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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 12 Hansard (24 November) . . Page.. 3570 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

The second example is the real life soap opera of the Sydney Olympics themselves. If there was ever a time for a more cautious and measured Public Service approach needed for a national project, I have yet to see one.

While the can-do approach to government can get things done and done quickly, I am gaining a new and increasing appreciation for a bureaucracy which is both prepared to - and just as importantly allowed to - say, "No, let's just all take a deep breath and consider what we are thinking of doing here". I believe that our new-fangled performance-based contract system contains the inherent weaknesses of senior officials keeping one eye on the contract renewal clause when the pressure is on them to say yes, perhaps even against their better judgment.

If that means admitting that I made a mistake in supporting this change in 1995, then so be it. However, in doing so, I also declared my determination to right the wrongs of this flawed management system. The Chief Minister has recently uttered words in public to the effect that my concerns are imagined. On the evidence, which I plainly see in the coroner's report, and which has come to light about Bruce Stadium so far, all I can say is that I strongly disagree.

According to her public comments, Mrs Carnell's support for the current based system is 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 which had previously been awarded to balance the loss of tenure. Firstly, and quite frankly, her first argument is nonsense. And I am still waiting to hear the downside of the second. Both the Chief Minister and the architect of our current bureaucratic structure, John Walker, have made the comment - restated by Mrs Carnell at the weekend - that running the ACT was "really like running a very big business". This is clearly not true. Government is not business.

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 is good access to services such as a hospital 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 ACT Inc.

I wish, Mr Speaker, to comment briefly on why I am determined to effect a change to our present bureaucratic structure. But I will first read extracts from two books about the traditional career Public Service. The first is from Career Service: an Introduction to the History of Personnel Administration in the Commonwealth Public Service of Australia 1901-1961 by Gerald E. Caiden. His study of the history of the Commonwealth Public Service found that the seven foundational principles of the service which were incorporated into the law, were:

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