Page 1175 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 24 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
... expected average staffing numbers shown in Budget Paper No. 5, show an expected reduction in staffing in 1991-92 relative to 1990-91 of approximately 500 full time equivalent staff.
The fiscal year 1991-92 is just about over. Can the Chief Minister tell us how far she has gone in achieving the $6m reduction in salary expenditure and the reduction of approximately 500 full-time equivalent staff during this fiscal year?
MS FOLLETT: I thank Mr Kaine for the question. I would like to say at the outset that the extent of the Government's decision on staffing reductions in the 1991-92 budget involved a reduction in salaries of $6m in that year or $10m in a full year. Roughly translated, that is 250 positions. So that is the extent of the Government's decision about staffing reductions in the budget last year. The salary appropriations of the agencies affected were reduced accordingly. Mr Kaine, if he goes through budget documents, will see that that is the case. Each agency was asked to manage its work force to achieve those savings through targeted reductions in administrative areas. Nobody would pretend that that was not a difficult thing to achieve.
The Government, of course, gave an undertaking that no involuntary redundancies would be involved and that there would be full consultation with the unions. We also gave an undertaking that award provisions would be followed, particularly the triple-R award as it is called. Over the period since the last budget there was agreement reached with the relevant unions about how those staffing reductions would be achieved. I think all agencies with the exception of Health, which had its own staffing program ongoing, were affected. In the triple-R award, Madam Speaker, the emphasis is given to redeployment of staff and, indeed, that was the case in this exercise. But, where it appears that redeployment is not an option, there is consideration given to voluntary redundancy. Naturally, staff have a right to voluntarily accept or reject any offer. So, as I say, it is not an easy matter to manage, and I am sure that Mr Kaine is aware of that.
I can advise that a total of 241 occupied positions have been identified as potentially excess to requirements. So that is the number in the first place. After negotiations with the relevant unions, 229 of these have been formally declared as excess. There are 12 positions still subject to further negotiations with the unions. Of the 229 positions whose occupants have been declared potentially excess, 66 of those have been permanently placed in other positions, 24 are still seeking placement, and 139 have been considered for redundancy. I am advised that the majority of those 139 will, in fact, cease employment before the end of the financial year. That is the progress report that I believe answers Mr Kaine's question.
In the health portfolio a somewhat different process has been followed. That is due mainly to the very broad structural changes that are taking place in Health. ACT Health is working to a work force restructuring program which is supported by the unions and which includes reductions from hospitals consolidation and savings arising from its share of the $6m reduction. These are being achieved, in the first instance, through natural attrition, through redeployment and through offers of voluntary redundancy where that is appropriate. My advice to date is that some 90 staff have accepted voluntary redundancy and there have been others successfully redeployed. I do anticipate that further staff will accept offers of voluntary redundancy and redeployment opportunities, again before the end of this financial year.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .