Fiona O'Malley (Progressive Democrats)

I hope I please Senator Regan by engaging fully with the motion and counter-motion before the House. Regarding Exchequer returns, the difference is that investment made now is wise and will produce a good return for the country. Anyone would agree that one invests to produce growth. This has been part of the success of this country. This is why certain decisions were taken in respect of the national development plan.

Senator Regan referred to smugness on the part of the Government because of ten years of economic success. I think it is pride that we all experience as we travel abroad. I know this from my experience in Ukraine where people try to find out how we did it. We are a beacon to many countries and everyone who has played a part, not just the Government, can be proud of it. I reject the notion of smugness.

I refer to competitiveness in Government provided services, especially public services. A good example of that was Spencer Dock train station, the first publicly developed train station opening ahead of time and within budget. This was a direct response to competitiveness from other elements of the transport sector. Transport 21 gave €34 billion to the transport sector. Iarnród Éireann proved what could be done when there was money available and it wanted some of it. The company had to demonstrate it was capable of providing a service within a budget and on time. It has made us all proud by demonstrating how positive public services can be when faced with a competitive element.

The amendment to the motion notes the progress to date on public sector reform and welcomes the Government's strong commitment to progressing public sector reform. Mitt Romney made a point in his speech on so-called Super Tuesday which means, as far as the Government is concerned, that it would be wise to retain its strategy section before it enters partnership talks. He said: "Can you imagine what happens to an economy where the best opportunities are for bureaucrats?" We must be cognisant of this because that is the case. That is how we got the result of the second benchmarking report. We cannot afford to lose sight of this.

Senators Ross and Quinn mentioned complacency, a concern I share. We are entering different times and must know our public services can cope with adaptability. From the point of view of the Progressive Democrats, a party that believes in competition in services, we are not in favour of privatisation for its own sake. In some areas, such as health care, funding will be provided largely by the State. The application of some private enterprise will deliver good results. In the long term, this will protect the public service industry. The inability of the public sector unions to accept change is the greatest threat towards privatisation. The groups that decry privatisation are the ones who drive the exasperated Government down the privatisation road. Reform of the public sector is the greatest protection of our public services.

I heard on the news that IMPACT has called an all-out strike at the airports. As an island nation we must be careful with these matters. Senator Ross outlined what is wrong with social partnership. We must look at this critically because we need to decide what we need from the process.

Senator Regan criticised the Government for not explaining what it sought from the partnership process. It is perfectly clear and is written in the amendment to the motion. The Government's objective in entering talks is to achieve a sustainable pay deal, compatible with improving competitiveness and productivity. The amendment also refers to the Government's intention to inform the Oireachtas fully as the appropriate forum to address this. We must be careful because, as a result of social partnership, we are not used to strikes. I would hate to think we might revert to them. We need cool heads and to play our part in a partnership deal that works. We do not need one for the sake of having one. We need one that will work for the workers.

I listened with interest to the call by Senator Alex White for a debate on the tax regime, which would be useful. As feared, Senator White reversed his party's position in the election. It is disingenuous to fight an election knowing that people like tax cuts and then, six months later, to decide to abandon the proposal. I welcome such a debate.