Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 8 Hansard (26 October) . . Page.. 2136 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

This Government may well argue that employees will be okay because of potential productivity payments, that the separate enterprise agreements will be more efficient and that they will increase equity in the workplace. On all counts they will be wrong. How are productivity payments to be determined and who will get them? An organisation like the ACT Library Service is a good example. I would hope that most people in this place would recognise that having well-stocked efficiently-staffed libraries is a good idea. They are good for the community. But how will they measure productivity in a workplace such as this? Will it be by the number of books they process or by the number of people who come in the door? Will staff who work in places like the libraries be able to win productivity increases without shedding staff, and will the shedding of staff cause a loss of services or libraries to close?

Under the Government's proposed IR structure, staff working conditions will be pitted against quality of service, as what may be in the best interests of staff may not be in the best interests of the community. We need a system which protects staff conditions and provides efficient and effective service delivery - effective, not just efficient. Furthermore, if productivity is measured by the number of jobs an agency sheds, staff may be forced to seek to reduce numbers in order to win essential pay rises. Jobs will go, with the resulting negative effects on employment. There are serious indications for morale in workplaces leading from this as well, because there will be a tendency for people to know that the jobs of other people working in their areas will have to go. If the Government does not understand the consequences of low morale in workplaces and the costs that Comcare is already putting on our society, then I am very surprised. Then there is the question of efficiency. How can it be efficient to have perhaps as many as 120 different agency bargains, each requiring implementation and maintenance? I wonder how many bureaucrats will spend all their time administering these bargains. Is this good management? Is this efficiency?

Equity is a major consideration that also has been largely overlooked by this Government. How much equity is there in agreements that will mean that employees in one workplace may have completely different conditions from employees in another? For example, a white-collar worker in DUS may be paid considerably less than a white-collar worker in the Chief Minister's Department. If the worker in the Chief Minister's Department wants to apply for a sideways transfer to DUS, that worker will have to take a loss in pay. Thus some workplaces will gain prestige, while others will lose it. That is hardly going to be good for the efficient delivery of services across the public sector; nor is it good for employees to lose portability of pay and conditions.

Then there is the issue of access to the national training reform agenda, which is a subject of great importance that is not mentioned in the Government's proposal. The NTRA seeks to ensure that workers across the system have certified recognition of prior learning, implementation of national competencies, and access to workplace literacy. The Government does not appear to have worked out how to implement the NTRA under its new scheme. Indeed, we are advised that it may be almost impossible to implement it effectively, so employees lose again.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .