Budget Cuts for Pub.Service travel: Economy for Domestic & Reduced International

[albatross710]

re: Cut Plans for PS travel: Business Class [domestic] & International

Isn't travel a good thing for business and government? Legitimate travel of course. The benefits of overseas business travels often come from the side meetings and breakfast casual get togethers as much as they do from the official meetings. While official meetings can be done via video conference it is the side bars and relationships that often get things moving.

If I was running the country, which i'm not and never likely to be in a position to even influence it, I'd double the travel budgets and make the country drive forward.

Over the past two years Chinese investment worldwide up by 50%, Chinese investment in Australia down 40%. We are getting left behind.

 

[dajop]

re: Cut Plans for PS travel: Business Class [domestic] & International

I was glad when I read this article yesterday...as I dont see why my taxes should be spend on business class fares for public servants. On recent trip to Bangkok I was on an SQ flight to SIN with Stephen Smith (Defence Minister). He and about 5 of his lackeys were all in business class. I read afterwards that they were on a trip to Vietnam.

However I will say one thing that made me happy...and that was all of them were hard at work during the flight.

Do you have superannuation or any share investments? If so you should also take aim at publically listed companies as well, it might not be your taxes, but it may be your dividends being squandered on business class fares as well.

Whilst I don't think generally there is any need for anyone to travel between CBR & MEL/SYD in business class, I honestly think if a minister and his advisors are travelling to attend meetings with foreign governments, it is in our best interests that they hit the ground running and are in the best possible physical and mental state to represent the country.

 

[harvyk]

re: Cut Plans for PS travel: Business Class [domestic] & International

The benefits of overseas business travels often come from the side meetings and breakfast casual get togethers as much as they do from the official meetings. While official meetings can be done via video conference it is the side bars and relationships that often get things moving.

Whilst I agree 100%, there is one problem with that, there is rarely accounting code for that time, and there is no way to actually prove that casual get together was the reason why something happened, at least not in a way which the average aussie bogan would understand whilst reading an article in the daily tele talking about spending their tax dollars.

 

[serfty]

When ever a polly want's to look like they are saving the country money, they slash jobs in the public service (Razor gangs are popular). ...

To be clear, I was referring to the origins of the article linked in the OP.



Posted on a wing and a prayer ...

 

[harvyk]

re: Cut Plans for PS travel: Business Class [domestic] & International

Do you have superannuation or any share investments?

Just about every Australian does thanks to super, personally I'm planning to have words with my financial adviser today, as my "under the mattress" investment plan would actually have higher returns than my current investment portfolio.

 

[casanovawa]

re: Cut Plans for PS travel: Business Class [domestic] & International

Ah, the joys of trying to develop meaningful KPIs to to prove to the Auditor General, the pollies and Joe Public that they are getting such value for money out of every waking hour of the PS... Had that job for a while... And the aberrant behaviour they can then drive...

And glad its not Kevin747 in charge commanding that the PS travel budget be slashed, that would be hypocricy right of the scale... While PM's and FM's do need to travel, i think he was having a bit of a lend of us...

 

[drron]

re: Cut Plans for PS travel: Business Class [domestic] & International

I was going to do a rant defending the public servants, but instead I pose this question, could all who object to this make a promise that they will never again travel in anything better than Y (pref Y on an LCC) and only if there is a 100% need to travel, I'd also like to see you make the promise that if video conference or webinar options exist, you will take that over travel. Only once you vow to do this will I listen to your complaints about public servants travelling.

(PS I am not a public servant, but I do know of a few of them)

I am very happy for public servants to fly J under the same deal as myself-I pay for it.

 

[pauly7]

If it's safe for joe public - it's safe for employees.

Oh I don't disagree. However - Our company is American - based in the land of the plentiful lawyers and have had successful claims against them hence the policy of J/F over a certain flight duration.

I'm not complaining

 

[harvyk]

re: Cut Plans for PS travel: Business Class [domestic] & International

I am very happy for public servants to fly J under the same deal as myself-I pay for it.

Do you make that same requirement for employees of all companies which you deal with in your everyday life? Also would you feel different if the employee has to work whilst on the plane, thus the extra cost of the J seat is actually been recouped by having the employee productive during their travels?

I've tried to work in Y, it's not easy at all, even in the exit row seats...

 

[TonyHancock]

re: Cut Plans for PS travel: Business Class [domestic] & International

I was going to do a rant defending the public servants, but instead I pose this question, could all who object to this make a promise that they will never again travel in anything better than Y (pref Y on an LCC) and only if there is a 100% need to travel, I'd also like to see you make the promise that if video conference or webinar options exist, you will take that over travel. Only once you vow to do this will I listen to your complaints about public servants travelling.

(PS I am not a public servant, but I do know of a few of them)

I'm afraid I find this comment quite ignorant, in the true sense of the word.

I'm not a public servant. I'm the CEO of a private company. I make a few long haul trips a year. Half are paid J, the other half are JASA's or FASA's using points that I earn from flying and points I earn from hotels/credit card spend etc. I use VC for half of the meetings I should attend in any given year.

I'm responsible for the profit of the business, and do not operate a hard travel policy. I try to be flexible with my staff, but ultimately I need to meet targets.

I'm sorry if this is not my usual flippant half witted style but everyone has a serious side.

 

[DC3]

Re: Business class [domestic] and international travel for bureaucrats will be slashe

... You do realise that you are talking about people travelling for work? If I was required to travel overseas for work I would insist on business class and not travel unless it was provided. Why shouldn't people flying long distances for work travel with a modicum of comfort?

Methinks there are some biases here about public servants being displayed here.

Now if politicians did what they expect others to do then maybe I'll listen to their announcements....

I'm with Hvr on this.

Where's the announcement about the pollies travelling down the back?

 

[harvyk]

re: Cut Plans for PS travel: Business Class [domestic] & International

I'm afraid I find this comment quite ignorant, in the true sense of the word.

Could you explain why my comment is ignorant? The question I am asking is would the people who insist public servants only travel Y and only if 100% absolutely necessary to do so be happy to have those same rule applied to themselves?

This was not a go at private enterprise or them allowing travel without justification. I myself work in private enterprise, and I know that all travel needs to be justified because at the end of the day someone needs to pick up the tab.

 

[harvyk]

Re: Business class [domestic] and international travel for bureaucrats will be slashe

I'm with Hvr on this.

Where's the announcement about the pollies travelling down the back?

It'll be following the announcement that they have all decided to take a pay cut.

 

[TonyHancock]

Re: Cut Plans for PS travel: Business Class [domestic] & International

Could you explain why my comment is ignorant? The question I am asking is would the people who insist public servants only travel Y and only if 100% absolutely necessary to do so be happy to have those same rule applied to themselves?

This was not a go at private enterprise or them allowing travel without justification. I myself work in private enterprise, and I know that all travel needs to be justified because at the end of the day someone needs to pick up the tab.

..because, in my opinion, it demonstrates naivete, and a lack of understanding of the flexibility required in the private sector.(..and for that matter the public sector.)

My dealings with the public sector, which unfortunately have become more extensive in recent years, leaves me utterly deflated. The taxes I pay, personally, and as a business are wasted on inefficiency, incompetence, and rigid unyielding structure.

The nation could be a trillion dollars in debt and the bureaucrats would still be flying J from Canberra to Melbourne. There is no sense of ownership.

I rarely get dragged into these "quasi political" debates but after yet another day of dealing with government incompetence (is reading and writing a requirement for employment in the civil service ? - [rhetorical question!!]) I am a little jaded and not my usual absurd self.

 

[Paddy55]

..because, in my opinion, it demonstrates naivete, and a lack of understanding of the flexibility required in the private sector.(..and for that matter the public sector.)

My dealings with the public sector, which unfortunately have become more extensive in recent years, leaves me utterly deflated. The taxes I pay, personally, and as a business are wasted on inefficiency, incompetence, and rigid unyielding structure.

The nation could be a trillion dollars in debt and the bureaucrats would still be flying J from Canberra to Melbourne. There is no sense of ownership.

I rarely get dragged into these "quasi political" debates but after yet another day of dealing with government incompetence (is reading and writing a requirement for employment in the civil service ? - [rhetorical question!!]) I am a little jaded and not my usual absurd self.

Not absurd ... Actually quite sensible!

 

[casanovawa]

Re: Cut Plans for PS travel: Business Class [domestic] & International

..because, in my opinion, it demonstrates naivete, and a lack of understanding of the flexibility required in the private sector.(..and for that matter the public sector.)

My dealings with the public sector, which unfortunately have become more extensive in recent years, leaves me utterly deflated. The taxes I pay, personally, and as a business are wasted on inefficiency, incompetence, and rigid unyielding structure.

The nation could be a trillion dollars in debt and the bureaucrats would still be flying J from Canberra to Melbourne. There is no sense of ownership.

I rarely get dragged into these "quasi political" debates but after yet another day of dealing with government incompetence (is reading and writing a requirement for employment in the civil service ? - [rhetorical question!!]) I am a little jaded and not my usual absurd self.

So you have had a bit of a bad day dealing with a few pesky, incompetent public servants in wherever you work and whatever sector and so you want to start cutting away stuff-all entitlements PS's have do you??? I guess that is fair coz the sun only shines out of the rear end of every private sector type i have ever dealt with... I've never been screwed royally or p!ssed off completely so I guess i don't get to start telling you what to do in your company...

And pretty scant details of what your beef is, and what amazing bunch of credits to the human race you lead...

Again, i havent, and don't think i ever will, get paid business class for work, so hardly defending my own pampering, our DG has said no one will be travelling J in our Dept although he gets to of course... But not particularly interested in listening to, or being dictated to by all and sundry experts in the private sector who more often than not have their snouts pretty firmly entrenched in the trough and who haven't shown their own runs on the board themselves to start handing out advice to all us loafing PS's...

As a public servant i get exactly Sweet FA lerks, perks and other entitlements, so the actual incentive to stay in the PS is fairly few and far between and while the days of lavish spending might have been cut back in private enterprise since the GFC (which i seem to recall was brought on mostly by the amazingly flexible private sector by the way) i doubt most could get any less perks/bonuses/incentives/rewards than most of us PS's do... And all they can do is complain about anything we do get...

As i heard from someone in private enterprise the other day at a breakky, with continual budget cuts and lack of resources going to Departments do you really think your going to get better services or more capable people delivering them?? Plus as to the reference to the amount of debt i think that is mostly influenced by goverment spending commitments, maybe vote for someone else next time...

 

[browski]

Re: Cut Plans for PS travel: Business Class [domestic] & International

We complain about anything you get because:

A. We want less Government, less government departments, less public servants, less tax and less interference in our lives. It matters little which side of politics is in power, we still end up with more government.
B. Because you are government, you don't have any "skin in the game"; and as such, it matters very little if you are profitable/successful or not.
C. We don't see you as "representing our country", we see you as what is wrong with our country.............it's not personal, but we don't need you.

 

[Deleted member]

I hope this debate doesn't deteriorate into a personal agenda.
It is fair to say that generally speaking conservative led governments like small government and that labour like big government.
That being said, it's not really the fault of the average public servant that this occurs.
However anecdotally speaking public servants tend to vote with their feet.
Government is usually quite quick off the mark when it comes to spending the taxes they collect from us in the private sector, a quick check of pay , and conditions of a public servant will confirm this. Superannuation, for example is significantly more generous in the Public Sector, so too some of the holiday pay and sick pay provisions. I think it fair to say that the public sector is more heavily unionised that the private sector.
It is also fair to say that the real backbone of this country , when it comes to the nations biggest employer is the small business. I think there is probably a fair representation of them contributing to this site.
I am one , my business employs 5 people , and with luck, and good planning we may be able to take that to 6 by the end of the fin year.
I can't afford to pay the same benefits and conditions to my staff, and I am sure I am not alone.
I may have a conservative bent, but I too want to see efficient and meaningful delivery of services from the public sector. So going back to my original observation, we have had a succession of labour governments in power for quite a while with steadily growing public sectors which we really can ill afford. the consequence of profligate government is that it invariably ends in tears. The current state of Qld politics a case in point. Personally I feel "Can Do Campbell" has probably gone a bit too far a bit too quickly. But then I am not privy to the fine detail in the government books.
I agree that standards we want to apply to government should also,apply to publicly listed companies. Some of the pay deals border on obscene and when you are spending shareholder monies I believe there need to be certain standards met. If however you own the business , run the business and employ people in your business , you are generally ( or at least should be) entitled to do things pretty much as you want.
Then there is the balance in the argument that says the spending by big biz and government keeps a lot of industry and small business alive. So I don't feel there is any right or wrong answer. Or at least one that will satisfy everyone.






It is I, Leclerc !

 

[dfcatch]

I was going to do a rant defending the public servants, but instead I pose this question, could all who object to this make a promise that they will never again travel in anything better than Y (pref Y on an LCC) and only if there is a 100% need to travel, I'd also like to see you make the promise that if video conference or webinar options exist, you will take that over travel. Only once you vow to do this will I listen to your complaints about public servants travelling.

(PS I am not a public servant, but I do know of a few of them)

The difference here Harveyk is that Public Servants travel on the public purse.

1/ For those who travel on their own dime - they can choose and travel however they want.

2/ When traveling on the corporate dime - then if you're in a senior enough position to warrant it - and management deem it necessary - fair enough.
Ultimately the accountability for travel spend comes back to the CEO/Board and there is ultimate accountability.

3/ In theory - PS travel should be the same as 2 - except for two important differences.

A/ the public dime 'should' make it more difficult to obtain/justify travel - but in practice it usually seems not.

B/ in practice there is less accountability.

Without denigrating individual hard-working public servants - fact is they're not all hard working. Secondly - everyone is very defensive of their perks and empires - leading to the stereotypical inefficiencies of the public service.

Having been involved in a former life of stripping away unnecessary international travel from the public purse budget - I can tell you that there are millions of "justifications" for keeping such activities (many plausible-sounding).

The endgame is that much of the travel is not necessary - wouldn't be undertaken if the employee had to pay for it, and many of those conferences that we all love to go to - many are not THAT necessary (or at least not for the whole department).

PS. AFF-sanctioned events, conferences, junkets or otherwise are exempt from all objective critical analyses

 

[dfcatch]

Oh I don't disagree. However - Our company is American - based in the land of the plentiful lawyers and have had successful claims against them hence the policy of J/F over a certain flight duration.

I'm not complaining

Yes - I understand (and like) this approach.

The duration limit is a good policy IMHO.

I also like firms that have the alternate policy of extra days at each end if/when flying Y.