New bill will promote Public Service efficiency — Minister

Press, 29 January 1988, Page 16

New bill will promote Public Service efficiency — Minister

The Government’s plan to reform the Public Service embodied in the State Sector Bill has attracted widespread criticism, particularly because many believe it will “politicise” the Public Service. In this, the second of two articles, the Minister of State Services, Mr Stan Rodger, replies to the critics.

Personnel arrangements

Question: Why do you assume that personnel provisions in the private sector are better than those currently in the Public Service? Answer: The assumption I make is that, unless there are good reasons otherwise, the personnel arrangements that are good enough for employees in the private sector are good enough for empolyees in the Public Service. The basic arrangements in the private sector were, of course, reviewed as recently as last year with the passage of the LabourRelations Act. The provisions in the Public Service were last systematically reviewed in 1962. Actually, the bill contains some important additional personnel arrangements for the Public Service. These are: © the obligation for Public Service departments to be “good employers”; © the requirement for appointments to be made on merit; and © the requirement to have appointment review procedures in each department. Question: What procedures will be put into place to ensure that nepotism and favouritism are not used by chief executives in selecting staff? Answer: The bill requires chief executives to: ® make appointments on the basis of which person is best suited for the particular job (section 36); © set up a procedure for reviewing any appointment which is the subject of a complaint by any employees and get the approval of the S.S.C. for this procedure (section 39); and © operate a personnel policy that includes provisions that are

industrial relations practices in private sector and the public service closer together — do you not recognise that there are inherent differences? 1 Answer: I do not see any differences that warrant a fundamentally different industrial relations framework. Special arrangements will, however, continue to apply in some areas — for example, compulsory arbitration for the police and arrangements for the armed forces. Question: What will stop wages and conditions in each department becoming markedly different, as happened in the Public Service prior to 1912? Answer: Some differences in wages and conditions between departments will occur. That is not a bad thing. The needs and activities of different departments are different and deserve to be considered on their merits. Indeed, the P.S.A. itself promoted the idea that individual negotiations should be carried out, in future, on a department by department basis. On the other hand, all departments will be bound by basic obligations such as the “good

employer” requirement; the requirement to establish appointment review mechanisms; and the requirement to appoint people to jobs on merit. Question:

How will the Government ensure that it does not interfere in the selection of conditions of employment for public servants? Answer:

Under the bill, it is very clear that Ministers will have no role at all in personnel decisions that are made by the chief executive about individual public servants (section 21(3)). On the wider front, Ministers will continue to have a legitimate interest in the terms and conditions that are negotiated for groups of public servants. I expect that the Government will continue to be consulted on these matters. Question: How will the conditions of employment of nurses, especially in regional hospitals, be protected while maintaining countrywide uniform standards of nursing service? Answer* Under the bill, conditions of employment for nurses will continue to be a matter for indusgenerally accepted as necessary for the fair and proper treatment

of employees in all aspects of their employment including provisions requiring: (i) the impartial selection of suitably qualified people for appointment; and (ii) an equal employment opportunities programme (section 34). Question: The Public Service Appeal Board has been seen as a highlight of the Public Service for 75 years — why is it now to be done away with and what will take its place? Answer: Present Appeal Boards operate in two main areas: non-promotion and discipline.

The bill gives public servants access to private sector personal grievance and unjustified dismissal procedures. The procedures include independent review by the Labour Court and cover a wider range of potential grievances than the present procedures.

The bill requires departments to set up procedures for reviewing appointments that are the subject of any complaint by an employee (section 39). These procedures must be approved by the S.S.C. and must comply with guidelines established by the S.S.C. for this purpose. I would expect the new procedures to emphasize speed and informality in reviewing decisions. As a matter of interest, the 1912 Royal Commission which led to the establishment of the Public Service as we know it today, strongly opposed the establishment of appeal boards.

Conditions of employment

Question: The bill intends to move the

trial negotiation with the relevant union. Existing conditions of employment in the determinations for nurses are preserved and “carried forward” under the bill. Changes to these conditions could be made only if the parties agreed to this or the parties agreed to go to binding arbitration. I would expect any proposal to vary the conditions of employment for nurses in different parts pf the country to have regard‘to any implications for standards of nursing service. ’ General i i Question: Will political appointments mean that corruption and more leaks of information occur? Answer: The bill does not make widespread provision for “political appointments.” Certainly, I do not see that the new arrangements for appointing chief executives of departments should alter the generally very good record of the Public Service in areas such as corruption and leaks of information. We have had a faithfully serving Public Service over many years. That Public Service is made up of people who are honest and hardworking and loyal to their employer. I see every reason to expect it to remain so. Question: Is not the State Sector Bill taking us back to inefficiencies and corruption that existed prior to 1912? Answer: No. The bill will promote efficiency and it will not increase corruption. The bill is designed to build on the past and set in place a set of arrangements for the Public Service which is also consistent with good and effective management.

‘Some differences in wages and conditions between departments will occur. That is not a bad thing?