Department of Primary Industry and Regional Development Reform – PSA’s Initial Response
Department of Primary Industry and Regional Development (DPIRD) members have now been formally informed of the proposed reform and the substance of the 10 Change Management Plans that includes the proposed deletion of 266 roles. DPIRD has now begun ‘consultation’ on the reform.
After the initial shock, comes the anger and the worry about what that means for affected members and how they have their say.
How Does Reform Take Place?
Reform processes between the É«ÀÇÉçÇøand Public Service agencies are managed via Agency Change Management Plans. They outline the rationale for change, the extent of change in terms of work and roles, and the means to place affected staff. Consultation on the plans takes place between DPIRD and the PSA.
You can see your Change Management Plan (CMP) in the below links.
Draft CMP Climate & Natural Resources
Draft CMP NSW Resources – Core Library
Draft CMP Rural Assistance Authority
Draft CMP Regional Programs & Partnerships
Draft CMP Strategy, Media and Ministerial Services
Draft CMP Biosecurity and Food Safety
Draft CMP Strategy and Regulatory Policy
The Initial É«ÀÇÉçÇøResponse
Before entering into any consultation on the proposed reform, the É«ÀÇÉçÇøand its membership should be fully informed. This involves the exchange of information on all sorts of matters.
The É«ÀÇÉçÇøAssistant General Secretary has already written to the DPIRD Secretary and sought information as well as certain commitments. They include but are not limited to:
- Identified Organisational data
- Information on the number of Executives, Temporary Staff & Contingent Labour across the various divisions
- Information on current vacancies across the respective Divisions of DPIRD
- Information on the ages of affected employees
- Information on proposed created role locations
- Proposed work transfer to LLS
- Outsourcing of functions (Lab, Education & NSW Resources)
- A proper timeframe for the administration of consultation. The É«ÀÇÉçÇøhas posed 8 weeks. Why? It’s simple – 266 roles and 39 different worksites across the state. This is major reform and accordingly needs the time for real and effective consultation between the parties.
Media & The Public Servant
Several members have told the É«ÀÇÉçÇøthat external groups like Growers Groups or funding bodies have sought to understand what the changes means for their projects/programs and have expressed frustrations that this is something that they have not been informed about.
Staff are reminded that they are subject to a code of conduct and the making of public comments without authorisation could be against that code. Those groups who wish to provide support to affected staff should be directed to É«ÀÇÉçÇøIndustrial Officer Shane Howes or one of the É«ÀÇÉçÇøworkplace delegates.
What isn’t being spoken about (and should) is the reputational risk that such an extensive reform places on current operations. Many affected staff proposed for deletion have spoken to the É«ÀÇÉçÇøabout continuing to administer millions of dollars in programs. Some have contracts in place up to 2028.
It’s almost like telling everyone that you are future fitting the agency for success when in reality it is about reducing the capacity for the agency to undertake scientific research and development as well as limiting the capacity to react and coordinate the response to serious biological incursions. Not to mention the elephant in the room – the outsourcing of functions and breaking a basic Labor election commitment to end such privatisations.
From an overall view, what industry group or funding body will provide vital research and program dollars to DPIRD not knowing if there will be staff to administer their programs into the future?
What Now?
To date, DPIRD is yet to respond to the É«ÀÇÉçÇøletter sent Friday 1 August 2025 seeking information and various other commitments.
If the agency agrees to the É«ÀÇÉçÇørequests for information and time extensions, then it gives the É«ÀÇÉçÇøthe proper time to plan, meet and discuss these proposals with affected staff. If not, then there are other escalation factors for the É«ÀÇÉçÇøto consider.
Considering the reform encompasses 266 affected roles and more than 39 worksites across the state it’s a lot to formulate.
In the meantime, the É«ÀÇÉçÇørequests that members take the time to provide meaningful feedback to their respective reform processes and consider providing the material to the É«ÀÇÉçÇøas part of our feedback and consultation with the organisation.
This is some of the largest reform proposed by the agency since the dark days of 2012. Interesting how some of those affected now, were affected then also. Is it a case of out with the old, in with new? Only time will tell.
Contacts
Shane Howes
Industrial Officer
Graydon Plumridge
Organiser