Page 4649 - Week 16 - Tuesday, 27 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We have to ask ourselves why we need to change the present basis of funding. The answer is again provided in the Chief Minister's presentation speech. We need to free up CDF-type revenue for distribution for a wider range of community purposes than is possible under current arrangements. That, of course, is the point. That is the reason for change. Those opposite will say, no doubt, that this is another one of those things driven by bureaucrats; but they would know that this issue has been around for a long time, it has been generating heat in the ACT for a long time and it has deserved attention for a long time.
I want to give an example of the sorts of problems that have been created by the structure of the CDF in the past. The fact of life is that sometimes applications for funding fall into cracks; they do not fit into one of the categories established under the Community Development Fund Act and, as a result, they miss out or go through considerably harder processes to get funding than would otherwise need to be the case. I want to give one small example. I refer to one organisation that I had some dealings with, starting last year and through into this year - an organisation representing intellectually disabled students who were in the business of making very fine tapestries.
Those students, or the organisation representing those students, sought funding, but not necessarily from the CDF. They sought funding under a particular category. They went, first of all, to the Health Department and sought funding there and were told that they were not really under the guidelines applicable to grants from the Health Department. They then moved over to the Education Department and sought funding from the Education Department and were told that they did not really fall under the guidelines of that department. They moved to the Arts. They were told that they really did not properly fall under that category either - a bit, perhaps, but not really - and they were eventually shuffled back to Health again.
That kind of thing happens when you ossify categories of funding and you remove flexibility. The fact of life is that the Consolidated Revenue Fund is a considerably more flexible fund, notwithstanding administrative guidelines used for allocations from that fund. It is a considerably more flexible entity than is the Community Development Fund. That is what Mr Berry describes as a criminal act - doing away with that inflexibility and that ossified structure in favour of a more flexible one which will ensure, I think, in the future that organisations seeking funding have a better chance of getting it and getting it more quickly.
I think that we have also preserved in these structures opportunities for community groups to contribute to that process, and I think that we have to welcome the processes that we have set up to consult with the community and ensure that they remain in place.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .