HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-04-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT (CONSEQUENTIAL) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 March 2009. Page 1527.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (21:25): I rise on behalf of the opposition to indicate that we will be supporting this small consequential bill to the main Public Sector Bill. I will not go over much of the material that I placed on the record in relation to the main bill, but I will take the opportunity to reiterate my request to the minister to answer the range of questions I asked in my second reading contribution, in particular about the size of the public sector and the difference between the budgeted figures—that is, the budget that is tabled each year by the Treasurer—for the projected increase in the public sector and the actual increase each year. We know that we have significantly more members in our Public Service these days than the government budgeted for. In fact, the figure I recall is in excess of 17,000 more public servants than when the Labor government came to office. I know that the government will always say that there is more police, more nurses—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: How many small business have we lost?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: My colleague the Hon. John Dawkins interjects—

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. John Dawkins is out of order.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: As I said today in question time, 26,000 small businesses have ceased to operate from 2003 to 2005 and, in fact, that figure is predicted to go to some 43,000 small businesses that will cease to operate by 2011. When you put it into context, we have had a huge increase in the public sector. As I said, I am sure we will find that the government will say, 'We have more police; we have the Recruit 400 program. There are some more nurses and more teachers.' However, what I would like to know and the questions I asked the minister were: will he explain why the increases have taken place; and what explanations have various ministers given to the government?

I know he will say that those discussions have been held in cabinet and they are confidential. I do not think that is good enough when we have probably 12,000 to 14,000 more public servants than the government has budgeted for. If we have 12,000 more, then they have budgeted for 5,000, so, if you like, we have a 250 per cent increase. If we have 14,000 more public servants, we probably have an increase of approximately 300 to 350 per cent over budget.

We would all wear a fluctuation of maybe 20 per cent. We understand that budgets are a guide and an indication of where you expect to go. Whether it is your own household domestic budget, your small business budget, your big business budget or your government budget, by and large they are a framework to operate within and people do fall outside of them. I think the government owes the community of South Australia an answer as to why it has allowed this to get out of control.

The minister in another place in his second reading speech said that one of the clauses gives the government of the day the opportunity to get rid of surplus public servants. Not once has this government said, 'We got it wrong and we have 10,000 or 12,000 more than we intended to hire.' In relation to the questions I asked the minister during my other second reading contribution, I reiterate that I do expect an answer to those questions.

We have had an increasing trend from both ministers—and probably all three ministers when we had three in this chamber—that, when members of the opposition and the crossbenches put questions on the record during a second reading debate, virtually no attention is given to them at all when it comes to the summing up by the minister or even, for that matter, when we go into committee on clause 1.

I indicate to the minister that I will be expecting some answers to those questions. I do not think it is good enough when we are looking at the on cost for 10,000 or 12,000 extra public sector employees. It is probably $1 billion a year of taxpayers' money. Today we heard the minister complaining and lamenting the fact that we have this global financial crisis and revenue is disappearing out the backdoor. If that is the case, why on earth should a government not explain to the people of South Australia how it has got it so wrong with this huge growth in the public sector?

As I mentioned in my other contribution, all those people have responded to advertisements in good faith and come in to do the job they have applied to do and have been successful, and good luck to them as they have won those positions. Now we have a situation where, because of a whole range of pressures on the state budget, there will be some real pain in our community and there will have to be cuts—not necessarily of employees—right across service delivery, capital works and expenditure. It is very important that the minister explain to the people of South Australia how the government got it so wrong, why it got it wrong and where the real growth has taken place. The Commissioner for Public Employment says that it involves in excess of 17,000 people—something like 17,036 or 17,050—which is a huge number.

This is a small consequential bill and the opposition certainly will support it, but I ask the minister to pay attention to the questions I asked in respect of the main bill. I expect to see answers before we progress that bill any further. With those few words, I support the bill.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Energy) (21:31): I thank all members for their valuable contributions to this important bill and look forward to dealing with the committee stage expeditiously. A number of questions have been asked, and I will be happy to deal with them in committee. With those concluding remarks, I commend the bill to the chamber.

Bill read a second time.


At 21:33 the council adjourned until Thursday 30 April 2009 at 11:00.


PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT