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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 10 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 2608 ..

MS FOLLETT (continuing):

The proposal for SES contracts is supposed to "improve performance and accountability of the executive group of staff in the ACT public service". It allegedly reflects the Government's election commitment to "amend the Public Sector Management Act to enable the appointment of senior executives on a contract rather than a permanent basis". Mr Speaker, I wonder how many public servants reading that statement understood that that proposal meant that existing Senior Executive Service officers would have their permanency removed by this legislation. Those that are not offered a contract will, in fact, be sacked or demoted to the Senior Officer grade. This is what this Liberal Government parades before the Canberra community as "public sector reform". Mr Speaker, sacking and demoting long-serving public servants, in my view, is hardly reform.

The committee was not opposed to the use of contracts where they are appropriate. As appointments to chief executive positions are made by the government of the day, it is accepted that such appointments can be on the terms preferred by the government of the day. If this Government prefers to appoint chief executives on contract, then legislation should be amended to enable it to do so. However, existing chief executives who were appointed under different terms and conditions should be entitled to retain those terms and conditions unless they choose otherwise. It is inappropriate for legislators to remove employment conditions for government employees where those employees have no redress to the removal of such rights.

The committee took the view that, if contracts do exist, they should be public documents. The existing employment basis for all public servants is public, as the Public Sector Management Act or standards under that Act, other Acts, or awards of the Industrial Relations Commission, and determinations of the Remuneration Tribunal. There is no valid reason why the employment basis for future public servants should not also be public. In fact, Mr Speaker, I think there is every reason why it should be public.

However, within those contracts, the basis for termination of the contract should be clearly stated. Incompatibility is not an acceptable basis for terminating the contract of a senior executive within the public service. Professionals at that level must have the necessary skills to manage conflict and to resolve differences. It is difficult to imagine how incompatibility between two supposedly top-flight managers would be incapable of being addressed in a professional manner. The committee recognised that the Public Sector Management Act already provides for fixed term appointments to the SES - that is, for contract employment.

Mr Speaker, the committee identified particular problems that the proposed legislation created. We have reported on them in detail within the report itself; but some are unconvinced that those considerations are important, indeed critical, in making the ACT public service a high-quality, highly regarded, attractive service among its peers. The committee was not convinced that the public interest is served by the proposed move to contract employment for all SES officers. No government official appearing before the committee was able to demonstrate that, in any specific instance, the existing system had failed. In my view, the arguments for change were often shallow and, in many cases, simply unsubstantiated assertions or anecdotes. If I were of a more cynical turn of mind, Mr Speaker, I might be tempted to say that the defence by the public service was less than robust, and there may be good reason for that.

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