Fiona O'Malley (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State. In spite of what everyone says, I see consensus growing all over the place. Yesterday it was with the CAP agreement and today we have it on the public service. It is good to have someone young and dynamic like Deputy Calleary in his current position. I hope he will be inspired by Senator Harris's fearless assessment of the situation as he tries to make change happen. His assessment was spot on. He is not afraid, be it for electoral or other reasons, and he went to the core of the problem and how we need to solve it. I agree we must try not to put the public service and the private sector at odds with each other, but we must face reality.

I was very interested in Senator O'Toole's contribution today and he also went to the core of the matter. The agreement is already six months old and we have had a bad experience of those six months. The Minister of State alluded to it. Who is in control? Who is running the show? Did we sign up to an agreement that was going to get dates and indicators? The first hurdle was not crossed as these deadlines were not met. I am sure the Minister of State is not one bit pleased about that. They have now been reached but what kind of tardiness does that show? What kind of commitment to change does that show? The one thing we do not have right now is time. The other thing we do not have is money. The absence of those two means we need to get a move on and drive the reforms.

I noted with interest the comments of Senator Alex White. He said that for more than 30 years public service reform has been a perennial item on the agenda. I do not mean to dismiss what he said but we cannot continue along with the wispy words he was using and that manner. I was a little disappointed when he stated that public servants have votes too. I found that threatening. I do not care who does or does not have a vote. The public service is for the public. It is for all of them and not the workers. It must be about what kind of services we can afford for the people. The world has changed so much in technological terms since our public service was established. We have to cop on to flexibility, redeployment and all these phrases which appear to be new in the jargon of the public service but are a common practice anywhere else. That is why I hope this agreement works because it must work.

As Senator Harris pointed out, the public service unions recognise that change will happen, not least because we cannot afford it any other way, and they are ensuring the agreement comes to pass. At the end of the day, we have to look at affordability. I am glad to see the Minister of State will be tough on unions that are inside or outside the agreement. If it is to mean anything, those who signed up to it will get some benefits whereas those who have not are not prepared to get them.

Does the Minister of State think we have too many people working in the public service? We need to safeguard against morale. People are constantly getting kicked in the public service. We need to provide a much more streamlined service and bring it kicking and screaming up to date. I do not know if he is brave enough to tell me honestly whether we have too many people in the public service. How will we streamline it? If we do this, we need to look at ways of reducing the numbers. We need to be honest about that because we certainly cannot continue along the route we have set ourselves. We need to be honest about where we need to make the savings.

I was aghast when the Minister of State said it was important to emphasise that the Croke Park agreement is not a cost saving plan in itself. If there is one thing we have to do to implement this agreement, it is to save money. I accept its practice will bring about changes and economies, but the Minister of State should not be afraid to say that this is about saving money. That is what it should be about because we need to curtail the cost of our public service.

Who is in control? I was inspired by what Senator Harris said about the need for politicians to drive it on. This is where the decisions are being made. If politics is to mean anything, then decisions about taxation and so on are political decisions. We all have to face the electorate at election time and explain the decisions made about who is to be taxed and how they are to be taxed. That is where we are answerable to the people, and that is only right. We cannot have other people such as union leaders and so on telling the Government how to tax workers or whoever, or so called rich people, when they will not stand before the public themselves. The only people who have the right to dictate taxation policy are politicians. Equally, we should push forward the change agenda for the public service. I do not think the Minister of State should be one bit afraid of what needs to be done. It will be the making of him if he really tackles this issue. He should do the public service and the people a favour and drive the reform that we desperately need.