Unemployment is down, but apparently not enough to let workers call more shots when it comes to their pay and hours.

For those working for the ACT government, more are being employed as temporary staff.

Since 2014, their ranks have expanded by 600, growth that continued as the territory public service kept adding to its headcount last year. Last year, temporary workers were the fastest-growing sector of the ACT public service workforce.

Despite the Community and Public Sector Union's recent campaign against what it calls the government's over use of insecure work, temporary and casual employees have a legitimate place in any public sector.

The government has budgets to manage and should have the flexibility and freedom to allocate its spending on employment that serves its purposes best. A staffing cap imposed on federal government agencies, blamed for their ballooning use of contractors, shows the warping effect that restrictions can have on government employment decisions. It's exactly the sort of situation that even the Home Affairs department has called an end to.

There are plenty of times when the government is better off hiring casual and temporary workers. Nor should it rely on them when permanent staff will do.

Whether the ACT government is taking advantage of a climate in which workers in Australia hold fewer cards, and have to content themselves with casual hours and contracts, is a serious question and one the CPSU has been right to ask in its campaign.

As a Labor government, its supporters inside unions and the party more broadly would hope it makes itself a model employer that eschews the exploitation seen in the private sector.

What we have is an ACT public service that has between 5,200 and 6,000 casuals, temporary workers and contractors, and little clarity about how many of these could, and should, be in permanent work.

The government's promise of a taskforce to investigate this question is welcome progress, one that could settle the matter after the CPSU opened its attack on its employment of casuals and contractors.

It's also an inquiry open to flaws. The government needs to clarify how independent this taskforce will be, otherwise it risks giving itself a clean bill of health and letting any problems in the status quo fester.

Another risk is that the taskforce is purely a stunt, making the government appear it's applying strictures but ultimately changing nothing. It will have neutralised the CPSU's effective campaign and will carry on, having apparently done what it promised.

Whether this taskforce brings change depends also on the nature of the government's use of casuals and contractors. If its services are indeed better off keeping temporary staff, the limits of the ACT public service's influence in improving conditions for staff will be on show.

For those who are on contracts or casual hours when they should be permanent, they can only hope the government will be true to the intent of its taskforce.