Mr STIRLING - 2001-07-04
Of the 14 779 Northern Territory public servants, over 1700 are today on temporary contracts. This includes over 500 employees in Health, 600 in Education, 164 are nurses, and 281 are teachers. None of these people can get a loan to get a car, a mortgage, or afford to make a permanent commitment to the Territory. How does the minister justify the creation of such a high level of uncertainty for so many of his employees?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, this is a matter that the opposition have on the Notice Paper for debate today. I am just so delighted that I have know been given the opportunity by the goose who is going to sponsor that debate to explain it publicly. Otherwise I would not have the opportunity. But as Question Time is broadcast and the debate that the member is going to participate in this afternoon is not, I will now be able to explain to those people - and there are many of them across the Northern Territory. I know in Katherine, people frequently say to me that they listen to Question Time ...
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: ... and they are a bit sorry about the noise that emanates from the members opposite.
In terms of the question, they are so across their job, they believe that the figures that were just quoted by the Deputy Leader - well, he might be leader tomorrow, the way things are going - are a great revelation. They asked a question last week and they were given a full and detailed answer by me, in relation to the appropriation debate. They have not dug this up, it has not fallen out of the sky or off a truck, it has been provided to them.
Further to that, in relation to the job that he does, you would have thought, given that he has been the opposition spokesman for employment for some years, that he would have sought the advise, perhaps, of what the figures have been in previous years. Let us go back to June 1996, and compare with the June 2000 figure that he has got - 21.4% in June 2000 of the temporary contracts in the Northern Territory Public Service. So is that unusual in historical terms? June 1996, 21.1%; June 1997, 21%; June 1998, 22.7%; June 1999, 21.8%. No difference, all very even and consistent. Why? Why one would ask, does this situation exist?
The figure represents about 20% of the total number, as I say, of persons employed. That is, not full-time equivalents, and it is made up of casual employees. They are not full-time employees, you silly man. They are persons engaged on a short-term basis to cover a variety of leave, recreation, long-service, maternity and leave without pay. Not to do that, of course, would see those positions held vacant, not filled, and the work not done while people were taking recreation leave, long-service leave, maternity leave etc.
As a consequence those who fill those positions are not permanent employees. Persons engaged on fixed-term Commonwealth-funded projects are not full-term employees, because they might only be employed there for three months, six months or what have you, to do a specific task. Relief teachers and nurses are not full-time, but they are people who very happily work in the community and fill those relief position when the opportunity arises. Some of them do not want to be full-time employees. They are very happy because now they perhaps have children and get some work when they want it on a relief basis. They are persons engaged to cover other short-term specialist needs such as in the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries where we had the fruit fly scare a few years ago. There would have been, I dare say, some people who would have been employed on a basis that would not have been permanent. And of course, employees employed on executive contracts, of which there are 276. Everyone in the public service understands what the circumstances are, and why it is so.
If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition thinks that this is unusual, let us compare the situation here with another state to see if we are out of kilter with what the normal practices are. In the Victorian Public Service in 1999, 10.5% were casual and 23.5% were temporary. Under ...
Dr Toyne: Under Kennett.
Ms Martin: That was your mate, Jeffrey.
Mr REED: Thank you for that, because you emphasise the point that I am going to make, ‘That was our mate Jeffrey’. Let us talk about your mate Bracks, now that you have opened the mouth, put foot in mouth, so that you do not put your foot in it again, okay?
The equivalent figures for 2000 - eg your mate Bracks, putting foot in mouth - were 15.3% and 21.8% ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: A lower figure, 15.3% and 21.8%, bigger figures, Syd ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: For the benefit of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who has hearing problems when the facts are given, the figures are 15.3% and 21.8%, in excess of 36%, in fact in excess of 37%. Now that comes from no lesser a source than the 1999-2000 Annual Report of the Victorian Commissioner of Public Employment.
I heartily thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the opposition spokesman for labour and employment for explaining this to Territorians because what it will do is when he goes rabbiting on about this this afternoon, if he gets an opportunity to get to talk about it on the media, is that those Territorians who have heard Question Time will understand the real facts rather than the misrepresented facts that have been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition and her deputy.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, this is a matter that the opposition have on the Notice Paper for debate today. I am just so delighted that I have know been given the opportunity by the goose who is going to sponsor that debate to explain it publicly. Otherwise I would not have the opportunity. But as Question Time is broadcast and the debate that the member is going to participate in this afternoon is not, I will now be able to explain to those people - and there are many of them across the Northern Territory. I know in Katherine, people frequently say to me that they listen to Question Time ...
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: ... and they are a bit sorry about the noise that emanates from the members opposite.
In terms of the question, they are so across their job, they believe that the figures that were just quoted by the Deputy Leader - well, he might be leader tomorrow, the way things are going - are a great revelation. They asked a question last week and they were given a full and detailed answer by me, in relation to the appropriation debate. They have not dug this up, it has not fallen out of the sky or off a truck, it has been provided to them.
Further to that, in relation to the job that he does, you would have thought, given that he has been the opposition spokesman for employment for some years, that he would have sought the advise, perhaps, of what the figures have been in previous years. Let us go back to June 1996, and compare with the June 2000 figure that he has got - 21.4% in June 2000 of the temporary contracts in the Northern Territory Public Service. So is that unusual in historical terms? June 1996, 21.1%; June 1997, 21%; June 1998, 22.7%; June 1999, 21.8%. No difference, all very even and consistent. Why? Why one would ask, does this situation exist?
The figure represents about 20% of the total number, as I say, of persons employed. That is, not full-time equivalents, and it is made up of casual employees. They are not full-time employees, you silly man. They are persons engaged on a short-term basis to cover a variety of leave, recreation, long-service, maternity and leave without pay. Not to do that, of course, would see those positions held vacant, not filled, and the work not done while people were taking recreation leave, long-service leave, maternity leave etc.
As a consequence those who fill those positions are not permanent employees. Persons engaged on fixed-term Commonwealth-funded projects are not full-term employees, because they might only be employed there for three months, six months or what have you, to do a specific task. Relief teachers and nurses are not full-time, but they are people who very happily work in the community and fill those relief position when the opportunity arises. Some of them do not want to be full-time employees. They are very happy because now they perhaps have children and get some work when they want it on a relief basis. They are persons engaged to cover other short-term specialist needs such as in the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries where we had the fruit fly scare a few years ago. There would have been, I dare say, some people who would have been employed on a basis that would not have been permanent. And of course, employees employed on executive contracts, of which there are 276. Everyone in the public service understands what the circumstances are, and why it is so.
If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition thinks that this is unusual, let us compare the situation here with another state to see if we are out of kilter with what the normal practices are. In the Victorian Public Service in 1999, 10.5% were casual and 23.5% were temporary. Under ...
Dr Toyne: Under Kennett.
Ms Martin: That was your mate, Jeffrey.
Mr REED: Thank you for that, because you emphasise the point that I am going to make, ‘That was our mate Jeffrey’. Let us talk about your mate Bracks, now that you have opened the mouth, put foot in mouth, so that you do not put your foot in it again, okay?
The equivalent figures for 2000 - eg your mate Bracks, putting foot in mouth - were 15.3% and 21.8% ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: A lower figure, 15.3% and 21.8%, bigger figures, Syd ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: For the benefit of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who has hearing problems when the facts are given, the figures are 15.3% and 21.8%, in excess of 36%, in fact in excess of 37%. Now that comes from no lesser a source than the 1999-2000 Annual Report of the Victorian Commissioner of Public Employment.
I heartily thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the opposition spokesman for labour and employment for explaining this to Territorians because what it will do is when he goes rabbiting on about this this afternoon, if he gets an opportunity to get to talk about it on the media, is that those Territorians who have heard Question Time will understand the real facts rather than the misrepresented facts that have been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition and her deputy.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016