Townsville Bulletin

Public staff on golden handshake gravy train

- NATASHA BITA

SACKED bureaucrat­s pocketed $ 181 million in golden handshakes last year — yet hundreds came straight back to work in the public service.

In a revolving door of recruitmen­t, the Federal Government rehired 752 “redundant’’ staff during 2015/ 16.

Despite $ 181 million in redundancy payouts during 2016 to 2210 staff on the grounds they were no longer needed, the federal public service still swelled by 1600 employees, or by 2323 including the military.

Defence spent $ 53.2 million on redundanci­es for 571 staff at an average payout of $ 93,170 including 20 senior officials paid an “incentive to retire’’.

The Australian Taxation Office made 493 staff redundant last year, at a cost to taxpayers of $ 42.7 million.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s own department spent $ 6 million to lay off 101 bureaucrat­s – then awarded contracts to two of them.

Taxpayers forked out $ 181.5 million in redundancy payments to 2210 federal bureaucrat­s from 17 department­s and agencies during 2016.

Immigratio­n and Border Protection spent $ 17.7 million sacking 205 staff and Human Services laid off 240 at a cost of $ 16.7 million. The health department spent $ 10.7 million making 154 staff redundant.

Defence has revealed it has no idea how many of its “redundant’’ bureaucrat­s have come back to work as contractor­s or consultant­s.

“There is nothing to prevent an employee who is being made redundant from taking up employment with a company contracted to Defence,’’ it has told a Senate committee.

“Defence does not capture such informatio­n.’’

The Department of Industry, Innovation and Science – which spent $ 7.8 million on redundanci­es – also claimed it would be an “unreasonab­le diversion of resources’’ to reveal details of contracts awarded to laid- off public servants.

The Australian Public Service Commission said during 2015/ 16, agencies had rehired 752 staff who had pocketed redundanci­es, the majority as “non- ongoing employees in a different agency”, but there was no data on those engaged as contractor­s.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia