Media release: 3 July 2012
NSW public sector workers and the communities that depend on the services they provide face a bleak winter after one of Treasurer Mike Baird officials has been caught admitting there will be no caps on the number of positions scrapped, according to Greens NSW MP John Kaye.
("No limit to state jobs cleanout" Sydney Morning Herald 3 July 2012 page 1 http://j.mp/LTlYRg)
Dr Kaye said: "The leaked memo shows that Treasurer Mike Baird was being less than candid when his budget speech implied that the number of jobs cut would be 10,000 or less.
"This has to be one of the least transparent budgets in living memory.
"Every public sector worker and very community member that depends on the services they provide now knows that they are at risk.
"The Treasurer is hiding behind the O'Farrell government's department heads to disguise the real impacts of their budget.
"The Coalition's myth that the cuts will only affect 'back office' jobs is not only misleading but also thoroughly exposed as nothing but spin.
"TAFE teachers, child protection workers, fire brigade officers, teachers aides and national park rangers all face cuts.
"The O'Farrell government has become the masters of blame shifting.
"First they try to make public school principals the scapegoats for cutting the state's budget. Now they are passing the buck on public service job cuts to the department heads.
"The Treasurer wants to balance the budget without increasing revenue. He is afraid of the bid end of town.
"Instead of taxing wealthy corporate activities, he punishes public service employees and households that rely on quality education, child protection and fire fighting," Dr Kaye said.
Mike Baird Budget Speech 12 June 2012: "Directors General will be given as much flexibility as possible to achieve the savings in the most appropriate way to meet the service requirements of their agencies. If it was solely achieved through headcount this would equate to up to 10,000 jobs over four years."
The clear implication is that the cuts to jobs would be less than 10,000 if other spending reduction mechanisms that are not related to employment can be found. Savings on, for example, purchasing of materials would mean that less than 10,000 positions would be axed.
It is impossible to read into this statement that job cuts could be larger than 10,000.
For more information: John Kaye 0407 195 455