Page 2341 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 22 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON (2.46): Ms Follett mentioned that there is no doubt about the intention of the service, and that is to serve the public. We all agree on that. Ms Follett mentioned that, in a conventional sense, statutory authorities and other bodies are not normally included. However, is it not the role of these organisations, in each and every case, to serve the public? The answer to that is yes. There are other parts of government - semi-government authorities, et cetera - that are there to serve the public. Is it not good, and beneficial, to remind them as well that they serve the public? One could say, "But this is the intention of the Bill", and they would all read where it says "the public"; but I am talking about the very title "Public Service" as against "Government Service". Ms Follett put the strongest point that I could have made, but did not, when she said, "In fact, anybody who is paid from the public purse". That is the strongest reason why we should call it the "Public Service". All these authorities and bodies are paid from the public purse. Is it not just as important that they understand clearly from the name of the service that they serve the public and no-one else?
Another point that has been brought up is that it is going to be easier if we call it the "ACT Government Service" because people will be able to differentiate between the Commonwealth Public Service and the ACT public service. I suggest that for some considerable time, more than a few days or weeks, there has been no problem in this area. We have all known what the difference is. If you start calling public services "government services" the idea could catch on in the Commonwealth area. When they begin calling their public service "the government service", without even mentioning that they could get mixed up with the ACT Government Service, would we then change it back in order to cope with any difficulty in understanding which is which? I suggest that the answer to that might be no. One principle shines out here above all others as to what it is and what we should call it.
Even if there is some difficulty in understanding which service is which, and I am not suggesting that there is, that reason pales into insignificance when compared with the very important point that we should do all in our power to let the public know that we and the public service serve them. We could say to the hundreds of thousands of people who live in Canberra, "If you read the Public Sector Management Bill's definition of 'service', under 'Values and principles', clause 6, it says that government agencies, et cetera, serve the public". We could do that to the hundreds of thousands of people in Canberra, but I suggest that we will not. I would be surprised if more than a dozen or so ever found out about that. What they will find out, and what future generations will find out, is whether or not it is a public service or a government service.
I made the point earlier that perceptions are very important. Who would disagree that there are too many people in Canberra who feel already that in too many situations the public service serves the Government? It already happens. Let us do what we can to correct it, not perpetuate it. Let us call it the "ACT Public Service". Put simply, let us call it what it is.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .