Last week eminent international and Australian academics met in Canberra to discuss government austerity measures being applied to the public sector, their impacts and possible long-term implications.
This group concluded that austerity policies are argued by many international economic agencies and the European Union as necessary for some countries to restore economic growth and a continued high standard of living.
Yet the workshop concluded that in several countries, notably Australia and Canada, the economic conditions underpinning austerity policies elsewhere, are not present. Instead, governments have deployed the rhetoric of austerity to justify cuts to the public sector and to constrain the ability of public service unions to negotiate collective bargaining agreements that maintain and/or improve the wages and conditions of public sector employees.
The Australian government is committed to implementing austerity measures to bring the budget into surplus. In regard to the public sector, a number of Australian governments, including Labor governments, have used the blunt instrument of an "efficiency dividend" to limit spending. Despite the imposition of an efficiency dividend under the Abbott government, the federal budget deficit and government net government debt as a proportion of GDP have expanded at a rapid pace.
Over the course of 2014 alone net debt increased by some $60 billion and the budget deficit for 2014-15 was $40 billion. Overall, however, Australia's net debt at 15 per cent of GDP in 2015 remains relatively low compared to other developed economies. Recently, the Prime Minister stated that a budget emergency no longer existed.
The federal government also intends to reduce spending on the public service by outsourcing and privatising government functions as part of its agenda to shrink the overall size of the Australian public service. At the midyear economic forecast in late 2014, the Treasurer and Finance Minister announced the introduction of a "contestability framework" that would establish a process for outsourcing government functions.
Curtailing wage rises forms yet another plank of austerity measures. In the latest round of enterprise bargaining, agencies have offered employees pay rises of between 0.5 per cent and 1.08 per cent a year. The productivity offsets identified by agencies are based on employees working longer hours or conditions – such as personal/carer's leave – being reduced.
If Australia is not experiencing a fiscal emergency, why does the Australian government continue its mantra that austerity measures are needed? Drawing from their international and local experiences, academics at a symposium on austerity in the public sector held at UNSW Canberra concluded that "austerity" is a term deployed by neo-liberal governments to positively frame the need for fiscal discipline.
The rationale justifying austerity is also often couched in technical language that appears to be neutral and impartial. In relation to public service wages, employment conditions and industrial agreements, the politics of austerity often masks an agenda aimed at reconfiguring employment rights for Australian public sector workers and limiting the role of government in regulating the economy, redistributing wealth and supporting social development. An enhanced role for the private sector is offered as the solution to the reduced role of the public sector in service delivery and policy development.
Conservative federal governments have traditionally had a deep distrust towards the public service. While some public servants enjoy a positive public image – nurses spring to mind – public servants in federal agencies are routinely criticised as part of the austerity discourse.
Recently, Australian Public Service Commissioner John Lloyd was reported as stating that "public service productivity is held back by 'soft' employment conditions, excessive personal leave and underperformance". The commissioner also mentioned anecdotal stories about public servants taking leave due to being hung-over. Whether true or not, such statements aim to legitimise the need for austerity measures while undermining any sense of the public good or the value of the contributions of public service employees.
Attempted reductions to employment conditions also reveal the gendered aspects of public sector austerity. The public sector has provided women with access to female-friendly, quality jobs, offering relatively good wages, working conditions and job security. Job losses, outsourcing and reduced working conditions that result from public sector austerity therefore reproduce gendered inequalities, affecting female employees more than male employees. Further, as women shoulder more of the caring responsibilities in families and communities, women are also more dependent on the social and community services provided by governments.
The introduction of policies to outsource service delivery often results in fewer jobs, at lower wages and with reduced employment conditions. Why should we expect the workers who look after our children, support the delivery of much-needed public services and provide emergency services at times of crisis, to do this work for less?
Why do we undervalue the redistributive and transformative effects of public goods on our communities and nations? Yet this is what the rhetoric and policy of austerity asks of us. The current enterprise negotiations present an opportunity to further the government's neo-liberal ideology, yet they are neither economically necessary nor good for the building of robust communities and workplaces.
Michael O'Donnell, professor of human resource management, UNSW Canberra; Charlotte Yates, professor, school of labour studies & department of political science, McMaster University, Canada; Sue Williamson, lecturer, human resource management, UNSW Canberra.
