Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, , 2:53:36 to 3:00:59
Detailed breakdown of redundancies across different departmental areas and various APS and SES levels.
Topics: Public service staffing, Government spending
Speakers: Stephanie Foster, Hon Jonathon Duniam, Charlotte Tressler, Senator Jana Stewart, Unknown Speaker
70.5 mil. Okay. And do we have a breakdown of where they uh were accepted from, which parts of the department? So in your question on uh notice answer that outlined the 1938, do we have a breakdown of where they exist?
Yeah, so um Senator Um of the 713, 440 were in the department itself and 273 in the Australian border force.
Okay. And when you say 440 in the department itself, do we have a breakdown of where in the department? Are they immigration? Are they?
Yep. So Senator Um 219 were immigration?
219.
Um we had 43 national security?
43.
87 in technology.
87, did you say?
That's correct. Um and the remainder were across the chief operating officer in legal, but I can provide you further breakdown if you'd like.
On notice would be great, okay. And the 273 in the ABF, have you got a breakdown of uh where within national operations, regional or strategy and capability?
I do, Senator. So national operations was 81.
Yes.
Our regional operations was 104. And strategy and capability was 88.
88. Okay. And then have any so if we go to immigration then of the 219 that have taken those VRs and matters closed. Um they've exited the organisation, they are no longer on staff, they're out the door.
That's correct.
Is that and for the work that those individuals were doing? Um was there a clarify? Sure. Uh for the work those individuals were doing, has there been any reallocation of human resources internally to backfill any vacancies created by the 219 that left immigration, for example?
Yes, so Senator, um very much being managed on the specific circumstances for each area. But first and foremost, um, for a position to have been um made redundant, it had to be a position that we could actually um afford to give away. And so teams and divisions have then been looking at um if there, you know, if there is work that needs to continue how to reallocate in the first instance among group amongst the group potentially move some positions around that they have. So very much focused on how they within each of the areas manage the impact.
So Senator, part of the process for assessing um which of the expressions of interest we would make an offer to was an assessment about workloads and priorities. And it's not a straight one-for-one. We can live without Charlotte, but not without Stephanie.
Um but your CIO is suddenly become dispensable. First Chief said of it. That'll make news in the Canberra Times, I reckon.
But a an assessment to say if we were, you know, if this team is 100 strong, can we afford to lose five from this in the context of needing to lose a number? So clearly, you know, we this wasn't a starting point that we wanted to be in, but being there, we then made an assessment about where those vacancies could best be managed. There will inevitably be then within the groups some reallocation. Um as there always is as priorities come and go and shift.
Um, and so that was going to be my question. So I gather um, you know, so it may be part of the decision-making process that if Charlotte wants to leave and the Secretary approves that, part of the thinking might be that there is someone over here who might be able to fill that role. Is that or is it more binary than that?
Um there were a number of occasions on which we didn't make an offer because the role was critical. And so um I actually picked a very bad example because operating officer is indeed critical. Um but it may be that we were able to reorganise the way work was done, that uh part of a role might be reallocated somewhere else. And I've got to say, Senator, it's still a work in progress.
Um what respect?
And we'll so we're still working with staff on the allocation of priorities with the number of resources that we have. Um, I'm I'm very grateful for the goodw of staff in working through that with us as we settle into uh a new norm.
Sure. Uh on notice, perhaps if I could ask for a breakdown by um APS level or SES level would be.
I can certainly give you a question.
I can give you that now if you would. Sure, why not?
Okay, sure.
So starting with APS 1s, one offer accepted, APS 2, 1, APS 3, 28, APS 4, 55, APS 5, 137, OPS 6, 201, executive level 1, 188, executive level 2, 86. Uh sorry, 87 for executive level two. Um I've then got some specialist um legal officers, principal legal officers, etcetera. That totals to 15.
Okay.
And that should give you 713.
And no um SES in there weren't on that.
Um SES aren't technically part of the voluntary redundancy scheme that applies to staff employed um under the enterprise agreement. We did, though, um make available to SES staff the opportunity to indicate if they wish to. Take an incentive to retire, which is the equivalent for SES. And we assess that on much the same basis. Is this a role that we could either manage without or reorganise around? Is it you know in each case we were clearly responding to the individual's interest, but looking at the organization or organizations' interests in making those decisions?
And how many of those incentives were offered and how many were taken up?
So I think believe it's six to both of those questions. Sorry, no. So six were accepted, and I think seven offered.
One further question on this, uh, which was um in and perhaps on notice in what areas were those SES offers accepted.
Yeah, I might need to take that one.
Excellent. Thank you. Senator Senator Shoebridge.