South Australia has the highest unemployment rate and also the largest public service as a percentage of full time employees.

It begs the question: is there a correlation between the two?

Despite State Government claims that it would reduce the size of the public sector, most recently in the 2014-15 Budget, no reductions have materialised. In fact, quite the opposite, with a reported increase of more than 14,000 public service jobs in the year to November 2015.

At June 2015, 15.6 percent of the State’s full-time employed were public servants, the highest percentage in the country and well above the national average of 12.3 percent.

It’s time to reduce the number of public servants and redeploy the resources involved into productive economic activity that generates growth and jobs. Tasmania, the state with which South Australia has vied in years past to have the worst unemployment levels, has reduced its public service and is lifting its economic performance.

Recent reforms around Stamp Duty are welcome and have sent an important positive signal to the State’s business community about investment. In fact, those reforms have been applauded by the national business sector as much needed thought leadership.

However, with an annual public service payroll in the order of $7.6 billion, it is little wonder that the primarily small to medium sized employer community in this State can’t get the level of tax reform required to encourage job creation.

There is no doubt the State Government needs to deliver a wide range of education, health, social and other services. But it should do so in the most efficient manner possible. There is apparently no effective internal mechanism for deciding efficiency or reviewing current roles and this is a serious shortcoming.

In addition, the public service requires a significant cultural shift, with an emphasis on actually delivering outcomes.

Former Thinker in Residence, Goran Roos, told an Australian Institute of Company Directors forum in Victoria in March, that the public service had become “politicised”.

Mr Roos said “frank and fearless advice is very rarely seen” at senior levels of the public service. Instead there is “a compliance with the perceived desire of the minister” rather than advice about the consequences of decisions. The outcome was “a culture that permeates through the organisation which is not conducive to innovation and change”.

While Mr Roos was not making a particular reference to South Australia, his comments are insightful and relevant here. They should be heard and acted upon.