Page 3496 - Week 11 - Thursday, 14 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Government Service - Voluntary Separation Scheme
MR KAINE: I have a question to the Chief Minister and Treasurer. Chief Minister, you have a $17m budget provision this year for voluntary redundancies. Today, for the first time, you have told us that part of that is to fund a carry-over from last year. During the Estimates Committee processes you said that you would seek additional money from the Treasurer's Advance if it was necessary. Given the carry-over of applicants from last year plus the number that have expressed an intention or a desire to leave this year, how much money do you expect to have to take out of the Treasurer's Advance over and above the $17m provision that you have made this year?
MS FOLLETT: Mr Kaine's question is entirely hypothetical. As things stand, and as I said in answer to a previous question, the $17m that has been included in the budget for redundancy purposes does include moneys carried over from previous years. As I said during the estimates, if the $17m should prove to be inadequate, should we have, eventually, expressions of interest which would make that $17m inadequate, that is a matter which the Government would have to consider seriously. The way in which we would consider it is, first of all, in looking at those possible redundancies, whether the restructure that would lead to those redundancies actually leads to savings in future budgets. So that is the answer to your first question. This is not a lottery. The purpose of these restructuring initiatives and of redundancy funding that supports them is to achieve savings. Mr Kaine knows that. I do not want anybody thinking that if they put their hand up the Government will shell out for them for no other reason. The whole aim of this exercise is to achieve savings in future years.
The question that Mr Kaine asked about how much more we would require is entirely hypothetical. He might as well have asked what happens if we need far less than that. The answer is, of course, that that money is returned to Consolidated Revenue and remains available for the same purpose in future years or for other purposes. Madam Speaker, I would like to make it clear that the money that is available there is available only if it is good value for it to be spent. That is the criterion that the Government will be using.
MR KAINE: I ask a supplementary question. Since the Chief Minister cannot tell us whether she is even going to need the $17m, let alone whether she is going to need more - she clearly has no idea - can she explain why she made a budgetary provision of $17m if she does not know whether she is going to need it or not? Is this another slush fund provision?
MS FOLLETT: Madam Speaker, a provision is a provision and it is made on the best information available at the time. As I have said all along, in looking at redundancies the Government has had advice from agencies on the possible restructurings that might occur and the possible effect that that might have on redundancies. I have never pretended, Madam Speaker, that this is a hard and fast matter, quite clearly, because the Government uses voluntary redundancies. You do not have perfect control over voluntary redundancies. I have never pretended that you do. Our criterion for deciding whether or not restructurings occur and whether redundancies therefore are undertaken remains the same, and that is whether savings will be achieved in future years.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .