AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact 1
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN BUDGET IMPACT SURVEY
Report 2: Staff impact
Ann-Louise Hordacre John Spoehr
May 2011
Report prepared for: Public Service Association of South Australia
Australian Institute for Social Research
The University of Adelaide
230 North Terrace
Adelaide
South Australia 5005
www.aisr.adelaide.edu.au
Published May 2011.
ISBN: 978-0-9871430-0-6
Suggested citation:
Hordacre, AL & Spoehr, J. (2011). South Australian Budget Impact Survey – Report 2: Staff Impact. Adelaide: Australian
Institute for Social Research, The University of Adelaide.
AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact i
CONTENTS
KEY FINDINGS AT A GLANCE ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 2
2 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................. 2
3 SURVEY FINDINGS .............................................................................................................................................. 2
3.1 BUDGET IMPACT ON CAREER INTENTIONS .................................................................................................................... 2
3.2 LEVEL OF STAFF CUTBACKS ........................................................................................................................................ 5
3.3 FEELINGS ABOUT WORK AND WORKLOAD .................................................................................................................... 8
3.3.1 Impact of staff cutbacks on the work and work unit .................................................................................. 10
3.3.2 Impact of staff cutbacks on staff ................................................................................................................ 12
4 RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS .......................................................................................................................16
4.1 WORKPLACE........................................................................................................................................................ 16
APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE .......................................................................................................................18
APPENDIX B: PORTFOLIOS AND TYPE OF WORK ........................................................................................................19
TABLE OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: IMPACT OF 2010-11 STATE BUDGET ON PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES CAREER INTENTIONS FOR NEXT FIVE YEARS ......................... 3
FIGURE 2: IMPACT OF 2010-11 STATE BUDGET ON PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES CAREER INTENTIONS FOR NEXT FIVE YEARS BY AGE ............... 3
FIGURE 3: MAIN CONTRIBUTING FACTOR FOR CHANGING CAREER INTENTIONS AFTER THE 2010-11 STATE BUDGET ................................... 4
FIGURE 4: STAFFING LEVELS FOR RESPONDENT’S UNIT AND AGENCY PRIOR TO 2010-11 STATE BUDGET ................................................... 5
FIGURE 5: REALLOCATION OF DUTIES IN WORK UNITS EXPERIENCING CUTBACKS IN PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS ................................................. 6
FIGURE 6: MAIN REASON FOR STAFF CUTBACKS IN THE WORK UNIT .................................................................................................... 6
FIGURE 7: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CUTBACKS IN PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS AND CHANGING CAREER INTENTIONS ........................................... 7
FIGURE 8: STAFFING LEVELS FOR RESPONDENT’S UNIT AND AGENCY PRIOR TO 2010-11 STATE BUDGET ................................................... 7
FIGURE 9: RATINGS ABOUT CURRENT WORK AND WORKLOAD ........................................................................................................... 8
FIGURE 10: SATISFACTION WITH CURRENT WORK AND WORKLOAD .................................................................................................... 8
FIGURE 11: STRESSED WITH CURRENT WORK AND WORKLOAD .......................................................................................................... 8
FIGURE 12: FEEL OVERWORKED BY CURRENT WORK AND WORKLOAD ................................................................................................. 9
FIGURE 13: ABLE TO GET THROUGH CURRENT WORKLOAD IN REGULAR HOURS ..................................................................................... 9
FIGURE 14: QUALITY OF WORK ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY CURRENT WORKLOAD .................................................................................... 9
FIGURE 15: CURRENT JOB ALLOWS ME TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE ......................................................................................................... 9
FIGURE 16: CURRENT WORK HAS ADVERSE EFFECT ON HEALTH AND WELLBEING ................................................................................... 9
FIGURE 17: IMPACT OF THE 2009-10 AND 2010-11 STATE BUDGET CUTBACKS ON WORK AND THE WORK UNIT IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS AND
IN THE FUTURE .............................................................................................................................................................. 10
FIGURE 18: IMPACT OF THE 2009-10 AND 2010-11 STATE BUDGET CUTBACKS ON EFFICIENCY IN THE WORK UNIT IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS
AND IN THE FUTURE ........................................................................................................................................................ 10
FIGURE 19: IMPACT OF THE 2009-10 AND 2010-11 STATE BUDGET CUTBACKS ON THE ABILITY OF THE WORK UNIT TO COVER REGULAR AND
UNPLANNED JOB ABSENCES IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS AND IN THE FUTURE .................................................................................. 11
AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact ii
FIGURE 20: IMPACT OF THE 2009-10 AND 2010-11 STATE BUDGET CUTBACKS ON MY ABILITY TO DO MY JOB IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS AND IN
THE FUTURE .................................................................................................................................................................. 11
FIGURE 21: IMPACT OF THE 2009-10 AND 2010-11 STATE BUDGET CUTBACKS ON MY WORKLOAD IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS AND IN THE
FUTURE ........................................................................................................................................................................ 11
FIGURE 22: IMPACT OF THE 2009-10 AND 2010-11 STATE BUDGET CUTBACKS ON THE QUALITY OF MY WORK IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS AND
IN THE FUTURE .............................................................................................................................................................. 12
FIGURE 23: IMPACT OF THE 2009-10 AND 2010-11 STATE BUDGET CUTBACKS ON STAFF IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS AND IN THE FUTURE ..... 13
FIGURE 24: IMPACT OF THE 2009-10 AND 2010-11 STATE BUDGET CUTBACKS ON MY ABILITY TO MAKE LONG TERM PLANS ABOUT MY WORK
IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS AND IN THE FUTURE ...................................................................................................................... 13
FIGURE 25: IMPACT OF THE 2009-10 AND 2010-11 STATE BUDGET CUTBACKS ON THE PRESSURE I EXPERIENCE AT WORK IN THE LAST 12
MONTHS AND IN THE FUTURE ........................................................................................................................................... 13
FIGURE 26: IMPACT OF THE 2009-10 AND 2010-11 STATE BUDGET CUTBACKS ON MY STRESS LEVELS IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS AND IN THE
FUTURE ........................................................................................................................................................................ 14
FIGURE 27: IMPACT OF THE 2009-10 AND 2010-11 STATE BUDGET CUTBACKS ON MY MORALE IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS AND IN THE FUTURE
.................................................................................................................................................................................. 14
FIGURE 28: IMPACT OF THE 2009-10 AND 2010-11 STATE BUDGET CUTBACKS ON MY JOB SATISFACTION IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS AND IN THE
FUTURE ........................................................................................................................................................................ 14
FIGURE 29: IMPACT OF THE 2009-10 AND 2010-11 STATE BUDGET CUTBACKS ON MY CONFIDENCE IN THE SA GOVERNMENT AS AN
EMPLOYER IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS AND IN THE FUTURE ....................................................................................................... 15
FIGURE 30: GOVERNMENT AGENCY OF USUAL WORK ................................................................................................................... 16
FIGURE 31: AVERAGE HOURS OF PAID AND UNPAID OVERTIME BY THE AVERAGE HOURS RESPONDENT IS EMPLOYED TO WORK ..................... 17
FIGURE A 1: GENDER DISTRIBUTION OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS COMPARED TO ELIGIBLE PSA MEMBERS AND THE TOTAL SA PUBLIC SECTOR .. 18
FIGURE A 2: AGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS COMPARED TO ELIGIBLE PSA MEMBERS AND THE TOTAL SA PUBLIC SECTOR .................. 18
FIGURE A 3: AREA OF EMPLOYMENT: JUSTICE PORTFOLIO .............................................................................................................. 19
FIGURE A 4: AREA OF EMPLOYMENT: TRANSPORT, ENERGY & INFRASTRUCTURE PORTFOLIO ................................................................ 19
FIGURE A 5: AREA OF EMPLOYMENT: FAMILIES & COMMUNITIES PORTFOLIO .................................................................................... 19
FIGURE A 6: AREA OF EMPLOYMENT: TRADE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PORTFOLIO ....................................................................... 20
FIGURE A 7: AREA OF EMPLOYMENT: ENVIRONMENT PORTFOLIO .................................................................................................... 20
FIGURE A 8: DESCRIPTION OF THE USUAL NATURE OF RESPONDENTS WORK AND THE WORK USUALLY UNDERTAKEN BY THEIR WORK UNIT ...... 21
AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact 1
KEY FINDINGS AT A GLANCE
KEY FINDINGS AT A GLANCE It is apparent from the results of this survey that the compounding effects of successive State Budget cuts
is fuelling the loss of experienced staff at a faster rate than less experienced staff. This accelerates a pre-
existing trend fuelled by the ageing of the workforce and the acceleration of the retirement rate of the
baby boomer population. The combination of these influences has the potential to starve the public sector
of the expertise and skills it needs to meet government and community expectations.
More than half the respondents indicated the 2010-2011 State Budget affected their career intentions
o Most of these were considering leaving the public sector via separation packages (17%), or resignation to seek work elsewhere (14%).
o A further 10% were considering job change within the sector. o Public servants with more experience reported that they were most likely to leave either their
jobs or the sector (in addition to those already contemplating retirement in the next five years)
Staff cuts were the main contributing factor to changes in career intentions for almost one third of
respondents.
One-half of respondents indicated their work unit had experienced staff cutbacks in the preceding 12
months, with one-third of these being considered ‘significant cutbacks’ (around one-third reduction in
staff).
o Staff cutbacks were significantly related to changes in career intention. Almost 60% of those experiencing significant cutbacks were considering leaving the public sector or their current role, compared with one-third of those who reported no cutbacks.
Almost half the respondents in inadequately staffed work units (or agencies) were considering leaving
their current job or the public sector, compared with less than 40% in adequately staffed areas.
Only a quarter of respondents indicated they were almost always satisfied with their current work and
workload. These individuals were less likely to consider job change or departure from the public sector
suggesting that job satisfaction plays a protective role from other work pressures. Noting that almost
three-quarters of respondents did not get the benefit from this high level of job satisfaction.
28% of respondents reported they were never or rarely able to get through their workload in regular
hours.
Many felt their current work and workload had at least some impact on their stress levels, feelings of
being overworked and their health and wellbeing.
Staff cutbacks experienced as a result of the 2009-10 State Budget were viewed as having an
overwhelmingly negative impact on the work and work unit, with further deleterious impact as a result
of the 2010-11 Budget.
o In some cases, respondents indicated additional personal effort meant they could deliver on
the work they were responsible for, but were aware that this was not possible within the
broader work unit.
In terms of personal impact, it is evident that respondents believe that the State Budgets brought
down for 2009-10 and 2010-11 had negative implications.
o As a result of the 2009-10 Budget, 44.8% of respondents indicated confidence in their
employer was very negatively impacted, this was compounded by the 2010-11 Budget with
55.5% of respondents indicating very negative impact.
o As a result of the 2010-11 State Budget, one third of respondents reported a very negative
impact on their morale, while one quarter of respondents indicated very negative impacts on
their stress levels and the pressure they experienced at work.
Respondents were a representative cross-section of PSA members, with 3,380 members taking part. They were currently working an average of 2.7 hours overtime per week, with 85% of all overtime being unpaid. More than half the respondents reported that their work unit and/or their agency were inadequately staffed prior to the announcements in the 2010-11 State Budget.
AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact 2
1 INTRODUCTION
The South Australian Budget Impact Survey was developed collaboratively with the Public Service Association
(PSA) of South Australia. It consisted of a number of multiple and free response questions exploring the
perceived impact of the South Australian Budget for 2010-11 on the delivery of State Government services to
the community, and the impact on the work quality, workload and work satisfaction of employees.
This report focuses on the perspectives of PSA members on the impact of the State Budget on staff. A
previously released companion report considers the effects of the State Budget on the delivery of Government
Services.
2 METHODOLOGY
The survey was tested with a working group of PSA members to ensure questions and response options were
appropriate, and the online survey was free of technical problems. Minor revisions were made to the survey as
a result of feedback from this process. On 1 December 2010, approximately 13,000 PSA members from South
Australian Government funded agencies received an invitation to participate in the survey, with a web-link to
the Survey Monkey site. Two emails were subsequently sent, thanking those who had already participated and
reminding those yet to complete the survey. The survey closed on 22 December 2010.
3 SURVEY FINDINGS
Respondents were a representative cross-section of PSA members, with 3,380 members taking part. They were currently working an average of 2.7 hours overtime per week, with 85% of all overtime being unpaid. More than half the respondents reported that their work unit and/or their agency were inadequately staffed prior to the announcements in the 2010-11 State Budget. More details about the respondents personal and workplace characteristics are presented in Section 4 and the Appendices.
3.1 BUDGET IMPACT ON CAREER INTENTIONS
It is apparent from the results of this survey that the compounding effects of successive State Budget cuts is
fuelling the loss of experienced staff at a faster rate than less experienced staff. This accelerates a pre-existing
trend fuelled by the ageing of the workforce and the acceleration of the retirement rate of the baby boomer
population. The combination of these influences has the potential to starve the public sector of the expertise
and skills it needs to meet government and community expectations.
More than half the respondents indicated their career intentions had been affected by the 2010-2011 State
Budget. Almost 17% of survey participants reported they would now consider a separation package, if it was
available (see Figure 1). A further 14.3% were more likely, as a result of the Budget, to resign from their
position in the public service and seek opportunities outside State Government. Just over 10% considered
moving from their current job, into another position in State Government, and 4.1% indicated they were more
likely to seek earlier retirement.
Whilst age and length of workforce tenure are significantly correlated, this relationship does not tell the whole
story. There was no significant age difference between those who were considering either changing their role
or leaving the public service altogether. However, there was a significant difference in terms of experience –
AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact 3
those who had been in the public service for longer were more likely to consider leaving their job or leaving
the sector.
Figure 1: Impact of 2010-11 State Budget on public service employees career intentions for next five years
In terms of the older cohort of State Public Sector employees (ie those aged over 45 years), it is apparent that
many were already considering retirement (see Figure 2). The prospect of a separation package is likely to
have prompted a number into earlier retirement. Around 40% of the younger cohort (under 45 years) were
considering their options for job change, both within the public sector (18.2%) and through resignation from
the sector (23.1%).
Figure 2: Impact of 2010-11 State Budget on public service employees career intentions for next five years by age
16.8%14.3%
10.1%
6.7%4.1% 3.8%
7.6%
27.7%
8.9%
%
10%
20%
30%
Would consider a separation
package
More likely to resign from job & seek
opportunities outside SA
Gov
More likely to leave job & seek other
opportunities within SA Gov
Likely to work longer
More likely to retire earlier
Other Was already planning to
retire/resign within 5 yrs
No intention to
resign/retire in next 5 years
Don't know
Career for next 5 years
Would consider a separation
package
More likely to resign
from job & seek
opportunities outside
SA Gov
More likely to leave job
& seek other
opportunities within SA Gov
Likely to work longer
More likely to retire earlier
Was already
planning to retire/ resign
within 5 yrs
No intention to
resign/ retire in next 5 years
Other
60 years and over 16.9% 2.0% 2.0% 10.6% 24.0% 55.8% 2.7% 8.0%
55 to 59 years 31.9% 11.1% 9.6% 23.1% 39.6% 28.9% 16.1% 10.0%
50 to 54 years 23.7% 22.0% 17.9% 35.0% 29.2% 12.1% 22.2% 13.0%
45 to 49 years 12.9% 17.7% 18.7% 15.6% 6.3% 2.1% 18.2% 28.0%
Less than 45 years 14.8% 47.1% 51.8% 15.6% 1.0% 1.1% 40.9% 41.0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact 4
Staff cuts were the main contributing factor to changes in career intentions for almost one third of
respondents (see Figure 3). This was particularly salient for those who were considering changing jobs within
State Government. Not surprisingly, reduced entitlements were less of an issue for this group, but they were
particularly important for those considering resignation from the State public service, and seeking
employment opportunities elsewhere, with 45.4% citing this as their primary motivation.
Figure 3: Main contributing factor for changing career intentions after the 2010-11 State Budget
Other reasons provided for considering a separation package were dissatisfaction with management, inability
to provide adequate services to the community and clients, and lack of respect. The potential availability of a
separation package was also cited as an incentive. Public sector staff who were considering leaving the State
Government for other employment opportunities indicated that there were multiple factors influencing them
including lack of confidence in the government, and feeling that both they and the work they did was
undervalued. Reasons for remaining in State Government but leaving their current position tended to focus on
the culture, work load and expectations of their current role or work unit.
31.1% 29.2%35.9% 33.9%
41.3% 45.4% 27.0%40.4%
11.1% 11.5%21.5%
8.3%
16.4% 13.8% 15.6% 17.4%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Would consider a separation
package
More likely to resign from job &
seek opportunities
outside SA Gov
More likely to leave job & seek
other opportunities within SA Gov
More likely to retire earlier
Contributing factors
Other
Reduced options for other work
Reduced entitlements
Staff cuts
AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact 5
3.2 LEVEL OF STAFF CUTBACKS
More than half the respondents reported that their work unit (57.2%) and/or their agency (56.6%) were
inadequately staffed prior to the announcements in the 2010-11 State Budget (see Figure 4).
Figure 4: Staffing levels for respondent’s unit and agency prior to 2010-11 State Budget
One-half of respondents (51.6%, n= 1744) indicated their work unit had experienced staff cutbacks in the
preceding 12 months, with one-third of these being considered ‘significant cutbacks’. Those reporting
‘significant’ cutbacks indicated that an average of one third of staff in their work unit had been cut in the past
12 months. Respondents reported ‘moderate’ cutbacks when their work unit experienced a 22% reduction in
staff, and ‘minor’ cutbacks when 17% of their staff were cut.
Figure 5 shows that in more than 80% of cases duties were reallocated amongst existing staff after cutbacks
from work units. This was slightly less common when cutbacks were considered ‘significant’, and if this was the
case, duties tended to be abolished all together. Of those who reported cutbacks in the previous 12 months,
three-quarters believed that these cutbacks were directly attributable to the Budget (see Figure 6).
28.8%
57.2%
1.2% 3.1%9.7%
17.6%
56.6%
1.9%
14.2%9.7%
%
20%
40%
60%
Yes, adequately staffed
No, inadequately
staffed
Overstaffed Don't know No response
Staffing levels
Your unit Your agency
AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact 6
Figure 5: Reallocation of duties in work units experiencing cutbacks in previous 12 months
Note, 4 respondents provided no response regarding the allocation of duties, these are not included in the figure.
Figure 6: Main reason for staff cutbacks in the work unit
Yes - significant cutbacks (n=500)
Yes - moderate cutbacks (n=611)
Yes - minor cutbacks (n=633)
Other (n=94) 7.4% 5.6% 3.7%
Don't know (n=100) 3.2% 6.1% 7.5%
The duties were reallocated amongst existing staff (n=1458)
80.0% 84.9% 85.7%
The duties were abolished altogether (n=88)
9.4% 3.4% 3.2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Reallocation of duties (n=1740)
Budget-related, 78.6%
Skill shortage, 2.6%
Efficiency dividend, 3.7%
Reduced number of
staff required to do the
work, 14.7%
No response, 0.3%
Reason for cutbacks (n-1,744)
AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact 7
There was a significant relationship between experience of cutbacks in the previous 12 months and whether
the respondent was considering role change within the sector or leaving the public sector altogether (see
Figure 7). Respondents who reported cutbacks in the preceding 12 months were more likely to be considering
these types of changes. This ranged from 57.9% of respondents whose work unit had experienced significant
cuts, through to 47.5% of those experiencing minor cutbacks. In contrast just over one-third of those not
experiencing cutbacks in the previous 12 months were considering leaving their role or the sector. This has
serious implications for the additional cuts proposed in the 2010-11 State Budget.
Figure 7: Relationship between cutbacks in previous 12 months and changing career intentions
Administrative work was common for respondents, and also the most common activity for the work areas of
respondents. One-third of respondents (33.5%) reported usually being engaged in administrative work, while
almost one-quarter worked in units predominantly engaged with administration (see Figure A 8).
More than half the respondents reported that their work unit (57.2%) and/or their agency (56.6%) were
inadequately staffed prior to the 2010-11 State Budget. This factor significantly impacted decisions about
leaving current work roles or leaving the public sector altogether, with 38.8% of respondents in adequately
staffed work units considering leaving compared with 48.5% of those in inadequately staffed work units.
Inadequately staffed agencies produced similar results (48.1% considering leaving) compare to adequately
staffed agencies where only 36.9% were considering this option.
Figure 8: Staffing levels for respondent’s unit and agency prior to 2010-11 State Budget
57.9% 52.3% 47.5%35.2%
42.1% 47.7% 52.5%64.8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Yes - significant cutbacks
Yes - moderate cutbacks
Yes - minor cutbacks
No cutbacks
Leaving role or sector
No
Yes
28.8%
57.2%
1.2% 3.1%9.7%
17.6%
56.6%
1.9%
14.2%9.7%
%
20%
40%
60%
Yes, adequately staffed
No, inadequately
staffed
Overstaffed Don't know No response
Staffing levels
Your unit Your agency
AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact 8
3.3 FEELINGS ABOUT WORK AND WORKLOAD
All respondents were asked to rate their feelings about their current work and workload. Responses are rated
on a scale of 1 ‘Never’ through to 5 ‘Almost always’. On a positive note, more than half the respondents
(57.9%) indicated they were often or almost always satisfied with their jobs resulting in the best rating (3.7) for
this scale (see Figure 9), with only 10% reporting they were never or rarely satisfied (see Figure 10).
Respondents with high levels of job satisfaction were significantly less likely to consider job change or
departure from the public sector indicating that job satisfaction protects individuals from other external work
pressures.
Many respondents (45.5%) also believed their job allowed them to make a difference, with less than 20%
believing this was never or rarely the case (see Figure 15). Fewer respondents strongly endorsed the statement
indicating they were able to get through their current workload in regular hours (40.3%), with 27.7% of
respondents rarely or never able to achieve this outcome (see Figure 13). This was not always seen to impact
on the quality of work (see Figure 14). Although not always the case, the fact that the respondents’ current
work and workload had at least some impact on their stress levels, feelings of being overworked and their
health and wellbeing, should not be overlooked.
Figure 9: Ratings about current work and workload
Figure 10: Satisfaction with current work and workload
Figure 11: Stressed with current work and workload
3.733.37 3.31 3.22
2.86
3.38
2.90
1
2
3
4
5
Satisfaction with job
Workload makes me feel
stressed
Workload makes me feel
overworked
Ability to get through
workload in normal
working hours
Quality of my work is
adversely affected
because of my workload
My job allows me to make a
difference
Work has an adverse effect on my health
Curent work and workload
1.6%8.4%
32.0% 31.7%26.2%
%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost always
Satisfied
1.7%
13.0%
45.7%
26.1%
13.5%
%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost always
Stress
Almost
always
Never
AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact 9
Figure 12: Feel overworked by current work and workload
Figure 13: Able to get through current workload in regular hours
Figure 14: Quality of work adversely affected by current workload
Figure 15: Current job allows me to make a difference
Figure 16: Current work has adverse effect on health and wellbeing
2.4%
16.3%
42.7%
25.2%
13.4%
%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost always
Feel overworked
6.8%
20.9%
32.0%
24.5%
15.8%
%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost always
Get through workload
6.8%
28.9%
42.4%
15.6%
6.4%
%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost always
Quality of work affected
4.6%
14.7%
35.2%29.3%
16.2%
%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost always
Make a difference
7.5%
25.8%
43.1%
16.0%
7.5%
%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Almost always
Health & wellbeing affected
AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact 10
3.3.1 IMPACT OF STAFF CUTBACKS ON THE WORK AND WORK UNIT
Respondents who indicated their work unit had experienced staff cutbacks as a result of the 2009-10 State
Budget described the impact of these cutbacks on their work and their work unit over the last 12 months. This
is compared with the expected impact of the 2010-11 State Budget cutbacks, with responses rated on a scale
of 1 ‘Very negative impact’ through to 5 ‘Very positive impact’.
As evident in Figure 17, the cutbacks experienced as a result of the 2009-10 State Budget were viewed as
having an overwhelmingly negative impact.. The negative implications were most evident in the impact on the
ability of the work unit to cover regular and unplanned job absences and on the efficiency in the work unit as a
whole (see Figure 18 and Figure 19). Where the respondent had the ability to display some personal control,
the results were slightly more positive. This suggests that while individuals are experiencing Budget cutbacks
negatively, they are putting in additional personal effort to ensure they are able to deliver on the work they
are responsible for. However, they recognise the inability of the work unit, more broadly, to respond to
repeated cutbacks.
Figure 17: Impact of the 2009-10 and 2010-11 State Budget cutbacks on work and the work unit in the last 12 months and in the future
Figure 18: Impact of the 2009-10 and 2010-11 State Budget cutbacks on efficiency in the work unit in the last 12 months and in the future
2.242.00
2.47 2.302.59
2.05 1.902.28 2.14
2.37
1
2
3
4
5
Efficiency in the work unit
Ability of the work unit to cover regular and unplanned job
absences
The ability to do my job
My workload The quality of my work
Work impact
Impact last 12 months Future impact
11.9%
49.5%
23.1%
2.4% 0.6%12.4%
23.4%
49.7%
20.5%
2.6% 1.0% 2.8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Very negative Negative Neither positive nor negative
Positive Very positive Not applicable
Efficiency in work unit
Impact last 12 months Future impact
AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact 11
Figure 19: Impact of the 2009-10 and 2010-11 State Budget cutbacks on the ability of the work unit to cover regular and unplanned job absences in the last 12 months and in the future
Figure 20: Impact of the 2009-10 and 2010-11 State Budget cutbacks on my ability to do my job in the last 12 months and in the future
Figure 21: Impact of the 2009-10 and 2010-11 State Budget cutbacks on my workload in the last 12 months and in the future
21.9%
49.1%
13.7%2.3% 0.7%
12.2%
32.4%45.5%
16.6%1.7% 1.0% 2.7%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Very negative Negative Neither positive nor negative
Positive Very positive Not applicable
Cover job absences
Impact last 12 months Future impact
6.5%
39.8% 37.6%
2.5% 0.8%12.9%16.2%
41.5% 36.1%
2.3% 0.9% 3.0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Very negative Negative Neither positive nor negative
Positive Very positive Not applicable
Ability to do job
Impact last 12 months Future impact
11.5%
45.4%
26.2%
2.6% 0.7%13.5%
20.5%
45.5%
28.4%
2.0% 0.7% 2.9%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Very negative Negative Neither positive nor negative
Positive Very positive Not applicable
Workload
Impact last 12 months Future impact
AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact 12
Figure 22: Impact of the 2009-10 and 2010-11 State Budget cutbacks on the quality of my work in the last 12 months and in the future
3.3.2 IMPACT OF STAFF CUTBACKS ON STAFF
This section explores the results of staff cutbacks from the last two State Budgets on the personal experience
of respondents in terms of morale, satisfaction and confidence. Responses are rated on a scale of 1 ‘Very
negative impact’ through to 5 ‘Very positive impact’.
In terms of personal impact, it is evident that respondents believe that the State Budgets brought down for
2009-10 and 2010-11 had negative implications (see Figure 23). In fact less than 4% of respondents indicated
that any of these items had positive impact. At the most extreme end of the scale respondents’ confidence in
the SA government as an employer was very low. As a result of the 2009-10 Budget, 44.8% of respondents
indicated confidence in their employer was very negatively impacted, this was then compounded by the 2010-
11 Budget with 55.5% of respondents indicating very negative impact at this time (see Figure 29).
As a result of the 2010-11 State Budget, one third of respondents reported a very negative impact on their
morale (see Figure 27), while one quarter of respondents indicated very negative impacts on their stress levels
(see Figure 26) and the pressure they experienced at work (see Figure 25).
4.4%
34.0%44.9%
2.6% 1.0%13.1%14.5%
35.9%43.2%
2.4% 0.9% 3.2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Very negative Negative Neither positive nor negative
Positive Very positive Not applicable
Quality of work
Impact last 12 months Future impact
AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact 13
Figure 23: Impact of the 2009-10 and 2010-11 State Budget cutbacks on staff in the last 12 months and in the future
Figure 24: Impact of the 2009-10 and 2010-11 State Budget cutbacks on my ability to make long term plans about my work in the last 12 months and in the future
Figure 25: Impact of the 2009-10 and 2010-11 State Budget cutbacks on the pressure I experience at work in the last 12 months and in the future
2.18 2.16 2.14 2.01 2.17
1.712.02 2.05 2.04 1.92 2.04
1.60
1
2
3
4
5
My ability to make long term plans about my
work
The pressure I experience at
work
Stress levels My morale Job satisfaction My confidence in the SA
government as an employer
Personal impact
Impact last 12 months Future impact
19.6%
36.1%28.2%
1.7% 0.7%13.7%
29.4%39.6%
25.1%
1.8% 0.8% 3.2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Very negative Negative Neither positive nor negative
Positive Very positive Not applicable
Long term work plans
Impact last 12 months Future impact
14.9%
48.3%
21.9%
1.4% 0.7%12.8%
23.6%
48.1%
23.3%
1.6% 0.7% 2.7%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Very negative Negative Neither positive nor negative
Positive Very positive Not applicable
Pressure experienced
Impact last 12 months Future impact
AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact 14
Figure 26: Impact of the 2009-10 and 2010-11 State Budget cutbacks on my stress levels in the last 12 months and in the future
Figure 27: Impact of the 2009-10 and 2010-11 State Budget cutbacks on my morale in the last 12 months and in the future
Figure 28: Impact of the 2009-10 and 2010-11 State Budget cutbacks on my job satisfaction in the last 12 months and in the future
17.0%
45.5%
22.6%
1.6% 0.6%12.6%
25.6%
46.0%
23.4%
1.6% 0.8% 2.5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Very negative Negative Neither positive nor negative
Positive Very positive Not applicable
Stress levels
Impact last 12 months Future impact
26.1%40.3%
17.8%2.4% 0.9%
12.5%
33.1%43.5%
18.2%
2.0% 1.0% 2.3%0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Very negative Negative Neither positive nor negative
Positive Very positive Not applicable
Morale
Impact last 12 months Future impact
19.8%
39.2%24.3%
3.2% 0.8%12.7%
28.2%41.4%
24.7%
2.2% 1.1% 2.4%0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Very negative Negative Neither positive nor negative
Positive Very positive Not applicable
Job satisfaction
Impact last 12 months Future impact
AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact 15
Figure 29: Impact of the 2009-10 and 2010-11 State Budget cutbacks on my confidence in the SA government as an employer in the last 12 months and in the future
44.8%
28.6%
11.5%1.3% 1.3%
12.4%
55.5%
30.5%
9.3%1.2% 1.5% 2.0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Very negative Negative Neither positive nor negative
Positive Very positive Not applicable
Confidence in SA government as employer
Impact last 12 months Future impact
AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact 16
4 RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
In total, 3,380 members of the PSA of South Australia1 took part in the survey, representing approximately 26%
of those invited. The gender distribution of survey respondents, eligible PSA members and the entire public
sector is similar, with approximately one-third males and two-thirds females (see Appendix A).
The average age for survey respondents was 48.1 years, very similar to the average age of eligible PSA
members (47.8 years). The negative skew of respondents by age group is consistent with the age profile of
eligible PSA members (see Appendix A). However, the total South Australian Public Sector shows a younger
(and flatter) profile. Only 20.3% of survey respondents (and 22.3% of eligible PSA members) were less than 40
years old, compared to 35.8% of the Public Sector as a whole (noting the Public Sector includes a high number
of teachers, nurses and police who are likely to be members of other unions).
Most respondents (80.9%) reported working primarily in Metropolitan Adelaide, with 16.5% reporting working
mainly in regional areas. Only 0.4% were unable to specify one main location and reported working across
both regional and metropolitan areas. The remaining 2.1% failed to provide a response.
4.1 WORKPLACE
Almost all survey respondents worked in a Government agency, department or health service. The proportion
of respondents usually working in each Government Agency (or Department) is shown in Figure 30. The
highest proportion of respondents came from the Departments of Families and Communities and Health, with
21.7% and 21.4%, respectively.
Figure 30: Government Agency of usual work
Of the 120 respondents who indicated they worked in a Government Business Enterprise or a Statutory
Authority, most common responses were for the Legal Services Commission and WorkCover SA. Twenty-two
enterprises or statutory authorities were listed in the 38 ‘other’ responses. The distribution of respondents
1 Tables and figures include all respondents, except where otherwise indicated in a table note.
21.7% 21.4%
12.5%9.6% 9.4%
5.4%3.9% 3.7% 3.7% 3.2% 2.1% 0.8% 0.8% 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.9%
%
10%
20%
30%
Fam
ilies
& C
om
mu
nit
ies
Hea
lth
Just
ice
Tran
spo
rt, E
ner
gy &
In
fras
tru
ctu
re
Edu
cati
on
& C
hild
ren
's
Serv
ices
Furt
her
Ed
., E
mp
loym
ent,
Sc
ien
ce &
Tec
hn
olo
gy
Trea
sury
& F
inan
ce
Pre
mie
r &
Cab
inet
Envi
ron
men
t
Pri
mar
y In
du
stri
es &
R
eso
urc
es Wat
er
Au
dit
or-
Gen
eral
's
Pla
nn
ing
& L
oca
l G
ove
rnm
ent
Trad
e &
Eco
no
mic
D
evel
op
men
t
Par
liam
ent
or
Elec
tora
te
staf
f
Tou
rism
No
ne
of
the
abo
ve
No
res
po
nse
Agency of employment (n=3,258)
AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact 17
within the different areas of the Justice; Transport, Energy and Infrastructure; Families and Communities;
Trade and Economic Development; and Environment portfolios are shown in Appendix B.
Almost two-thirds of respondents (62.3%) were classified as administrative services officers (ASO). Of the
remainder, the most common employment classifications were operational services officers (OPS) and allied
health professional (AHP) with 12.3% and 8.6% of respondents, respectively, in each classification (see
Appendix B). Most respondents (87.2%) reported they had ongoing employment, while 6.7% reported they
were on contract.
Respondents reported being employed for an average of 37.1 hours per week, and working and average of 2.7
hours overtime per week. Eighty-five percent of this overtime was unpaid. The distribution of paid and unpaid
overtime, by the usual hours the member is employed for reveals that the time spent on paid overtime was
relatively consistent for all categories, the amount of unpaid overtime was higher for those working longer
hours, overall (see Figure 31).
Figure 31: Average hours of paid and unpaid overtime by the average hours respondent is employed to work
Administrative work was common for respondents, and also the most common area of work for the work
areas of respondents. One-third of respondents (33.5%) reported usually being engaged in administrative
work, while almost one-quarter worked in units predominantly engaged with administration (see Appendix B).
1.50.9 1.0
1.62.2
5.0
0.90.3 0.3 0.4
0.9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 to 8 hours (n=19)
9 to 16 hours (n=51)
17 to 24 hours
(n=178)
25 to 32 hours
(n=277)
33 to 40 hours
(n=2431)
More than 40 hours
(n=274)
Ho
urs
Hours employed to work
Overtime
Unpaid Paid
AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact 18
APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
Figure A 1: Gender distribution of survey respondents compared to eligible PSA members and the total SA Public Sector
Source Public Sector data: Table 3. 2
,3
Figure A 2: Age distribution of respondents compared to eligible PSA members and the total SA Public Sector
Source Public Sector data: Table 3.3
2 Proportions presented for demographic questions include eligible responses only.
3 Commissioner for Public Sector Employment. (2009). South Australian Public Sector Workforce Information, June 2009:
Government of South Australia
64.2%
35.8%
65.9%
34.1%
65.7%
34.3%
%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Female Male
Gender
Survey Eligible PSA members Public sector (total)
1.0%
3.8%
7.5%8.0%
11.7%
15.9%
22.2%
19.4%
9.1%
1.4%
0.1%
1.6%
4.5%
7.5% 8.6%
12.2%
15.2%
19.8%
18.8%
9.6%
2.1%
0.6%
4.9%
9.3% 9.9%11.1%
12.4%14.7%
16.1%
13.1%
6.2%
1.6%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 and over
Age group
Survey PSA member Public Sector
AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact 19
APPENDIX B: PORTFOLIOS AND TYPE OF WORK
Figure A 3: Area of employment: Justice portfolio
Figure A 4: Area of employment: Transport, Energy & Infrastructure portfolio
Figure A 5: Area of employment: Families & Communities portfolio
35.4%
24.3%
16.0%11.8%
3.9% 3.7% 1.7% 1.0% 0.2% 2.0%
%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Dep
artm
ent
of
Co
rrec
tio
nal
Ser
vice
s
Att
orn
ey-G
ener
al's
D
epar
tmen
t
SA P
olic
e
Co
urt
s A
dm
inis
trat
ion
A
uth
ori
ty
SA F
ire
and
Em
erge
ncy
Se
rvic
es C
om
mis
sio
n
Co
un
try
Fire
Ser
vice
Stat
e Em
erge
ncy
Ser
vice
SA M
etro
po
litan
Fir
e Se
rvic
e
Elec
tora
l Co
mm
issi
on
of
SA
No
res
po
nse
Justice portfolio (n=407)
99.4%
0.6%%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Department of Transport, Energy and
Infrastructure
TransAdelaide
Transport, Energy and Infrastructure portfolio (n=312)
44.4%
19.8%
34.9%
0.1% 0.8%%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Department for Families
and Communities
Housing SA Families SA Disabilities SA
No response
Families and Communities portfolio (n=708)
AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact 20
Figure A 6: Area of employment: Trade & Economic Development portfolio
Figure A 7: Area of employment: Environment portfolio
93.3%
6.7%
%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Department of Trade and Economic Development
Defence SA
Trade and Economic Development portfolio (n=15)
88.4%
10.7%0.8%
%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Environment Protection Authority
No response
Environment portfolio (n=121)
AISR (2011) SA budget - Staff impact 21
Figure A 8: Description of the usual nature of respondents work and the work usually undertaken by their work unit
33.5%
9.6%
7.0%5.9%
4.5% 4.5% 4.0% 3.6% 3.3% 2.6% 2.0% 2.0% 1.7% 1.4% 1.0% 1.4%
3.9%
8.2%
23.0%
11.5%
3.3%
10.2%
4.1%5.9%
4.1%3.1%
6.4%
3.9%2.0% 2.0% 1.7% 2.1% 1.5% 1.4%
5.0%
8.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Usual nature of your work Usual nature of work in your work unit