s about when and how you transition back towards a level that’s more sustainable.
Mr BAYLEY – Which takes us back to where we started the Macquarie Point stadium and the debt that’s being accumulated there.
CHAIR – Mr Bayley, I just –
Mr ABETZ – You can only spend that once.
