No, because you're competing with the private sector in a lot of these cases. So you need to offer graduates competitive wages because there aren't a lot of people that can credibly consult, propose statutory amendments or regulations, or deliver on multi billion dollar programs over the medium term. These are lawyers, accountants, and others that the government just can't afford anymore. How bad is it? Go watch how the Canadian Parliament is grilling McKinsey specifically for third party outsourcing work previously done by government. Sure there are bureaucratic checks in financial controls , but why name names when the stats for each specific hr category does the same thing.

My response is inherently biased to highly skilled labour located in OECD countries, like the Canadian province of Ontario. Transparency is necessary, but matter only if unions or people can organize to reflect the changing conditions of the market. For all institutions to immediately lock in inflationary labour costs (i.e. give everyone a raise permanently) is silly. But indexing it to inflation is the same end with more steps. But after this long, even if the number on the TV screen says 33,743, the fact that you're not eating as much meat is a pretty clear signal: raises need to index to a poverty rate nearer to 50k (or something, don't castigate me internet).

Ultimately, public service transparency laws are for a really specific type of worker and are a double edged sword. I'm only speaking anecdotally, but it's a conversation I've had dozens of times with public servants on both sides.