Page 2053 - Week 06 - Thursday, 26 June 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR MULCAHY: I will address the estimates report later. I am talking about the government response at this point.
Mr Corbell: You can do it all in the budget debate. If you adjourn it, you can do it in 30 seconds time.
MR MULCAHY: I am able to do it now, am I not, Mr Speaker?
Mr Smyth: You are entitled to do it now if you want to.
Mr Corbell: You can do whatever you want.
MR SPEAKER: Order! Have the conversations somewhere else. The question before the house is that the report be noted. If you have something to say about the report, Mr Mulcahy, say it, now.
MR MULCAHY: I will, Mr Speaker, and I will be brief. I want to comment briefly on the government’s response to the report and its comment on the dissenting report. I am focusing particularly on the matters they have not agreed to, but I note in relation to recommendation 9 that the committee recommends that the budget papers include not only details of FTE positions held by public servants, but also details of FTEs held by contractors within agencies.
The government’s response to that is not to agree, and I think it is a very, very significant issue. It is a significant issue at the commonwealth level as well, although our interest obviously here is with the territory. The defence that is provided for not going down this particular road is that it would be administratively complex for each agency to independently and effectively calculate the FTE of contractors who may be engaged from time to time and under a variety of contractual arrangements.
I just do not accept that that is valid because formulae are required, in fact, when calculating payments to contractors and, as a consequence, I think that the argument for not disclosing that information is somewhat fallacious. I am aware that we have very large numbers of people who are categorised as contractors within InTACT and possibly a number of other agencies and I think it is very important to get a full picture of the extent of employment within the public sector that so one can measure growth against demand and population increase and ensure that the use of contractors is not simply a device to get around the more transparent issue of FTEs. I think that the reasons advanced for the rejection of that proposal are fairly thin.
I am pleased that the government agrees to report to the Assembly on the superannuation strategic investment review, but I continue to caution the matter I have raised previously in my former capacity as shadow Treasurer that we have to be very wary of political decisions being taken in relation to superannuation investments. I think the sentiment of the government to date has been to avoid that measure of risk. I know that there has been strong pressure from my colleague Dr Foskey in relation to the issue of superannuation investments.
Members interjecting—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .