Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-09-28 Daily Xml

Contents

PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT

The Hon. S.G. WADE (14:37): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister Assisting the Premier in Cabinet Business and Public Sector Management a question relating to public sector management.

Leave granted.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In March 2010, the minister's predecessor gave a commitment to the Public Service Association: 'There will continue to be job growth in the public sector during our next term of government, if re-elected.' Does the government stand by this commitment?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister Assisting the Premier in Public Sector Management) (14:37): I think one needs to understand that in the current Public Service there are about 100,000 people. It is roughly a 60/40 ratio, with 60 per cent in administrative clerical services and the other 40 per cent in the professional sector, such as police, nurses, teachers, doctors, etc. If one considers the policy that the government is putting forward, we are displacing 3,750 positions. Each year about 7,000 people leave the—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: I can't believe you can say this with a straight face.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Do you want an answer or not?

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Is it growth, or not?

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: You want facts. How do I put facts without a straight face, Mr President? What a question we have from members opposite. The fact is that what this government is seeking to do is to uphold the promises made by the Premier and the former minister in relation to public sector tenure. What we are doing is trying to readjust the budget of this state. In the deluded fantasy land of members opposite they think that somehow or other the budget can just—one only has to look at the pathetic performance of the Leader of the Opposition today: hours of rhetorical attacks but no alternative at all, not one single alternative. What members opposite need is a lesson in economics 101. The fact is that public sector services do not stay static. If you look at the health sector—and the same would be true of disabilities and other areas—it is growing at 10 per cent a year.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, Mr Lucas, you look in the mirror.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I know how you do it, Mr Lucas, that is, look in the mirror. Look in the mirror for you, Mr Lucas. If Mr Lucas wants to know, he should look in the mirror and he will see one staring back at him. He will see one staring back if he looks in a mirror. So, that is where you find one. We know where the unparliamentary language is coming from.

As I say, within the budget there has been a 10 per cent growth in the health sector, and it is true of other areas such as disability. That has been happening for a decade or more. Government revenues are growing by about 5 per cent (obviously less than that in both areas) in real terms, and that happens every single budget. What you have to do is restructure state services. If you are to meet the health needs and the other demands, you cannot just keep everything else static.

Revenue is growing at 5 per cent, and expenditure in a significant sector like health is a third or 40 per cent of your budget, not just in this state but in every other state and all around the world, because of new discoveries in drugs and the ageing of the population. There are a whole lot of reasons why it is happening; it has been happening for two decades, and it happened during the time of the previous government. What you have to do, therefore, is restructure your budget.

You cannot just use a formula that worked last year, four years ago, eight years ago, 10 or however many years ago. You cannot just keep it static: you have to continually restructure. That is what this government is doing with its budget: it is restructuring and that means that some jobs will have to be replaced by others.

To go back to the question, it is likely that in four years' time there will be as many public servants as there are now, but they will be different public servants because of the simple fact that if health is growing at 10 per cent—and we expect that with an ageing population and new health discoveries that will continue to be the case—there will be different needs and demands.

Governments can either do what the opposition's economic policy dictates—pretend it will go away and live in some deluded fantasy world where you pretend that is not happening and just think, 'Things will always stay the same'—or you can actually deal with real problems. That is what this government is doing. In relation to the question—are there likely to be more jobs in four years' time—there very well might be but they will be different ones. What we cannot do is continue to have the same structure of our public sector.

The structure of the public sector in 2010 will not be the same as it will be in 2014, just as it was not the same many years ago. In the mines and energy department back in the 1950s, well over 1,000 people were working there: now it is fewer than 200. These things change and, if demand is in health and in families and community services, then that is where the resources will need to be. Given that the demand is growing faster than revenue, we need to restructure.

That is what this government is doing and that is what we will do, and we will seek to uphold those promises made by the Premier in particular. We are seeking to do that with very generous targeted separation packages rather than use forced redundancies. That is our preferred method.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! We have had enough excitement for the afternoon.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Are we all finished now? The Hon. Mrs Zollo.