Page 4029 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 22 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I would have found it implausible that I would have given some categorical assurance that any single administrative unit would no, no, never, ever have any staff reductions.
Of course, I have never said that. I then clarified and said:
I am not, indeed, today confirming to Ms Maher that a particular ASL in a particular unit has been reduced from 4.5 to 2.5. I will take it on the assumption of what she says is right ...
I give her the credit that she is not making something up and trying to trap me on something that she is making up. I said:
I will take it on the assumption of what she says is right, and confer with my officers afterwards ...
I then said, "but, no, I certainly have, to my knowledge, never said anything other than that negotiations were occurring as to where staff positions would be saved".
I am advised today that, indeed, that is exactly what is occurring in this area. There has been a letter, properly, in accordance with the Government's procedures, from the management area to the relevant delegate and consultations are ongoing in that area, as they are everywhere. There was a meeting last week. Indeed, options for savings were being reduced. By the end of this week, I am advised, there will be another letter to the unions outlining more specific proposals, and I am not sure, at this stage, whether there will or will not be the relevant reduction in that relevant area. And that follows, because throughout the process we have identified a budgetary saving and we have said that we are going on the process of consultation with the unions to achieve it.
What is alleged against me is a beat-up from a transcript. It is abundantly clear to any fair-minded person who reads it what we were talking about; that because we have additional work in an area it follows that we need additional staff. That is the allegation. I rebutted it twice. It is clear from the context of my "no, no" to one question, my "yes" to another, and my follow-up. In each case I refer to the fact that we are making administrative savings; we are doing things more efficiently. It is in the context of, "We do not need more staff". Mr Jensen's follow-up question - Mr Jensen's follow-up that is attempting to trap me, properly; that is his job; he is cross-examining in the Estimates Committee - again is in the context of "Because you are doing more work, don't you need more staff?". I say, "No", and I go on again about efficiencies.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .