Page 4459 - Week 14 - Thursday, 9 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, I would like to concentrate on a number of the philosophical points that were raised, by our hosts in South Australia in particular, about what public sector legislation should entail, and then conclude with some general comments about issues raised in the Northern Territory. It was interesting to note that both public sectors appear to be heading towards a similar outcome, having started at different points. South Australia has a highly centralised public sector with very copious controls exerted both through their equivalent of the general orders and so forth and through their finance and other Treasury directions. The attitude which they adopted in their legislation was sponsored principally by Mr Bruce Guerin, currently the head of the Institute of Public Policy and Management at Flinders University and the former chairman of the review of public service management which resulted in the 1985 Act.
The very clear principle he instilled in the legislation that was accepted by the South Australian Parliament was simplicity. The simple tenet is not to have a public service Act - or an Act of administration, if you like - which becomes burdensome by its prescription. That is an important point for us to remember. We do not want to end up with a public service Act of 300 or 400 pages outlining in a very prescriptive manner every single possibility that may arise in the ACT public service over the next five decades, because invariably under such legislation things become too bureaucratic and it becomes an inhibition on effective and efficient management within the public sector.
Under this new management style prescribed in the Act to be implemented, executives must accept the same responsibility as chief executives in private companies. They will have the flexibility to be able to do things differently if the circumstances warrant, but they have to understand that the buck stops with them. Some uniform conditions will apply across the whole of the service with respect to training and some other qualitative matters, but the Act will not inhibit executives from achieving flexibility in the workplace. But, if they bugger it up - if I may use that expression - then they must understand that they are responsible.
The scrutiny which they are subjected to must also increase. It must increase not just within the executive arm of government but also within the parliamentary arm of the State's administration. The parliament must be able to scrutinise how executives implement the flexibility provided for under the Act. The Act is being made less prescriptive and accountability will rest with executives and with the parliament.
Notwithstanding the upper house in South Australia, there has been a majority government in that State, even though the government has changed a number of times over the last 20 years. That, I think, to some extent has allowed for some of the changes which have occurred. I think that even Ms Szuty would acknowledge that, unfortunately, at times in this bargaining process the public sectors are going through there is a tendency to accept the lowest common denominator and negotiate down to the lowest common denominator that you can get agreement on across the board. That is not good for effective management. It is just simply not good to bargain on that basis for an effective public service Act. I am quite pleased to say that that is not the view that this committee has. We do not believe that that is a process that we should allow ourselves to get involved in, for we all acknowledge what the result would be. That is a very positive thing that has come out of this visit, Madam Speaker.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .