Page 3105 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 15 September 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
As a consequence of that, the Government considered how that situation could usefully be employed to assist us to reduce the cost of our own administration. As I said in answer to a previous question, the purpose of the voluntary separation scheme is to achieve savings in future years. Where we do get expressions of interest, the test of whether people are eventually offered a separation package will be whether the community will benefit from their being granted that package, and benefit in a number of ways, mainly in reduction of the administrative costs.
I think Mr Kaine is flying a kite in his question. It is something like twice the amount of money that we spent on redundancies in the previous financial year. I believe that it is an entirely reasonable way to proceed. It is an opportunity the administration generally has not had before, and it is an opportunity the Government is willing to take in order to achieve further efficiencies, further reductions in the cost of our own administration. I know that members opposite have no comprehension of this kind of approach. I know that they are extremely unwilling to consider any concept of a voluntary separation scheme, where the employees themselves are able to take the initiative. What we have seen from members opposite - in relation to Mr Louttit, for instance - is their approach to dealing with staff, which is to sack them, just get rid of them.
Mr Westende: I have an objection, Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I seek time to make a personal explanation.
MADAM SPEAKER: We can do that at the end of question time, Mr Westende. Continue, Ms Follett.
MS FOLLETT: Madam Speaker, our approach is not to sack people; our approach is to abide by the relevant award - in this case, the RR(R) award - and to say to our employees that they have this opportunity, if they wish to take it up, to put forward their names, their expressions of interest in the voluntary separation scheme. The final decision on whether they are made an offer of a separation package remains with management and with the Government and in the interests of the whole community.
MR KAINE: I have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. Last year the Chief Minister claimed that "by good management, we underexpended $30m". Is this an example of the kind of provision they make in their budget where, by "good management", at the end of the year we do not spend it, or is this an isolated case?
MS FOLLETT: Mr Kaine is confused as well on the question of provisions.
Mr Berry: Alzheimer's Disease Week.
MS FOLLETT: Madam Speaker, it is Alzheimer's Disease Week; I acknowledge that. The amount of provisions that the Government has carried forward is, in fact, around $40m, not $30m.
Mr Kaine: Which made your budget program easier.
MS FOLLETT: Yes, as Mr Kaine said, it has made the budget program easier. I said that at the time.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .