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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 10 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 2615 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

In other words, there was no criticism of what had been done in the past, but the legislation seeks to enhance the capacity of the public sector to do its job better. That seems to be, in the view of the chair, some sort of a crime, because she went on to say this on the next page:

So it is all about remuneration then?

That is a leading question, if ever there was one. Mr Walker again said:

No, not at all. It is about capacity to move into a job with a clearly specified outcome, a clear job that is specified over a period of time and to move into that job in the knowledge that you can then move on to another one and employ your skills and develop your career even further.

(Extension of time granted) He continued:

It is about better mobility, not about more money and better remuneration.

Further on he said:

... one of the things that has come through is an attraction to the idea of a more unambiguous set of objectives, a clear definition of Government expectations, clearer definition of the rules of the game in delivering the outcomes for the Government ... It is not necessarily saying that we have got a bunch of bad performers out there at all.

So the question "What is wrong with our public service?" was specifically answered, and the answer is clear. There is nothing wrong with it, but this legislation seeks to enhance its capacity to perform better. I find it strange that the Leader of the Opposition, in her capacity as the chair of this committee, finds that somehow reprehensible.

I want to make a couple of minor points in conclusion, Mr Speaker. It is a very interesting thing that what we were talking about was the Public Sector Management (Amendment) Bill 1995. That Bill did not appear anywhere when we were debating the matter in the committee. That was what we were referred to look at. It was not even adverted to. There was no copy of the document discussed. There was no analysis at all of the content of the Bill, but that is what we were asked to look at. So it is very strange. No amendments were put forward by anybody, including the chair. One can only assume that, while "the committee" - I put that in inverted commas - has some comment to make about the Bill in the report prepared, written and delivered by the chair, she obviously did not want to amend it, which I find rather strange.

On the weight of evidence presented to the committee, I have made the point that a committee is about examining evidence presented to it and weighing it up. There is the evidence put to it by the Government. It is fairly substantial, very detailed, and a lot of the questions that the chair poses in her report are in fact answered in there, if she had bothered to read it. There is the submission put forward by the Public Sector Union.

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