Opinion AUSTRALIAN Politics: Adelaide Board Discussion Part 5

Remove this Banner Ad

Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.


Looks like not going after a re trial was one of the mistakes.

I assume they won't have another crack, bit concerning we might have a rapist on the loose, or just as bad,he isn't.
Wow that a high bar. I have no opinion on the case but isn't a presumption of innocence until found guilty part of our laws anymore.
 
Wow that a high bar. I have no opinion on the case but isn't a presumption of innocence until found guilty part of our laws anymore.
As I said,which for whatever reason you chose to ignore.

My concern is both he could be a rapist, or just as bad, people think he is and he isn't.

The retrial would have solved that.
 


Seems to becoming a bigger and bigger problem.

It does make you wonder why we don't just use the public service more.
I worked for a consultancy firm back in the day, but not at the "big end of town". IMO (and in my colleagues' opinions, too), government departments love / are dependent on consultants for a number of reasons - some legitimate, some more driven by the public service environment / mentality / rules:

1. Skills / experience. Sometimes legitimate, sometimes just marketing by the consultancy firms. Quite often the "special skills" are overstated and overpriced.

2. Resources / arms & legs for a project. Usually legitimate, but sometimes it's a result of staffing constraints. Sometimes a govt dept finds it easier to justify hiring consultants at high $ rates for a fixed timeframe, than to justify increased staffing on an ongoing basis but at a (much) lower $ cost. The saving becomes illusory when you end up retaining the same consultants / contractors for years on end, one project after another.

3. Objectivity / independence. This is possibly the most legitimate reason, especially when it comes to projects that may result in a restructure or major change in process. The client knows what needs to be done, but they need the "external experts" to recommend it if it's going to get up internally. Public service management get a lot less leeway to make individual decisions than private sector management.

I honestly believe we did some good and worthwhile work for our government clients, on smaller / focused projects, reviews and the like. But the hundreds of millions of $ stuff, rolling on year after year, that we're talking about here, good god. I mean, how badly is your department being operated, if you need to be spending that kind of $ on review after project after review after investigation after strategy....
 
As I said,which for whatever reason you chose to ignore.

My concern is both he could be a rapist, or just as bad, people think he is and he isn't.

The retrial would have solved that.
I honestly think a retrial wouldn't change people's opinion. If he got off plenty would think he's still guilty and vice versa.
 
2. Resources / arms & legs for a project. Usually legitimate, but sometimes it's a result of staffing constraints. Sometimes a govt dept finds it easier to justify hiring consultants at high $ rates for a fixed timeframe, than to justify increased staffing on an ongoing basis but at a (much) lower $ cost. The saving becomes illusory when you end up retaining the same consultants / contractors for years on end, one project after another.
I'd argue that this is the primary reason for the growth in contractor numbers over the last decade. The Abbott Government placed a cap on Public Service staffing numbers for each department, and the only way to increase staffing levels (to cope with ever increasing work loads) was to employ contractors, who didn't count towards the cap.

It was an obvious false economy, paying contractors several times as much as their APS equivalents, for the same work. The Libs are ideologically driven in their hatred of the APS, so they were more than happy to waste taxpayer money rather than allowing the expansion of the APS.

Note that this is not the only reason for growth of contractor numbers, but I would argue that it's the biggest single factor.

Note also that contractor numbers had been rising for many years before the staff caps were introduced. The caps turbocharged the previously existing trend.

On SM-X205 using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
I worked for a consultancy firm back in the day, but not at the "big end of town". IMO (and in my colleagues' opinions, too), government departments love / are dependent on consultants for a number of reasons - some legitimate, some more driven by the public service environment / mentality / rules:

1. Skills / experience. Sometimes legitimate, sometimes just marketing by the consultancy firms. Quite often the "special skills" are overstated and overpriced.

2. Resources / arms & legs for a project. Usually legitimate, but sometimes it's a result of staffing constraints. Sometimes a govt dept finds it easier to justify hiring consultants at high $ rates for a fixed timeframe, than to justify increased staffing on an ongoing basis but at a (much) lower $ cost. The saving becomes illusory when you end up retaining the same consultants / contractors for years on end, one project after another.

3. Objectivity / independence. This is possibly the most legitimate reason, especially when it comes to projects that may result in a restructure or major change in process. The client knows what needs to be done, but they need the "external experts" to recommend it if it's going to get up internally. Public service management get a lot less leeway to make individual decisions than private sector management.

I honestly believe we did some good and worthwhile work for our government clients, on smaller / focused projects, reviews and the like. But the hundreds of millions of $ stuff, rolling on year after year, that we're talking about here, good god. I mean, how badly is your department being operated, if you need to be spending that kind of $ on review after project after review after investigation after strategy....
I'm not questioning your or others contribution nor it's need.

I also knew a few guys who lost jobs in the PS due to cost cutting, only to be rehired at often over double the rate as a consultant.

I think we could be smarter about it.
 


Seems to becoming a bigger and bigger problem.

It does make you wonder why we don't just use the public service more.
Look no further than the $20M pa Korda Mentha contract to improve CALHN, which basically achieved buggar all!

They have had a merry-go-round of consultants meanwhile no one is actually sitting down with clinicians over basic KPI's like length of stay theatre time & adverse incidents.
 
I'd argue that this is the primary reason for the growth in contractor numbers over the last decade. The Abbott Government placed a cap on Public Service staffing numbers for each department, and the only way to increase staffing levels (to cope with ever increasing work loads) was to employ contractors, who didn't count towards the cap.

It was an obvious false economy, paying contractors several times as much as their APS equivalents, for the same work. The Libs are ideologically driven in their hatred of the APS, so they were more than happy to waste taxpayer money rather than allowing the expansion of the APS.

Note that this is not the only reason for growth of contractor numbers, but I would argue that it's the biggest single factor.

Note also that contractor numbers had been rising for many years before the staff caps were introduced. The caps turbocharged the previously existing trend.

On SM-X205 using BigFooty.com mobile app
LOL

How surprising a Canberra based leftist public servant would think this...

Perhaps you can explain Diktator Dan's ALP Government's outrageous spending on same.

But no with your leftist logic it's Abbott Abbott Abbott LNP LNP LNP.


Andrews government spending on consultants soars 200%
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

LOL

How surprising a Canberra based leftist public servant would think this...

Perhaps you can explain Diktator Dan's ALP Government's outrageous spending on same.

But no with your leftist logic it's Abbott Abbott Abbott LNP LNP LNP.


Andrews government spending on consultants soars 200%
Dan Andrews is your White Whale, not mine

On SM-A5360 using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
I'd argue that this is the primary reason for the growth in contractor numbers over the last decade. The Abbott Government placed a cap on Public Service staffing numbers for each department, and the only way to increase staffing levels (to cope with ever increasing work loads) was to employ contractors, who didn't count towards the cap.

It was an obvious false economy, paying contractors several times as much as their APS equivalents, for the same work. The Libs are ideologically driven in their hatred of the APS, so they were more than happy to waste taxpayer money rather than allowing the expansion of the APS.

Note that this is not the only reason for growth of contractor numbers, but I would argue that it's the biggest single factor.

Note also that contractor numbers had been rising for many years before the staff caps were introduced. The caps turbocharged the previously existing trend.

On SM-X205 using BigFooty.com mobile app
Maybe, but I don't know about "single biggest factor". The need to use contractors rather than create new full-time positions is inherent in the way the public service operates, regardless of which party is in power.

Also noting that there are two things going on here - contractors and consultants. When it comes to consultants, if I was the Minister for Defence (for example) I'd be wanting to ask the Defence CEO why his/her management of that department is so deficient that they need to be constantly engaging expensive consultants for all sorts of reviews or whatever.
 

Alan not a fan of High Speed rail.

Always seems like a great idea until we start crunching numbers
It beggars belief that any politician / government is still contemplating the idea.

Maybe they could engage KPMG to do a $50 million feasibility study.
 

Under the new rules, all new international development projects worth more than $3 million will have to include a gender equality objective.

"Hello, good people of Western Samoa. You know that clean drinking water project you've asked for help with? Happy to help, but we're going to need to know about the project's gender equality objectives first."
 
Last edited:



"Hello, good people of Western Samoa. You know that clan drinking water project you've asked for help with? Happy to help, but we're going to need to know about the project's gender equality objectives first."
Can't see a real problem trying to enhance women's rights in countries like Western Somoa. Could come across at lecturing, but even they are publicly trying to improve it.

New targets will also be set around engaging local contractors in construction work, in an effort to drive more investment into developing regions.

There is also a hope that providing more work for local contractors might be seen as contrasting with Chinese projects, often dominated by imported workforces.

I took.more out of this one. Seems interesting point of difference, although assumes the required trades or services exist.
 
Can't see a real problem trying to enhance women's rights in countries like Western Somoa. Could come across at lecturing, but even they are publicly trying to improve it.
You enhance women's rights in other countries via diplomacy, cultural exchange etc, not by requiring those countries to gild their application for aid with a statement about how the project includes a "gender equality objective". That doesn't "come across as lecturing", it IS lecturing.

- And while we're on the subject of consultancies - I can see a potential market for ex-public service people to consult to Asia-Pacific nations on how to word "gender equality statements". :)
I took.more out of this one. Seems interesting point of difference, although assumes the required trades or services exist.
Absolutely. There's a tension in the Asia-Pacific between China and Australia / our allies, and some of it is coming down to which country is the "friendlier" / a "better ally/support" to the nations in question. This sort of "point of difference" is important.
 
You enhance women's rights in other countries via diplomacy, cultural exchange etc, not by requiring those countries to gild their application for aid with a statement about how the project includes a "gender equality objective".
I'm not sure you or I are the right person to explicitly state what is or what is not enhancing rights

However I would suggest the provision of aid falls under diplomacy , so we seem in agreement here that it's fine.

That doesn't "come across as lecturing", it IS lecturing.
Could be argued either way. I would be a definite as you as it really is in the eye of the person responding.
- And while we're on the subject of consultancies - I can see a potential market for ex-public service people to consult to Asia-Pacific nations on how to word "gender equality statements".
I guess mocking things you ideologically oppose is easier than addressing the issue.
Absolutely. There's a tension in the Asia-Pacific between China and Australia / our allies, and some of it is coming down to which country is the "friendlier" / a "better ally/support" to the nations in question. This sort of "point of difference" is important.
Yes, let's hope the current Govt has a better eye on the Asia pacific than our last one.

I'd like to see closer ties with Indonesia to be honest, seems like a useful ally to have
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top