Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.34 p.m.]: Earlier today I explained how the socialist wing of The Greens wanted a bigger and more bloated public service. Deep down they would like everybody to be in the public service, as it is in North Korea, because that is what socialism is all about. The Greens seem to have a disdain for anything emanating from the private sector. For example, The Greens have an animosity towards non-government schools and never miss an opportunity to plunge the knife into them. The Greens have an animosity towards private enterprise and would like to close down the entire coal industry. They always put the boot into the mining industry because they hate it.

The Greens have an animosity towards supporting any measure that promotes private transport facilities—unless it is more cycleways, and that is probably to force private motorists off the road and to use public transport. Dr John Kaye accused this Government of terrorising workers by the introduction of this bill. The Greens have been terrorising the people of Australia for some years now, and the people of Australia have had enough. The people of Queensland have also had enough and that is why The Greens vote in the recent Queensland election fell by 10 per cent. Their vote will continue to diminish into an irreversible decline and oblivion. This is a fine bill. The overview states that the object of the bill is to amend the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002:

(a) to revise the provisions of that Act relating to excess officers of Public Service Departments and the circumstances in which the services of those officers may be dispensed with,

That is a common sense aim, and paragraph (c) states:

(c) to require the heads of public sector agencies to develop and implement performance management systems for their staff and to require the Public Service Commissioner to issue guidelines for that purpose.

Who could oppose that common sense aim? The Labor Party and The Greens oppose performance management systems. That is deplorable. The Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment Bill 2012 is a good bill and I commend it to the House.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN [3.37 p.m.]: I oppose the Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment Bill 2012. As a number of speakers on this side of the House have said, this is yet another attack by this Government on public sector workers. These attacks have occurred over and over again since this Government came into office. I have listened to a number of contributions from Government members. Without fail, they have made platitudes about how they value public sector workers but then they condemn and criticise the work of those employees. One member, when talking about public sector workers, referred to parasites on society. I did not hear the contribution of the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps but no doubt I would have found it entertaining.

For almost my entire working life I have been a public sector worker. I am an elected public servant, as are all members in this place. I worked in the Federal public sector for a number of years. I remember when John Howard was first elected and his cuts to the public sector, and this New South Wales Government is operating in the same way. The joke around Canberra at the time was: What is a public servant who irons five shirts on a Sunday night? The answer is: Optimistic. The Howard Government, when it was elected, made huge cuts to the public sector in Canberra, and we are seeing the same attitude from this Government in this State towards public sector workers. Of course, this Government capped public sector wage increases so that over time they will fall behind the rate of inflation and lose real value.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Inflation is lower than 2.5 per cent.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: The Government Whip says that inflation is lower than 2.5 per cent. I have not noticed him giving credit to the Gillard Government for its good economic management in achieving low inflation outcomes and strong growth in this country. It has managed to do that despite worldwide financial problems. Over the years, public sector real wages in New South Wales will fall behind inflation, which will result in an exodus of public sector workers from Queanbeyan to the Australian Capital Territory public service and the Commonwealth public service and put great strain on our health and other important services. I responded to a tweet from the Australian Capital Territory Treasurer, who took great delight in pointing out that under the O'Farrell Government's policies nurses' wages in the Australian Capital Territory would catch up to and overtake nurses' wages in New South Wales. He thinks that is great because he will be able to attract nurses from New South Wales to the Australian Capital Territory. That is the Coalition's policy in action and this latest piece of legislation will have a similar impact.

Public sector workers were valued by previous governments. I acknowledge that restructures happen and that sometimes people are displaced. However, a caring government that values public sector workers does its best to place them in meaningful jobs. This Government thinks that is too hard. It obviously does not value public sector workers and will now push them out the door at the first opportunity it gets. That is what this legislation is all about.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: There are people who have been on the unattached list for seven years.

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: The Government Whip seems to believe that the standing orders do not apply to him. He insists on interjecting about people being on the unattached list for seven years. We are talking about people whose positions have been made redundant for only a short time. They certainly will not be waiting to be redeployed for seven years. This legislation is not about the old unattached list; it goes much further than that. This Government simply cannot be bothered to do its best to find reasonable jobs for people whose positions have been abolished in restructures. That proves this Government does not value the work of the staff of the Department of Primary Industries, and particularly the field officers and other staff whose jobs have just been restructured. That was a breach of the Government's election promise to create a stand-alone Department of Primary Industries. Instead it created an even bigger super department.

Those people who not only saw that promise broken but who are also part of the new super department are not valued because we are being asked to support Government legislation that will allow them to be sacked rather than redeployed to other areas in the department. People working in the Department of Family and Community Services will suffer because the Minister for Family and Community Services thinks the department is over-funded. She does not want to spend any extra money to help children who have been abused. Those people are not valued. I always thought that the staff of the Treasury should be the first to be relocated to rural and regional New South Wales. If they were, they would have a much better perspective of the State. Public sector employees' work is being devalued because of this Government's attitude.

Members opposite are generous with their platitudes during election campaigns and with the media when they talk about the wonderful work done by nurses, ambulance officers and police officers. However, that appreciation is never extended to the people working in the back rooms ensuring that the nurses, ambulance officers and police officers can do their jobs. We never hear those comments extended to the people doing fabulous work in the Department of Primary Industries and Industry and Investment NSW who develop trade opportunities or the terrific people who do the administrative work for the education and health sectors. They were constantly bagged by members opposite when they were in opposition. We never hear them talking about the valuable work done by central agency staff. All we hear are more and more excuses to jump on the bandwagon of bashing public sector workers. That is what this legislation is all about. It is an attempt to save money by not making a reasonable effort to find these people new jobs. This Government's actions prove its contempt for public sector workers. I urge the House to vote against this legislation.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.45 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions. We know that the community has very high expectations of public servants and we are well served by our public service. They also have very high expectations about members of Parliament being honest and forthright in their contributions in this place. I listened very closely to the contributions of the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and a number of other members of the Opposition.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: And me.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I am glad the Hon. Sophie Cotsis drew attention to herself. She may have played a role in a matter to which I will refer and she glossed over some issues during her contribution. I thank all honourable members who participated positively to this debate.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: It's not true.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I remind the honourable member of a proposed piece of legislation that the Labor Government had drafted. The legislation was entitled the "Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment (Displaced Employees) Bill 2005".

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: What year was that?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: It was drafted in 2005.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: So?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The honourable member says, "So?" Of course, the Labor Government was in power in New South Wales at that time. This legislation is very important in the context of this debate.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: It was Costa's bill.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The honourable member says that it was Costa's fault. Legislation is not drafted unless it has Cabinet approval. It is important to put on the record the overview of the bill. It states:

The objects of this Bill are:

(a) to provide that displaced public sector employees who have been displaced for a continuous period of more than 12 months may either have their salaries reduced by 15%, as a last and unavoidable resort, or have their employment terminated …

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: No.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Yes.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Really?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: They would be forced to take a 15 per cent pay cut or get the sack.

Mr David Shoebridge: Point of order: It is almost certainly a breach of the standing orders to use Michael Costa in defence.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! There is no point of order.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The legislation goes on:

(b) to enable the Public Employment Office to direct that the transfer of a displaced employee from one public sector agency to another does not require the approval of the head of that other agency ...

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: What year was that?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: It was 2005. This is important for The Greens because this is what their coalition partners were proposing to do. I would be stepping away if I were The Greens because the Labor Party did not bother to show them this legislation. It showed the Labor Council and fortunately some people believe in transparency and accountability. The Hon. Sophie Cotsis may have been working in the industrial area at that time and she may well have typed something similar to this legislation. We see the honourable member's crocodile tears about this legislation. This is one of my favourites and I am sure The Greens will be happy to note that schedule 1 states:

Proposed section 99C provides that action taken under proposed Division 3 has effect despite any State Industrial Instrument…

In other words, despite any industrial instrument, this was going to take effect. This was the legislation that they were proposing to introduce—until they showed their leaders at the Labor Council. Sophie, did you write this legislation? You need to explain what you know about this legislation.

Mr David Shoebridge: Table it.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Do you want me to table it? I am very happy to table it, if you want me to.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: The Minister knows that he should address members in this Chamber by their correct titles. The Minister should not address members of the Chamber directly but through the Chair.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! I uphold the point of order. I remind the Minister to refer to other members by their correct titles. In addition, I ask the Minister to direct his comments through the Chair.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I apologise to the architect of this legislation—the Hon. Sophie Cotsis—for any inference. I am happy to table this copy but if the member opposite wants to table the original copy that she drafted and the advice that goes with it I am happy for her to do so. I am also happy for the Leader of the Opposition and other Opposition members to circulate their contributions.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: The Minister has said that he wishes to table the document. I would ask the Minister to table that document and any document of Michael Costa that he feels supports his arguments.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I am more than happy to table the former Labor Government's legislation. I am sure they have pristine pieces of legislation spirited away. But the fact is it is an important lesson in hypocrisy and I am going to use it as a prop at this stage. I am going to read it and refresh my memory on some of the views of the former Labor Government.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! The Minister must seek leave to table a document. Does the Minister seek leave to table the document?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I seek leave to table the draft Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment (Displaced Employees) Bill 2005.

Leave granted.

Document tabled.

It is between a rock and a hard place. There is plenty of good reading still to be had in this. Those opposite wailed and spread fear during the debate saying, "This is the end of the world as we know it. Isn't it dreadful legislation?" The Hon. Sophie Cotsis not only has said enough on this issue, she has written enough. I would advise her to let sleeping dogs lie, as much as I try to wake the dogs. I refer members to the definitions in the former Government's legislation. As a result of the generosity of those opposite who sought to have this document tabled, members now will have an opportunity to reflect on the former Government's definitions. They will find that the definition of "excess public servants" is incredibly close to that in our legislation.

If I did not know better, I would have thought the Hon. Sophie Cotsis was freelancing for us in the drafting of our legislation. But our legislation is better because it recognises the contribution that public servants make. Our legislation provides them with a career path and certainty. In its legislation the former Labor Government was interested only in excess public servants either taking a pay cut or walking. That was their legislation. I am more than happy to table the former Labor Government's legislation that they hid from the public and have tried to continue to hide. Thank heavens for our friends at the Labor Council of New South Wales, who could see through the disgraceful attempt by those opposite and who ensured that the public knew exactly what that pathetic, miserable Labor Government was considering.

Mr David Shoebridge: It is the same bill.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: It is not the same bill. Mr David Shoebridge needs to read it. Our bill recognises the contribution of public servants; their bill was simply about getting rid of them.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! The Minister will not respond to interjections; he will speak to the bill.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Members should look at our legislation, at the depth of the amendments and at what is being proposed to provide a level of professionalism and a future for public servants. Our legislation will provide them with certainty so that they are not stuck on a list forever and forgotten, as they were under those opposite. Under our Government public servants will have certainty and they will have an opportunity to plan for their careers. They will not be wasted individuals, as they were under that wasteful Government. Members should look at the legislation that was proposed by those opposite, and I would challenge anyone to suggest that what the Government is proposing is not far better in providing certainty for New South Wales public servants. Better management of our public sector workforce at all levels will help to achieve long overdue improvements in both service delivery and productivity.

The Government knows performance management systems are essential if agencies are to identify areas for improvement, set career goals for individuals, highlight their investment in training and acknowledge superior performance. Therefore, this bill amends the Public Sector Employment Management Act 2002 to require the Public Service Commissioner to develop and issue guidelines to public sector agencies on the essential elements of performance management systems. Properly designed performance management systems in public sector agencies will contribute to the Government's aim to make the New South Wales public sector an employer of choice. This bill also seeks to amend sections 56 and 57 of the Act. As members will be aware, the Government introduced a new policy for the management of excess employees from 1 August 2011, abolishing Labor's no forced redundancies policy. The Government wants to help public servants who lose their jobs as a result of changing priorities or structural reforms but employees who cannot be redeployed cannot be kept on the books indefinitely. Excess employees who decline voluntary redundancy and cannot find a new job within three months will be made redundant. For public servants, this means termination under section 56 of the Public Sector Employment Management Act 2002.

The unions challenged the new arrangements in the Industrial Court of New South Wales and in November last year the court handed down its decision. The new policy is unaffected by the judgement and it continues to apply to employees made excess on or after 1 August 2011. However, in comments contained in its decision, the Industrial Court proposed an interpretation of section 56 of the Act to significantly broaden its application and has made this section impractical and onerous to apply. Under the court's broad interpretation, "useful work" would include all work undertaken on a temporary, casual and contractual basis, as well as that performed on an ongoing basis. If this interpretation of section 56 were to be applied, I am advised that it would be almost impossible to satisfy the requirements in the current provision and proceed to terminate an excess employee who could not be found a new permanent position. In fact, the court's "useful work" test would result in a de facto return to the no forced redundancies policy.

The Government wants to retain the requirement that a department head, before terminating an excess employee, must be satisfied that there is no vacant permanent position for that person, not only in their own department but in all other departments and agencies in the public sector. It is only fair that the search for a job across the whole of the public sector is for an ongoing public sector position and not the unrealistic and useless work obligation as proposed by the Industrial Court. I have noted the concerns of members opposite that excess employees will not have sufficient time to apply and be assessed for vacant public sector jobs during the three-month retention period. Under the Government's policy, excess employees are given priority for consideration for a new permanent job. Vacant positions which are to be advertised will be held over for three days so that excess employees can be matched to a suitable job. Excess employees must be considered before, and separately from, any other applicants.

Strict time frames apply and the process to consider an excess employee for a suitable vacancy takes no longer than 14 days. This means that there is ample time within the retention period for excess employees to be considered for vacant ongoing positions that match their skills and experience. Importantly, this amendment is consistent with the provision in section 7 (3) of the Act that states the usual basis for the employment of public servants is as an officer in a permanent position. In addition to the changes to section 56, it is appropriate for consistency and fairness to amend the requirement in section 57 of the Act concerning public servants on excessive salaries relative to the position they are currently occupying. This will ensure that the search for a job at the same salary level continues to be across the whole of the public sector but is limited to an ongoing public sector position within either departments or public sector agencies and not just any type of work.

The bill proposes to exclude the application of the unfair contracts provision in division 2 of part 9 in chapter 2 of the Industrial Relations Act to arrangements for dispensing with excess employees. Such an approach is consistent with arrangements in the general community where access to rights under the unfair contracts provisions of the Industrial Relations Act is not widely available. The amendments are necessary to avoid lengthy and ongoing proceedings not brought under the principal Act relating to the employment of public servants—the Public Sector Employment Management Act—but under the unfair contracts provisions of the Industrial Relations Act. These proceedings, under the unfair contracts provisions, seek to prevent agencies from implementing reasonable changes to their excess employee policies that are consistent with the Public Sector Employment Management Act and are rightly a matter for the Government to determine through policy decisions from time to time.

The amendments will clarify that the Industrial Court will no longer have the power unilaterally to determine the provisions that apply to excess employees in the public sector. However, it is important to note that redundancy arrangements in the industrial instruments will not be displaced. The bill also makes it clear that the amendments do not affect any orders of the Industrial Court that were made prior to the commencement of the legislation. While the changes will mean that the Industrial Court cannot deal with these matters, individual excess employee disputes and unfair dismissal matters will still be able to be heard and determined by the Industrial Relations Commission. The independent umpire will still have an important role to play by ensuring that excess employees are treated fairly, that they receive their entitlements at law and under the policy, and have access to relief for unfair dismissal.

The proposed changes will support the Government's fair and reasonable policies for managing excess employees and improve the ability of agencies to deliver flexible, quality and better targeted public services in line with community expectations. This Government has a mandate for this legislation. In January 2011 it was announced that we would abolish the unattached list. In that announcement our commitment to make every effort to redeploy staff to vacant and suitable roles within the public sector was clearly stated. This bill honours those commitments. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put.

The House divided.

Mr Ajaka Mr Blair Mr Borsak Mr Brown Mr Clarke Ms Cusack Mr Gallacher

Miss Gardiner Mr Gay Mr Green Mr Khan Mr Lynn Mr MacDonald Mrs Maclaren-Jones

Mr Mason-Cox Mrs Mitchell Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce Tellers, Mr Colless Dr Phelps

Ms Barham Mr Buckingham Ms Cotsis Mr Donnelly Ms Faehrmann Dr Kaye Mr Moselmane

Mr Primrose Mr Roozendaal Mr Searle Mr Secord Ms Sharpe Mr Shoebridge Mr Veitch

Ms Westwood Mr Whan Tellers, Ms Fazio Ms Voltz

Ms Ficarra

Mr Foley

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Leave granted to proceed to the third reading of the bill forthwith.


The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [4.10 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

During my reply to the second reading debate the Opposition asked me to table the draft Public Sector Employment and Management Amendment (Displaced Employees) Bill 2005. I seek leave to incorporate that document in Hansard.

Leave not granted.

Question—That this bill be now read a third time—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.