Page 2156 - Week 07 - Thursday, 16 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
way of substantially politicising the public service? The theme of the Bill is that the public service serves the Government and its political needs rather than the public; hence the name "Government Service", when it should, in both name and function, be "Public Service". The client of the public sector is not the Cabinet or the Government but the public which uses and pays for the services. That is why a new culture is required - one that puts people first.
Another example of the attempt of the Government to control everything, centralise power and create the potential to use that power for political purposes is the provision at subclause 20(2), which says that the commissioner can overrule or undermine the authority of a chief executive. On this issue the Director of Public Prosecutions pointed out:
Since the Commissioner is amenable to political direction it follows that the scope for political interference in the prosecution of individual cases has been enshrined.
That is a quote from a letter of 18 May 1994. He is naturally concerned that the power of the commissioner under the Bill could be used to thwart prosecutions of corrupt public officials, for party political reasons. Certainly on this side of the house we share that concern. To allay this justifiable concern, the Bill should make clear the independence of all agencies and should be explicit that the agencies, not the Government, are the employers. That is, the agencies themselves must be able to employ; employment must not be centralised. Conditions of employment can be preserved by requiring adherence to the standards I referred to earlier and, if considered appropriate, incorporating them in the relevant Acts of each agency.
ACTEW's situation goes to the heart of what is wrong with the PSM Bill. One of its major unions - the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers - has told the Government that its operating environment is becoming a lot more competitive and that it can deliver best practice results only when it is free from the shackles, controls and bureaucracy which invariably accompany a core public service. The union says that any suboptimal outcomes, such as lower dividends to the ACT Government, must cost ACT ratepayers and ACT businesses more in taxes and charges and must lower the level of service provided. That seems fairly logical. It goes on to say that, while other States and the Commonwealth are increasing the autonomy of their GBEs, the Public Service Management Bill will decrease the autonomy of the ACT GBEs. For ACTEW to remain competitive and provide both job security and advancement, the Engineers, Scientists and Managers Association, along with other unions, want it to be autonomous. They see ACTEW's independence from the PSM Bill as enhancing their job prospects.
On the question of industrial relations, it is interesting to note that the association says:
It is possible to have excellent or miserable industrial relations under all possible structures and autonomy levels. Therefore IR should play no part in determining a GBE's optimum structure and autonomy. Rather, GBE management must be held accountable for both poor IR and IR excellence.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .