Senator HARRADINE —My question is directed to the minister representing the Treasurer. The government's own Economic Planning Advisory Committee has stated that `labour shedding' has been important in generating improved productivity in public utilities. EPAC has also stated that these productivity gains have been `passed on to government' in the form of increased dividends. I ask: why should the government think that consumers should be grateful for micro-economic reform if it means that they do not get the productivity gains? How are families better off if they do not get big cuts in charges and have to pay more tax to support those thrown out of jobs?

Senator COOK —I understand where Senator Harradine is coming from in his concern for people who may have been in government employment but who are now outside of government employment. The obligation on a government is to deliver the public services that it provides to the community and the defence services that it provides to the nation at the cheapest and most efficient cost. That means that with increasing access to new technology and more efficient ways of managing change there is downward pressure on employment numbers in the Commonwealth. That is appropriate because Australian taxpayers clearly do not want to pay for inefficient government delivery of services and inefficient provision of programs.

  Therefore, this Commonwealth government has always been concerned at finding the most productive way of delivering those services. I will check these figures because I want to be absolutely sure in giving Senator Harradine an answer, but as I understand it in terms of the Commonwealth public service the result has been not to put people out of work but, rather, to not to fill positions when they become vacant and thus shrink the size of the public sector in comparison with that of the rest of the economy.

  Having said that, I have to say that in some areas of state government operations people have been put directly out of work in a way which raises questions about proper management of industrial relations procedures and proper handling of redundancy arrangements. In some cases this has been done under a quite nebulous guise which is not, in the view of this Commonwealth government, the most efficient way to go about delivering those services. I will look at Senator Harradine's question again in the Hansard, but the essential point is that we have a fundamental obligation to deliver high quality services at the least possible cost and ensure that the Australian public sector is in fact an efficient deliverer of those services.

Senator HARRADINE —Could the minister in his response also attend to the other question that the productivity gains have been, as EPAC says, passed on to government and presumably not to consumers? Could the minister have a look at that and come back to me?

Senator COOK —I certainly will have a look at that question. As I recall, EPAC was saying that the gains reaped by greater efficiencies in government business enterprises and in other sectors of the delivery of government services created productivity gains overall. Of course, they come through in the form of less pressure on taxation, or less pressure on fiscal measures and less pressure on the budget in terms of deficits. I will take on board your question and I will give you a fuller answer when I have consulted the Treasurer on what you have put forward.