Page 2168 - Week 07 - Thursday, 16 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There is no doubt in my mind that what the Liberals really want is to break the ACT service into a number of small fiefdoms and to put all of the employees of those fiefdoms on contracts of some kind. The effect of this would be that equity and job security for 23,000 workers would simply go out the window. Madam Speaker, we have seen a similar situation to the one described by the Liberals in New Zealand. Quite clearly, the Liberals are attracted by that corporate model of public sector activity. I am not. The Liberals have also said that what I have put forward is a centralised model. That is simply not the case. What I have put forward is a model that promotes uniform standards across the whole of the service and enables all workers across the service to enjoy equity and to enjoy certainty in their rights and conditions. That is a long way from being a centralised model. Under the model that I have put forward, each chief executive will actually be responsible for almost all individual staffing decisions. I think that is the correct balance between having a centralised process, which we do not have, and what the Liberals want, which is individual fiefdoms.
Madam Speaker, the Liberals have also made much of the Chief Minister's power under this Bill to appoint chief executives. The Bill, as I have put it forward, does no more than continue what is the existing situation with the Commonwealth. I believe that this is a situation that has worked pretty well. The Liberals made much of the fact that on occasions merit may not be the overriding principle. In relation to that very small number of chief executive officers, there are other considerations besides merit, and this has long been recognised. Ministers must work very closely with their CEOs. There have to be considerations of how well those people will work together or how well a chief executive officer may be able, say, to lead and inspire a certain organisation; so there are other considerations besides merit in that very tiny number of positions - a handful of them, seven or eight only.
Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot about ACTEW and the commercial role of ACTEW. In my view, that is just a lot of rhetoric. ACTEW is, in fact, a monopoly, and it is a public sector monopoly. They operate on public service-type conditions. They compete with nobody. At the moment they do not produce anything either; they merely on-sell. So I consider it well and truly appropriate that they remain in the public service as a whole.
Madam Speaker, Mr Moore made some good remarks. I agree with his comments on the distinction between establishing an employment framework, which is what the Bill does, and the ongoing task of public sector reform. Those issues have been confused by others. It is heartening to see that Mr Moore understands the distinction. I support Mr Moore and others in the establishment of a committee of this Assembly to continue the task of looking at public sector reform. That committee has been created, and I believe that it is appropriate that we utilise the Assembly in that way.
Madam Speaker, I know that many members have addressed what they believe is the need to keep the legal aid and DPP organisations outside the public service framework. I simply do not agree with that proposition. I believe that the Bill already satisfies the need for both organisations to be independent and to be seen to be independent.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .