Page 3034 - Week 10 - Thursday, 15 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I would like to speak briefly about the second part of this matter, which is about protecting the public sector. I ask: Protecting the public sector from what? Is it about protecting the public sector from reasonable management practices and procedures? If Mr Berry is talking about that, I do not support him. It is preposterous to suggest that the public sector should be protected from all good management practices. If implementing good management, best practice, or whatever you like to call it, were to lead to some efficiencies and some reduction in the numbers of people on the public payroll, instead of constantly having those numbers increase, why should the public sector be protected from it? Whose interests are we serving here? Are we protecting the interests of the taxpayer, are we protecting the interests of the people who are the recipients of the services being delivered, or are we merely protecting the interests of Mr Berry's union mates? That is really the nub of the issue.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mr Kaine, your time has expired.
MRS GRASSBY (4.13): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this matter of public importance because of my concern for Canberra and in particular for the residents of Belconnen and Hall. I believe that it is very important to maintain the quality of life that the Canberra community has been able to enjoy - - -
Mr Stevenson: What about the rest?
MRS GRASSBY: That is the area I represent, Mr Stevenson, the most important part of Canberra.
A vital part of the lifestyle for which Canberra is renowned depends on the local services which are delivered throughout Canberra. It is essential to deliver these services to a standard which attracts growth to our city. Threats to the quality of services by savage budget cuts are short-sighted and irresponsible, as they would affect the future well-being of this community. Yet this is what the Liberals would be doing if they were ever to carry out some of the things that they talk about.
The Opposition Leader, Mrs Carnell, said in her speech on the budget that she would reduce expenditure by $73m. Over one-third of this will come from public transport. (Quorum formed) ACTION will have to save $24m a year. On checking the 1994-95 program estimates, I see on page 164 that the salaries for bus drivers are just over $34m this year. What Mrs Carnell is proposing is, effectively, to cut out 80 per cent of the bus driver allocation in the budget. We are going to have the most efficient public transport in Australia! Under Mrs Carnell, we are going to spend only $7m a year on driver salaries. ACTION will be like that hospital in Yes, Minister that did not have patients but had only hospital staff because that was more efficient than having patients. If Mrs Carnell has her way, we will not have drivers or passengers, just buses, because the bus system can be more efficient that way. Mind you, we may still see the orange buses driving themselves around Canberra just to show the rest of Australia how efficient our public transport system is. Mrs Carnell is away in lala-land. Maybe she thinks that she can do that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .