Page 3520 - Week 11 - Thursday, 14 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the environment within which it works, because of its impact on society, and reacts to its external environment; and, if it is not a true cybernetic system, then something has gone wrong. But it says nothing about that fundamental issue of what it is that the Government wants this organisation to do. That is the gap.
I would argue that, if we let the system run as it is now, in two or three years' time we will have a public service that looks pretty much like the one we have now, that is about the same size as the one we have now, and that is doing pretty much the same kinds of things as the one we have now is doing. The dynamics internally may have changed a bit because of the navel gazing that is inherent in this document, and it may be working better; but it will be doing the same things in the same way, essentially, as it was when we inherited it from the Commonwealth four years ago. That impetus to define what the organisation is to do and to be must come from the Government. That is where the initiative must stem from. The Government must say, "This is what we want this organisation to do". Until it does that, until there is some redefinition of what the organisation is required to do, I repeat, it will continue to do the same things as it has always done, whether or not it is inefficient to do them, whether or not it is appropriate that they be done, and whether or not they fit together in some sort of cohesive and coherent way. It will be perpetuated.
This document, I repeat, is an excellent document. I read with great interest what is said here. Somebody has sat down and genuinely addressed the issues from their perception of where they sit in the organisation and what they perceive the future is for them. It deals with issues that are of great moment to the people who work within the organisation - there is no doubt about that; but I would like to see a document of the same level of excellence coming from the Government and saying, "This is what we want this organisation to do". I would submit that if that were done, and if the authors of this document then went away and thought about it again, they would revise much of what they say here, because you may be talking about a totally different organisation with totally different organisational objectives from those that currently exist. I do not want to denigrate the work that has been done already - in fact I can only compliment those who did it - but I think the select committee needs to be seeking that inherent, fundamental guidance from the Government. It can come from nowhere else. If we do not get that, then I fear that our public service will not be the totally professional, totally dedicated and totally directed organisation that it can be and that it should be.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
MADAM SPEAKER: Order! It being 4.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr Berry: I require the question to be put forthwith without debate.
Question resolved in the negative.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .