Page 782 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 12 March 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
client base and also in the face of worker and union resistance to operational changes necessary to improve productivity and the competitiveness of the service.
As an example of the steps that were taken, I point to a review of the Trade Waste Service carried out by the consultancy services branch of the Chief Minister's Department in June 1989. The recommendations from that review were implemented to improve the viability of the Trade Waste Service over the last 18 months. These included management, marketing and accounting changes, rationalisation of the number of trucks used to provide the service and consolidation of the runs from six to five. I might add that the consolidation of the runs was strongly resisted by the drivers and their union and the result was achieved only after protracted negotiations with them. As a result, the market share held by Trade Waste was reasonably well maintained.
This shows conclusively that there was not a deliberate action by the Government to run down the service. The Labor claim, of course, is totally false, as most of its claims are. Where cancellations of service occurred, Trade Waste staff - not individual members, as was asserted by Mrs Grassby - followed up with the consumer to ascertain the reasons for cancellation . In the majority of cases, the reason given for cancellation was that they had been offered a cheaper price by a competing trade waste service provider - a very good reason for taking their business somewhere else. Even during the period when the service was offered for sale, new customers were being added to the client list, the latest being added on 12 February of this year. So Mrs Grassby's assertion that we were not attempting to keep the business running and viable, of course, is again totally false.
The ability of the private sector operators to undercut Trade Waste Service prices highlights the advantage that they have over government provided commercial operations where additional constraints are imposed. This reality needs to be appreciated by all concerned, including Mrs Grassby - and I am sure she does appreciate it.
The one recommendation from the Trade Waste review in June 1989 which it was not possible to implement was a move to a one-man truck operation. This was the crucial factor in the Trade Waste Service's ability to compete with private sector operations. While private sector trade waste companies operated with one man per truck, the government Trade Waste Service, which was covered by a different industrial award, was required to have two men per truck. There was, however, no commensurate increase in the productivity level achieved. This additional wages cost impacted heavily on the viability of the Trade Waste Service and its ability to compete with private sector operations. Consideration was also given to the replacement of the Trade Waste fleet of rear load compaction vehicles and associated hoppers with trucks and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .