ON MONDAY evening Police Minister Peter Ryan emerged from his office to announce that a pay deal had been struck with the police union after an acrimonious year-long battle.

''I'll just make this briefly [sic] because I know you're all running against the clock,'' he said hopefully. ''We have achieved a great result for the taxpayers of Victoria and a great result for our hard-working police officers. It truly is a win-win.''



Yet Ryan refused to give straight answers about the terms of the deal, the impact it might have on the budget or whether the government had stuck to its promise not to grant pay rises to unions of more than 2.5 per cent a year unless offset by negotiated ''bankable'' savings.

Perhaps Ryan, who is normally a highly effective communicator and one of the government's best performers, was poorly advised. But he was asking taxpayers to accept that their money had been well spent, while denying them any information that might have allowed at least some independent assessment.

A day after Ryan's press conference, Premier Ted Baillieu attempted to mop up. Yet he still refused to discuss the impact on the budget, or provide details of whether it included''bankable savings''. He persisted with this stance despite the fact that much of the deal had been made public.

He did reveal that the deal would cost about $110 million a year on average, or $495 million over 4½ years. Despite this, he said it would not have a negative impact on the budget because it was ''consistent with the parameters we set ourselves''.

In terms of bankable savings, Baillieu cited rostering, leave and shift changes, better training and safety arrangements, changes to allowances linked to remote locations and private vehicle use and better processes for dealing with disciplinary issues.

It is difficult to weigh up what all this actually means, but my best guess is that the government will need to find an average of about $60 million a year to make up the difference between the 2.5 per cent it set aside and its more generous offer to police.

The so-called productivity savings claimed by Baillieu do not seem to add up to anything significant.




Productivity is generally measured by the amount of output generated per hour of work. In the case of public sector workers, this has always been a problematic concept. Should nurses be required to treat more patients per hour? Or should teachers be required to teach more pupils? Should police be required to nab more criminals? Or should the government sack people? All of these approaches might show up as ''productivity gains'', but whether they represent good public policy is debatable.

BESIEGED Deputy Premier Peter Ryan is resisting opposition demands for his resignation in the wake of a damning report that revealed a plot hatched from within his office to bring down former police chief Simon Overland.

In a blow to the Baillieu government's credibility on integrity and law and order, the scandal has claimed the scalp of Mr Ryan's former adviser Tristan Weston and his understudy as police minister, Bill Tilley.

Yesterday, Mr Ryan refused to apologise to Mr Overland, despite conceding that Mr Weston's campaign, conducted on the taxpayers' tab, ''no doubt'' contributed to the former chief commissioner's demise.


The scathing Office of Police Integrity report found Mr Weston had pursued his own political agenda in his campaign against Mr Overland.

The report also slammed the former chief commissioner's deputy, Sir Ken Jones, for his relationship with Mr Weston, saying it was conducted in ''a manner wholly inconsistent with the professional and ethical standards … of a deputy commissioner''.

Sir Ken has said the OPI report ''seriously misconstrued'' his relationship with Mr Weston.

Yesterday, Opposition Leader Daniel Andrews stepped up his attack on Mr Ryan, demanding he resign and saying Victorians could not possibly believe the minister's explanation that he knew nothing of a merciless campaign against Mr Overland.

''Mr Ryan should go.

If he knows nothing then he has no place being the Minister for Police

,'' Mr Andrews said.
''He [Mr Ryan] would have us believe he did not know what was going on in his own office. That I think is just an incredible claim, an unbelievable claim''Someone is lying to the OPI.''.

Mr Andrews suggested the opposition may refer Mr Ryan's involvement in the scandal to the Coalition's overdue anti-corruption commission.

He also said Mr Ryan should apologise to Mr Overland.

Mr Ryan said if he had taken any action or inaction which contributed to Mr Weston's actions then he would give ''further consideration'' to the issue of his resignation.