Page 3512 - Week 11 - Thursday, 14 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I also met with unions in September 1993 in the light of their concerns about aspects of the voluntary separation scheme. That aspect of concern was the general call for expressions of interests in voluntary retrenchments. At that meeting, whilst it was clear that there was a difference between us in relation to the matter, there was general acceptance, in my view, of the general strategic approach of restructuring that I have outlined earlier and that the Government had decided to pursue in consultation at various times with the trade union movement. Again I stress that the significance of this should be clear to members. Through the Government's careful approach to negotiation with unions and taking advantage of the opportunities created by enterprise bargaining, the Government and unions are in agreement on the principles of a process which will see consideration of a range of restructuring proposals in local bargaining centres over the coming month or two. The obligation on the Government to restructure on its own initiative was recognised by the Industrial Relations Commission when it looked at this matter some time ago.
These restructuring proposals will be specific. They will address productivity related proposals arising from the Government's budget decisions, proposals arising from the many reviews put in place by the Government, some of which were announced in the budget, other restructuring measures being put forward by agencies in order to meet their budget targets and measures designed to bring about self-funded productivity pay increases. The process will be complex. There is no question about that. It will not be easy, because it will involve a great deal of work by the unions. They are necessarily involved at the workplace in this process. I think there is goodwill on both sides in relation to the matter.
Most of all, in the context of this debate, it is a strategic process. The Liberals have attempted to say - so far they seem to have failed to say it in any structured way - that the ACT Government has failed to properly target its recently announced $17m voluntary separation scheme. This is again the old small picture stunt by the Liberals. It is always the small picture; they never look at the entire picture. This process is designed to achieve the Government's objective of a restructured ACT public sector which is capable of delivering quality services to the community at a price we can afford. Provided our budget targets are met, it is also a process that can appropriately reward increased productivity on the part of our public sector employees. I reiterate that the Liberals are great at looking at a small part of the picture. We see Mrs Carnell niggling away at the health system, worrying about waiting lists, worrying about the number of beds in the hospital, but never wanting to look at the big picture of what the hospital system is delivering for the people of Canberra. It is the same with industrial relations. The system is delivering good quality products.
MRS CARNELL (Leader of the Opposition) (4.00): Madam Speaker, the voluntary separation scheme, without doubt - - -
Mr Lamont: Did you write this, Trevor?
MRS CARNELL: It is not written. I am just going to make it up. The voluntary separation scheme, Madam Speaker, shows a government without direction and it certainly shows a government without vision. I think we saw that in the Chief Minister's speech when she again said, as she has many times, that she had absolutely no idea where the redundancies would come from, absolutely no idea how many of them there would be and no idea whether they would occur at all.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .