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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 4128 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

Why could the Chief Minister not examine the issue in principle and make a comment about that? Is it appropriate for public servants to receive $50,000 over a period of time for rent assistance? Why do you not stand up and say something about that matter? Is it a good idea for senior public servants, earning from $170,000 to $250,000 a year, to receive $50,000 in rent assistance?

Mr Speaker, if you were to ask the ordinary punter in the street, somebody who had just lost his job in the south-east region of New South Wales and had come to Canberra to find another or was recruited to a job in Canberra in the hospitality industry, driving a truck or in the Public Service at, say, an ASO2 level, whether they would be getting rent assistance for five years you would find that they would not. Not a zack would they get.

How is it that the Government is making these sorts of payments when older people and others with illnesses are waiting for places in our hospital system? How is it that we can afford to pay out these sorts of amounts when there are people out there who are waiting for places in public housing? How can you convince the community that there is something good about this? How is it that the Chief Minister always avoids the responsibility of facing the issues for which she is responsible? She is responsible for these payments being made to senior public servants.

Why is it that she takes the coward's approach every time and tries to blame somebody else? It is a common theme throughout her administration whenever she has to face the music in respect of the activities of her Government. After trying to blame the Labor Party, the Chief Minister then tried to blame the Commissioner for Public Administration. As has been pointed out in relation to the Public Service management standards, the commissioner may, with the approval in writing of the Chief Minister, make management standards not inconsistent with the legislation prescribing matters relating to the terms and conditions of employment of officers and employees.

Surely something as significant as extending fairly generous payments to senior public servants - particularly, say, the Under Treasurer - would have come to the notice of the Chief Minister. Let us accept for a moment that it did not. We then go back to whether these sorts of payments are appropriate. From my point of view, I would have been brave enough to come out and say, "They seem to be accepting them in accordance with the law", if that was the commissioner's advice. But the Chief Minister should explain what were the special circumstances. It may be that a person has come here to work for only five years.

Mr Stanhope: He is getting only $200,000.

MR BERRY: He is getting only $200,000 a year. How can they be described as special circumstances so that this payment is extended to that person for five years? We end up with an enormous figure for rent assistance. I would be the first in the world to defend reasonable industrial rights when it comes to somebody's terms and conditions of employment, but $50,000 in rent assistance, especially over a period of five years, strikes me as being extraordinary.

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