Personnel practices in "the private sector" vary from chalk to cheese. For example, while a mixture of classic, dynastic nepotism and ideological compatibility might be fine for Rupert's Murdoch empire, the Commonwealth Bank and the corner Chiko Roll shop will typically allow merit more influence. That is, there's no single private sector model to follow.

While public service authorities should keep an eye on good employment practices elsewhere, the alignment of personnel practices with broadly comparable organisations in the private sector for its own sake is an inappropriate policy objective. Recruitment and tenure arrangements in particular must be based solidly on the public service's needs, especially the need to avoid political patronage, a matter not relevant in private companies, at least in the same way.

On the other hand, if Lloyd and his government masters were to look at good remuneration practices in other jurisdictions, they would find that no half-rational private company would be so stupid as to have the policy now imposed on the APS. That policy, which in theory makes improvements in remuneration entirely dependent on productivity gains that can't be measured, requires departments and the Public Service Commission to turn a comprehensive blind eye to pay and conditions of employment in the private sector. This is absurdity of an Olympian order. Sensible private companies set remuneration at levels in the labour market that will enable them to effectively recruit, retain and motivate their staff. That's what the public service should be able to do.

The commissioner and the government appear to be allowing themselves to be overly influenced by some private sector recruitment and tenure practices while ignoring these firms' rational approach to fixing pay and conditions. It should be the other way around.

Lloyd's rhetorical line is, however, consistent. The speeches he has made since being recruited by former minister Eric Abetz – via procedures that could not have been more streamlined – have essentially been the same: variations on themes about slicker recruitment, greater staff mobility, better performance management and easier means of sacking the incompetent, charmingly described by him as "mutually respectful parting of the ways". And they contain a goodly complement of buzzwords that are edgy because they are meaningless: "reform", "challenges", "new agendas", "dynamic", "smaller government", "less red tape" and, inevitably, a more "flexible environment". The late US senator, Thomas Gore, Gore Vidal's maternal grandfather, is supposed to have said that when he heard the word "reform" he would reach for his six-shooter – and he was completely blind. There is now a wide variety of words and phrases to warrant that caution.

While the commissioner's speeches contain flashes of good, ripe material, he is unreliable when it comes to history. For example, he said recently that "HR management has taken a back seat in previous episodes of APS reform". In fact, "HR management" was at the forefront of change in the 1960s, the most significant decade of improvement in the APS's history, was a dominant part of the 1980s' changes, and has been very important at other times at least until 2000.

Lloyd's outlook may have been affected recently by reviews conducted by Sandra McPhee and Peter Shergold. These were not all bad, but they were mostly bad. For example, McPhee wanted lower standards of merit in staffing and Shergold urged what he called a "Hollywood" approach, where crowds of people would be brought in, do a job and then be sent on their ways. Happily, these reports seem now to be where they deserve: on files marked "put away".

So against this mixed background, Lloyd has now delivered a revised set of personnel policies and practices via a formal determination pursuant to his powers under the Public Service Act. The new provisions have been posted on the commission's website and will come into effect on December 1. If these are anything to go by, it's satisfying to say that the commissioner's bite appears not to be as formidable as his bark.

Indeed, the new provisions (known formally as "directions") contain much that is commendable. For example:

So, not too bad – not too bad at all.

A snag in the new directions, however, is a provision to extend the maximum period of "non-ongoing" (could this please be changed back to "temporary"?) engagements from 12 to 18 months without a merit competition. There is already allowance to extend temporary appointments to three years.

This is consistent with the commissioner's wishes to "facilitate the more effective use of the full range of employment types, such as part-time, casual, fixed term, contractor and labour-hire employment". For "more effective use", read "greater use".

There is nothing to be said for the greater use of temporary employment for its own sake. Given the lower standards of merit assessment for temporary employment, its greater use, other than for work that is truly temporary, will reduce public service efficiency. Further, temporary staff can't be expected to have the same commitment as ongoing staff – the limited commitment inherent in offers of short term employment will usually be reciprocated by those receiving them. Those given jobs for a year, for example, will be significantly distracted in the last months of their appointments by the need to look for new ones. So the greater use of temporary employment will pose risks for the Lloyd's desire for an "engaged and high-performing workforce".

Moreover, there are legitimate questions about the use of contractor and labour-hire employment in some circumstances.

Section 67 of the constitution, dealing with the appointment of public servants, says:

In public service departments, the Parliament has only otherwise provided for the appointment of public servants via the Public Service Act and the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act. Of course, in some circumstances, it will be legitimate for government work to be performed by contractors and labour-hire staff. If, however, those staff are located in government departments and perform work similar to or indistinguishable from the duties of clerical, professional, technical or trades staff already appointed to public service positions, there is a question as to whether the use of those contractors and labour-hire personnel is consistent with the constitution and federal laws. The reasons for these laws are to ensure that government agencies are staffed on the basis of open, merit competition and free of nepotism and patronage. They should not be bypassed and undermined by the use of contractors and those on labour-hire.

Just how many people are effectively employed in the public service proper? The Public Service Commission reports regularly on the total number of such staff covered by the Public Service Act but contractors and those on labour hire are not identified, although it's likely there's already a large number of them.

Some unions are reported to be displeased with the commissioner's new directions and have accused him of "mansplaining" them, whatever that means. In particular, Community and Public Sector Union national secretary Nadine Flood says Lloyd removed from the new directions requirements that staffing should be "free from discrimination, patronage and favouritism". The commissioner is reported as denying that, saying: "The [new] directions do not change the basis of merit." That may be so, but section 2.8 in the old directions included a specification, taken from the employment principles included in the act, that employment decisions should "be free from discrimination, patronage and favouritism"; that is not included in the relevant replacement section (19) in the new directions.

These few niggles apart, Lloyd's revised directions are a modest advance in some respects. They may save agencies a little administrative work, and improve the employment of Indigenous Australians and those with disabilities. But they're more tinkering around the edges than significant "reform" and there will be risks to efficiency if they increase temporary employment for its own sake.

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

Finally, it would be remiss not to acknowledge Jane Halton, who is retiring from her position as secretary of the Finance Department and who, before that was secretary of the Health Department for 12½ years. Her retirement, however, has been yet another reminder about the fragility of memory or perhaps carelessness about history. Thus, in his appropriately complimentary "media release" on Halton's retirement, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said she was the "longest-serving secretary of the Department of Health" and "the first woman appointed to head a Commonwealth central agency". He's wrong on both counts.

The longest-serving secretary of the Health Department was J. H. L. Cumpston, who held the post for more than 24 years – to be precise, from March 7, 1921, until June 18, 1945. In fact, in these stakes, Halton is the fourth-longest-serving Health secretary, her term also being exceeded by A. J. Metcalfe and Sir William Refshauge.

Helen Williams was the first woman to be head of a "Commonwealth central agency" when she was appointed as public service commissioner in 1998.

Come on, Prime Minister, you can do better than this.

Paddy Gourley is a former senior public servant. pdg@home.netspeed.com.au