Time is running out for the ACT Government’s self-imposed deadline for the separate ACT Government Service. The Chief Minister, Rosemary Follett, is right in saying that the ACT cannot be truly self-governing without its own public service. Logically, that must eventually mean and end to automatic transfers of staff at the same level (Section 50 transfers), a point of some contention with public-sector unions.
When the two services separate after a time they will create different categories of staff and different levels. It would be absurd to allow automatic transfer between the two services at the level indefinitely. Before long the phrase will not have any meaning.
The amendments suggested by the Democrats and Liberals in the Senate is a reasonable compromise. The at-level transfers will be allowed for two years (provided the heads of the departments agree to each transfer). Thereafter all transferees from one service to the other will have to go through a selection-on-merit process.
ACT public-sector workers will still have a special entree into the Commonwealth service. They will be able to apply for Gazette jobs denied other non-Commonwealth employees. That is a suitable arrangement for two services in the one town. It retains the merit principle and coupled with other transfer arrangements means employees will not have to make huge career changes to switch services. Both services will benefit from have a greater skill base to draw on.
So there is a reasonable way forward with respect to the federal legislation. The ACT legislation, however, is still encountering difficulties.
ACT Electricity and Water engineers and lawyers in the Legal Aid Office and the Director of Public Prosecutions object to the centralised nature of the new service and the ACT Government’s desire to catch all public-sector employees within the net of its fairly detailed employment regime in the Public Sector Management Bill. The lawyers object because they will lose what they see as the necessary independence to fight cases in which the Government or its employees are involved. The engineers and others in ACTEW argue that the centralised system is too inefficient in a business environment. Their arguments have some merit and have been taken up by some Liberals and Independents in the Assembly.
There is also some question about whether the whistle-blowing provisions are strong enough and how it fits with the statutory appointments Bill now before the Assembly. The latter will require key appointments to be referred to an Assembly committee and be subject to Assembly disallowance.
That said, there is much merit in the new Bill for the core departments. Its main strength is that it codifies what is expected of public-sector employees and brings into one piece of legislation their rights and duties. In that respect it is superior to its Commonwealth counterpart which relies on common law and half a dozen different Acts.
It would be a shame to see the separate service falter. If it does not get through now, it may have to wait another year because of the ACT election and other legislative requirements. It would be sensible if the Government excluded at last for now the lawyers and the commercial parts of the public sector. Their fears might be allayed after seeing how the thing works for a year or two, or the Government might see their fears were justified and leave them out indefinitely.
It would be desirable if a compromise on whistle-blowing and statutory appointments could be worked out with the Bill, but these could be revisited after the event and therefore should not hold up the move to a separate service.
Self-Government has been here for five years and it is time for a separate government service. However, it is going to take some compromises.