The statistic profile of Australian Public Service published this week reveals yet another sad example of the influence of the Baby Boomers. The Baby Boomers — those born between the end of World War II and 1960 — have aggressively pushed those older out into retirement; created elite jobs for themselves and denied younger people the same opportunities that they had themselves.
The Baby Boomers are now aged 39 to 54. The average age of a male public servant is 42 years and three months; the average female public servant is 38 years one month. Those averages are not a problem in themselves. The problem is that they hide the narrowing of the age spread. The Public Service is no longer a place where young people, particularly those coming out of university (let alone school) can aspire to work. In a staff of 113,268 only 75 are under the age of 20 and only 3597 are under 25. At the beginning of the decade it employed four and a half times as many people under 25.
Under-20s comprised 12 per cent of appointments at the beginning of decade; now it is just over 1 per cent.
Part of the reason is that there are fewer entry-level positions in the Public Service. At the beginning of decade there were 44,343 ASO1 and 2 positions; now there are just 12,794. There will be no more telegram-boy-to-permanent-head stories. More seriously, though, the figures reveal a change of culture. Young people are not taken on board, trained and promoted in the Public Service any more. People enter the service already trained at higher ranks or having entered and been promoted long ago are clinging to their jobs. The result is a middle-aged public service and a service which is getting older and smaller. The public service also remains dominates by males at the top. In short, the Public Service is narrowing.
This must be influencing public-service culture and attitude, and ultimately advice that goes to government. Younger people’s views must be carrying less weight I the body that plays such a significant part in the destiny of the nation.
Perhaps this is having an influence in government policy on young people — on youth wages; work (in low status work) for the dole (rather than work and train for real jobs); a harsher higher-education environment; less friendly environments to young mothers and fathers and so on.
It is too easy to point to technological change as the reason for the exclusion of young people. Sure, the modern Public Service, streamlined, multi-skilled and efficiently using new technology does not need telegram boys, typists, people doing photocopying and a range of other low-skilled jobs. But that is no reason to exclude the young for career opportunities in the service. When those semi-skilled jobs were taken on by the young in times past it gave them a leg in from which they could train, take university courses part-time (often with study leave) or learn on the job and move up to positions of influence.
There must be other ways to bring the young into the service. Private enterprise has not abandoned the young in the way the Public Service has.
The Public Service and Merit Protection Commission (which issued the statistical analysis) should be viewing its figures with alarm. It should be asking itself: do we want a Public Service with such an age imbalance? Where will the public servants of the future come? Is the concept of a career service to end? Will they be recruited in their 40s on fixed contracts? If so, what of corporate memory? Will the public policy wheel have to be reinvented every time a new government is elected?