Page 1935 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 16 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
economic situation, perhaps many people would beat a path out of the Chief Minister's Department. One of the things you note with the survey results is that, the longer the staff have been there, the more dissatisfied they are. You ask: Why would that be? I would suggest that, under two years, staff do not necessarily understand the reality of the situation and may not have had the experience. Staff that have had the experience show us consistently that they gave higher dissatisfaction survey results.
I think we must acknowledge that, from these surveys, we see that the Chief Minister handles people within her department in the same autocratic manner she does people in the community. I agree that she does it with a smile; but, when it comes down to the nitty-gritty, a smile is not good enough. We see a constant lack of communication with staff, a constant lack of consultation with staff, and a constant lack of education of staff. Are they not the three things we see that are sadly lacking within the ACT itself?
One of the incredible situations we had related to unnecessary work. The survey asks about time spent doing unnecessary work, and it has about 64 per cent. I am not sure what it is, because it says that the response categories have been inverted, that is, positive first. I am not quite sure what that means, and I must admit - and I have had this told to me by some other people - that it is hard to tell some of the results here. Certainly it is not hard to tell the result of this question, "Have performance indicators been developed for your staff, section, branch?". Over 60 per cent said no. The next question was, "Are they being used?". Some 76 per cent said no. It would seem that, of those people who have some performance indicators, 76 per cent are not being used.
I think we all understand, and I am sure that if the Chief Minister, Rosemary Follett, has a degree in public administration, she would understand, that good staff performance should be recognised by management. Certainly it is not within her department. It asks, "Is good staff performance recognised by management?". In the interesting way that the survey is reported in graph form, it says that just over 45 per cent said yes. In other words, the majority said no. What would this mean in practical terms? I think that what it means in practical terms is that it would be pretty crook working within the Chief Minister's Department.
Ms Follett: If it were you, it would be, I can assure you.
MR STEVENSON: I think you understand that I would give as much as I would get, and one of us would have to go. Under your autocratic methods, I am sure that it would be me, if you had the power. However, if there was an independent arbiter looking at these staff attitude surveys, I think you would be out of the place fast. I have spoken to senior people in business and senior people in the public service. I have said, "What would you do with someone whose department that was?". I am sure that you will not be surprised that the answer was, "Get rid of the Minister. Sack them. It is beyond the pale".
Ms Follett: Whom did you ask? Name the names, Dennis.
MR STEVENSON: I know that you would like me to and you would like to know where I got the information from and where I found that there have been no worthwhile changes implemented since November last year, when the results came out. This is one of the problems.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .