Category: Public Sector, Procurement & Privatisation

  • Working from Home, Not a Problem

    More than one in three workers in Australia usually work from home at least some of the week. Working from home has become an established working arrangement for many employees in jobs where it is possible to work remotely. Yet, there is strong opposition from some employers to working from home and regular reports of pressure from organisations to wind back this work arrangement.

    During the lead up to the 2025 federal election we have heard a lot about working from home arrangements as the Coalition adopted a policy for all Commonwealth public servants to work from the office five days a week. The policy has been abandoned but it is not clear that the Coalition have changed their views on this flexible work option, having said it created inefficiencies, has harmed productivity and is much more common in the public than in the private sector. But is there any evidence supporting these views?

    In this briefing paper we review the evidence on working from home, addressing the questions: Who works from home and why? Who benefits from working from home arrangements? Why do some employers (and politicians) want workers back in the office? What is the future for work from home arrangements?

    We find working from home is a flexible work option that has benefits for workers and for organisations, and it contributes to more inclusive and gender-equal workforce participation and a more productive economy. Working from home arrangements may require some workplace adaptation including requiring managers to work differently. However these challenges should not get in the way of the many benefits that working from home and other flexible work arrangements offer.



    Full report

    Share

  • Briefing Paper: Restoring public sector capability through investment in public service employees

    The Australian Public Service (APS) is responsible for delivering some of the most crucial social services to all Australians. The APS workforce includes employees who deliver frontline services like in Medicare and Centrelink, those who administer the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), and those who assist service personnel and veterans via Veterans Affairs. These are just some of the functions that APS employees undertake. Behind front line service delivery staff are employees who support these staff, work to coordinate and integrate services and provide policy and regulatory advice to government.

    This briefing paper examines the make-up of the APS and considers recent efforts to improve APS service delivery. We conclude that recent investment in the employment of more APS employees has improved service delivery and that any reduction in APS employees will reduce service delivery or result in the engagement of more consultants and contractors.

    In this paper we debunk several of the myths promoted in the political debate around the size of Australia’s public service. One such myth is that Australia’s public service is “bloated” or “inefficient”. The research also found that despite claims to the contrary, most of the public service jobs created since 2022 were not based in Canberra.



    Restoring public sector capability through investment in public service employees

    Share

  • Leaving Money on the Table: Foregone Economic Gains from Continued SRS Underfunding

    Leaving Money on the Table: Foregone Economic Gains from Continued SRS Underfunding

    By locking in public school underfunding, Australia misses out on important economic, labour market, and fiscal benefits.
    by Jim Stanford

    The Commonwealth government’s current offer to fund public schools to just 22.5% of the agreed Schooling Resource Standard would leave much of the current school funding shortfall unrepaired. This would squander many of the economic benefits that would otherwise result from full public school funding. Based on disaggregation of previous estimates of the economic benefits generated by stronger school funding and hence scholastic outcomes, we estimate the failure to fulfil the 25% Commonwealth contribution required for full SRS funding would ultimately forego GDP gains of $3.5 to $5 billion per year, and impose net fiscal costs on government (all levels) of $0.6 to $1.5 billion per year.

    International and Australian research has confirmed the substantial economic and fiscal benefits of well-funded and accessible public schools. Extrapolating international evidence, previous research from the Centre for Future Work estimated cumulating Australian GDP gains reaching $18-$25 billion per year after two decades, as a result of fully meeting SRS funding standards for public schools. Those gains are experienced via increased employment and value-added in the school sector; improved productivity and wage outcomes for school graduates; and reduced income support and social expenditures as a result of better overall education. Higher GDP would in turn generate revenue gains for government that exceed the expense of meeting SRS funding benchmarks in the first place.

    The failure to fully fund public schools is clearly a case of false economy. The relatively small amounts of money ‘saved’ in the near term, are more than offset by long-run underperformance according to numerous indicators: school attainment and completion, productivity, GDP, and fiscal balances. The Commonwealth government is leaving money on the table, with its failure to fully meet SRS funding requirements.



    Full report

    Share

  • Budget 2024-25: Resists Austerity, Reduces Inflation, Targets Wage Gains

    Budget 2024-25: Resists Austerity, Reduces Inflation, Targets Wage Gains

    Important support to help with cost-of-living challenges, but more needed

    Commonwealth Treasurer Jim Chalmers delivered his 2024-25 budget to Parliament. While it booked a surplus for 2023-24 (the second consecutive surplus), it increased total spending for future years, and forecasts continued small deficits. In the wake of the economic slowdown resulting from RBA interest rate hikes, this new spending is needed and appropriate.

    Targeted cost of living measures will directly reduce inflation in some areas (like energy and rents), while helping working Australians deal with higher prices in others (including reworked State 3 tax cuts, and support for higher wages for ECEC and aged care workers). Unlike previous years, the budget is projecting real wage gains in coming years that are actually likely to materialise — however, the damage from recent real wage cuts will take several years to repair, and further support for strong wage growth will be required, from both fiscal policy and industrial laws. The budget also spelled out initial steps in the government’s Future Made in Australia strategy to build renewable energy and related manufacturing industries; these steps are welcome but need to be expanded, and accompanied by strong and consistent measures to accelerate the phase-out of fossil fuels.

    Our team of researchers at the Centre for Future Work has parsed the budget, focusing on its impacts on work, wages, and labour markets. Please read our full briefing report.



    Full report

    Share

  • Public Attitudes on Issues in Higher Education

    Public Attitudes on Issues in Higher Education

    Corporatised Model for Australian Universities is Eroding Public Trust, Education Quality
    by Eliza Littleton

    Stronger public universities are vital to the success of dynamic, innovative economies, and more inclusive labour markets. But decades of fiscal restraint and corporatization have eroded the democratic governance and equitable delivery of public higher education in Australia. There are widespread concerns among both university staff and the broader Australian community regarding many higher education issues: including funding, governance, the insecurity of work in universities, the quality of education, and the affordability of attending university.

    This report, by Senior Economist Eliza Littleton, combines data from the Department of Education, the OECD, and original survey data from a national poll conducted by the Centre for Future Work to draw attention to key challenges facing public universities today. The Federal Government’s new ‘Universities Accord’ creates an important opportunity to address these challenges and put higher education back on a better path.



    Full report

    Share

  • Inclusive and Sustainable Employment for Jobseekers Experiencing Disadvantage

    Inclusive and Sustainable Employment for Jobseekers Experiencing Disadvantage

    Workplace and Employment Barriers
    by Fiona Macdonald

    This report provides an overview of workplace and job-related factors found to act as barriers to sustainable and inclusive employment for people in groups likely to experience labour market disadvantage. Key findings are that job quality, working arrangements, inclusivity and opportunity for participation at work all matter for inclusive and sustainable employment, along with individual and external systemic and structural barriers to work.

    Employment policy and employment assistance for jobseekers focus on individuals’ skills and job readiness, and on job placement. Less attention is given to ensuring placements are into sustainable employment in inclusive workplaces. That is, placement into jobs that people can keep, that support wellbeing and provide opportunity for long-term employment pathways, and in workplaces where people feel safe and are able to participate. Recruiting and placing people experiencing labour market disadvantage into jobs may not lead to positive outcomes if people are not able to retain jobs and benefit from their employment.

    Employment can provide people with benefits that improve wellbeing in various ways, including through increasing income, providing routine and increasing social contact. However, where job quality, pay or working conditions are poor, employment can also have cumulative negative effects. Placing people experiencing disadvantage in jobs in which they are insecure, underemployed, or cannot establish daily routines; or placing them in workplaces in which they experience poor or discriminatory treatment and disempowerment, are not likely to produce sustainable employment outcomes or create social value.

    This report calls for a greater focus on workplace and job-related factors, including employer knowledge, employment practices, work organisation, job quality and employment arrangements, to addressing barriers to employment for disadvantaged jobseekers. Emphasis on employment placement alone is not likely to produce sustainable employment outcomes. Action is required to tackle barriers present in workplaces and in employment arrangements.

    This report was commissioned by Jobsbank, a Victorian-based not-for-profit organisation that works with business and other partners to support sustainable, inclusive employment and make social procurement work. In Victoria, the Government’s Social Procurement Framework aims to improve employment outcomes for people from groups experiencing labour market disadvantage through requiring suppliers and contractors tendering for high value government contracts to employ people from these groups. The Victorian Government’s Fair Jobs Code promotes fair labour standards, secure employment and job security, equity and diversity, and cooperative workplace relationships and workers’ representation. This report recommends that employers be encouraged to develop strategies to meet these standards through collaboration with unions and community groups as one obvious way to address workplace and employment factors that create barriers to sustainable and inclusive employment for disadvantaged jobseekers.



    Full report

    Share

  • The Fiscal, Economic, and Public Health Dangers of Water Privatisation

    The Fiscal, Economic, and Public Health Dangers of Water Privatisation

    by Jim Stanford

    Safe drinking water and sewage services are one of the most essential elements of public infrastructure in our society. Communities cannot survive and thrive without reliable water services. Providing those services is core business for any municipal or regional government.

    But beyond the obvious importance of good water systems to life, health, and well-being, the water system also constitutes a valuable economic asset in the overall portfolio of public enterprise (see box). Investments in high-quality water and sewage systems represent enormous sums of fixed capital. The financial and operational dimensions of water systems are significant to the fiscal and macroeconomic functioning of the whole state economy.

    In this context, suggestions that the Sydney Water system might be sold to private investors raise a wide range of significant concerns: regarding the efficiency and safety of their continued operation, access to healthy and affordable water services for state residents, and the economic implications for customers, workers, and state government itself. A new research report from the Centre for Future Work reviews some of those concerns, and considers the likely consequences of Sydney Water’s potential privatisation.

    Main findings of the report include:

    • Sydney Water represents an essential public asset, important for both economic as well as public health reasons
    • Sydney Water boasts total assets of almost $24 billion, public equity of $8 billion, annual revenues of $2.8 billion, and dividend and tax payments to the people of NSW that averaged $870 million per year since 2018
    • The state earns far more from dividend payments arising from its equity in Sydney Water, than it would pay in interest on an equivalent amount of public debt
    • Selling the utility would impose a significant fiscal cost on the state through lost dividend and tax revenues
    • Experience with privately-owned water systems in other countries suggests water charges would rise significantly under private ownership, largely because of higher interest costs, higher debt, and higher dividend payouts
    • Based on UK and US studies, Sydney Water customers could see their annual water bills grow under private ownership by 39% to 59% (or by an average of between $174 and $264 per customer per year).

    The report was commissioned by the NSW & ACT Branch of the Australian Services Union.



    Full report

    Share

  • Public Services in the Hunter

    Public Services in the Hunter

    An Engine of Economic and Social Prosperity
    by Jim Stanford

    The provision of essential public services generates extraordinary and far-reaching economic and social benefits for the Hunter region. A new report prepared by the Centre for Future Work documents the scale of these benefits for workers, families and communities across the Hunter. The fact sheets provide a portrait of the different ways public services build a stronger economy, strong communities, and better lives.

    State-funded programs account for the lion’s share of public service jobs in the Hunter region: over 80% in total (in health care, education, state government, transport, first responders, social services, and more). That means a strong and stable commitment by state government to funding these services will be essential for the Hunter to continue reaping these economic and social benefits.

    Major findings of the report include:

    • Four sectors in which public provision is especially important (including health care, education, public administration and safety, and transportation) account for 35% of total Hunter region employment, and 85% of net job growth, in the last 5 years.
    • State-funded services alone account for almost 30,000 direct full-time equivalent (FTE) positions in the Hunter region, making this sector the largest single employer in the region. Those services add over $3 billion per year to regional GDP.
    • Combined wages and salaries for state public sector workers in the Hunter total $2.65 billion per year – constituting an enormous injection of household income and spending power into the regional economy.
    • State-funded service providers in the Hunter (including hospitals and schools) purchase some $1.3 billion worth of “upstream” inputs, materials, supplies, and services from private businesses in the public sector supply chain.
    • Consumer spending by state public service workers in the Hunter (and those in the supply chain) adds $1.75 billion to the sales of consumer goods and services businesses, most of them located right in this region.
    • For every 10 direct jobs in state-funded public services, there are another 5 indirect jobs in upstream supply chain and downstream consumer industries. In total, 45,000 regional jobs (public and private) depend on continued provision of high-quality state public services.
    • Public sector jobs are an especially important source of work and income for women. Women account for 64% of jobs in major Hunter public sector industries. The gender wage gap in public services is much smaller (12% for full-time ordinary earnings) than in the private sector.
    • Public services are especially important in regional areas, due to dispersed and older populations; greater distances between communities; and limited alternative employment opportunities. State service jobs (FTEs) make up 11.4% of all employment in the Hunter, 2 percentage points more than in Sydney.

    There is an unfortunate tendency in politics to view public services as merely a cost item on a government budget. But in fact they are a vital driver of economic growth and job-creation.

    State-funded public services also support tens of thousands of private sector jobs in the Hunter, both upstream in the supply chain and downstream through consumer goods and service sectors. It is vital to the prosperity of the whole region that these services are supported and well-funded.

    International evidence indicates that quality of life considerations (including community safety, housing, transportation, and culture and recreation) are increasingly vital in attracting new business investment to a region. This requires continued public fiscal support for top-quality public services.

    Please see the full set of fact sheets, Public Services in the Hunter: An Engine of Economics and Social Prosperity, prepared by Jim Stanford below. The fact sheets were commissioned by Hunter Workers.



    Full report

    Share

  • The Cumulative Costs of Wage Caps for Essential Service Workers in NSW

    The Cumulative Costs of Wage Caps for Essential Service Workers in NSW

    by Jim Stanford

    Since 2012 the NSW government has arbitrarily suppressed pay gains for workers in state-funded public services (including health care, education, public administration, emergency services, and more). At first those pay caps were justified as a deficit-reduction measure, and then later as being supposedly tied to inflation trends. But both those arguments have been discarded, given state surpluses in most years since the cap was introduced, and now the dramatic acceleration in inflation (now running more than twice as fast as allowed compensation gains).

    In this new report, Centre for Future Work Economist and Director Jim Stanford adds up the enormous and growing cost of this decade-long wage suppression for nurses, midwives, and other public sector workers in NSW.

    In any given year, the state’s wage cap reduces compensation below what would have been determined under normal free collective bargaining processes. When sustained over many years, however, the wage caps have an exponential effect in suppressing compensation levels. That’s because each year’s continued wage cap is applied against a lower starting wage base. Over time, the gap between capped and negotiated pay widens dramatically.

    The report estimates that compared to long-run pre-cap compensation trends, experienced nurses and midwives made $335 less per week in 2021-22 (or $17,500 less for the year) compared to pre-cap trends. On a cumulative basis, they have already lost $80,000 in compensation since the caps were introduced.

    But that pay suppression will continue to get worse if the caps are maintained. By 2023-24, on the basis of the government’s stated plan to suppress compensation growth to 3% and 3.5% (and restrain wages even lower, after adjusting for superannuation), the loss in wages will grow to $390 per week (or over $20,000 for the year), and the cumulative loss for someone who has worked throughout the wage cap period will reach $120,000.

    Worse yet, for three consecutive years, the NSW pay caps have reduced wage growth well below inflation, resulting in a significant erosion of real wages for nurses, midwives and other public sector workers. Public sector workers will see real purchasing power decline by 7.5% by end 2023-24 (on the basis of RBA inflation forecasts and the NSW government’s stated cap). That is equivalent to a loss of $6750 for a full-time experienced nurse or midwife.

    The economic pain experienced by public sector workers will not even stop when they retire. Because superannuation contributions are tied automatically to wages, nurses, midwives, and other public sector workers have lost thousands of dollars in superannuation contributions from their employers — and thousands more in foregone investment income on those contributions. That will translate into reduced superannuation balances and pension income after retirement. Already, an experienced nurse or midwife has had their pension income reduced by $1000 per year, and those losses will get larger the longer the pay caps are maintained. And because of the sustained suppression of their wages (and hence their superannuation savings), the goal of a decent stable retirement is increasingly out of reach for many NSW workers — especially for women, and especially for those who do not own their home. The report indicates that under existing capped wages, a nurse or midwife who is single, female, and rents their accommodation will accumulate less than half of the superannuation savings required for them to meet the ASFA comfortable retirement income threshold.

    In summary, the NSW’s ongoing suppression of pay for public sector workers, whose commitment has been essential to helping NSW residents through the pandemic, is arbitrary, anti-democratic, and economically damaging. The report recommends that the government abandon this policy, and instead engage in normal pay negotiations with public sector workers and their unions, on the basis of normal wage determinants.



    Full report

    Share

  • The Economic Benefits of High-Quality Universal Early Child Education

    The Economic Benefits of High-Quality Universal Early Child Education

    by Matt Grudnoff

    Expanded ECEC services would provide a badly-needed boost to Australia’s economic recovery from COVID-19.

    A universal ECEC system should be viewed as a fundamental goal for the future Australian economy. Achieving the superior quality and economic benefits of the Nordic systems cannot be done instantly, of course. But our ECEC policies should be reoriented and expanded, with a universal, publicly-delivered, high-quality, and affordable system akin to the Nordic benchmark as its end goal. That will require more substantial investments in ECEC funding, and its reallocation toward the not-for-profit and public facilities which deliver the best quality, and the largest economic benefits.



    Full report

    Share