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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 1 Hansard (14 February) . . Page.. 95 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

as elitist, and the federal government of the day was frustrated. In other words, public servants were an easy target.

The task force came up with four general "failings" of the Commonwealth public service, which I could summarise with one simple phrase: the service was generally cautious in its approach. The task force preferred to refer to the service as being "arrogant", "insensitive", "indifferent" and "stubborn", and recommended five actions to prevent such attitudes, three of which are relevant to this debate. They were that: (1) "senior officials be deprived of guaranteed tenure and placed on a contract basis of competence system"; (2) "senior officials demonstrate their capacity for innovative management before their appointments"; and (3) "proven maladministration, as cited by official reports, court decisions and justified complaints, to constitute misconduct, liable to penalty and removal from office".

In other words, the push was on for senior public servants to think and act outside the box. In theory, senior officials with this quality would be identified, and then employed on a performance-based contract (with a big increase in salary as an incentive) with more of the responsibility for actions of the department being transferred from the minister to themselves. If things went well, the minister would still be able to take the credit (as in the old days), but, if things went wrong, it was goodbye public servant instead of goodbye minister.

Endorsed by the royal commission, this type of management structure has become entrenched in senior levels of all public services in Australia, including the ACT. I still remember being a somewhat bewildered new member when asked to support such a change to our public service in 1995. My office had a number of briefings and, on the face of it, the theory seemed sound enough, so I gave it support. It is a fine theory, but with the benefit of hindsight I can see that in practice it has been an unmitigated disaster.

I regret having ever supported the change and intend to do what I can to right the wrongs of this flawed management system. Before she left office, our former Chief Minister, Mrs Carnell, publicly stated that my concerns about fixed-term, performance-based contracts were only imagined. However, on the evidence, and with the support of recognised independent experts, I strongly disagree. Mrs Carnell's support for the current contract system was mainly centred on two arguments: firstly, that every other government in Australia has this system and, secondly, it would require our senior public servants to take a 10 per cent pay cut, a 10 per cent rise having previously been awarded to compensate for their loss of tenure. Frankly, her first argument was just nonsense; and I am still waiting to hear the downside of the second.

John Walker, the architect of our present bureaucratic structure, often made the comment that the territory "should be run like a corporation". I disagree. It is admirable for a government to be businesslike, but government is not a business. If it were, there would be no need for it. It is important for government to run efficiently and to be innovative, but there is a broader public interest that overrides all that the public service does. Government is about creating an environment which is healthy to live in; where people can get jobs; where their children can get a good education; where there is justice; where there are good health services and public transport; and where assistance is available for those who, for whatever reason, find themselves in hardship or difficulty. Government requires true leadership, a strong sense of duty and responsibility, the nurturing of public trust, and the installation of an efficient and accountable administration-not the creation of Corporation ACT.

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