Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 4097 ..

MS REILLY (12.58 am): I want to raise a couple of issues in relation to the Health and Community Care budget that we are discussing. One of the things I want to raise is the SACS award and the payment of that award to the people who work in the social and community sector.

Mrs Carnell: There is a bit of tedious repetition here, too.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pay no attention. Just continue, Ms Reilly.

MS REILLY: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was very pleasing in the discussion at the Estimates Committee hearings to find that there was the money available for people to be paid proper award wages. We have been talking a lot tonight about jobs. If the community sector is not given sufficient money to pay award wages there will be a loss of jobs in this sector. In particular, there will be a loss of jobs for women because a number of the people who work in this sector are women. I think it would be a pity to lose these women out of the work force. For many years these people have been bringing high levels of skills and experience to these jobs. The establishment of an award ensures that these people will be fully recompensed for their skills and competency. I think it is important that, when this process is finished, they will be fully rewarded, and that, in the tendering process, organisations that pay award wages will not be disadvantaged in any way as against those who refuse to pay or do not worry about paying award wages.

The other part of the program I wish to mention is the growth funds of $418,000 under the HACC budget. Because these funds always become available later in the financial year, there is much effort made to distribute them as soon as possible. This is the only opportunity to introduce new services. It is the only opportunity to look at innovation in the area. If there are delays in this money being allocated and there are delays in setting up new programs, a lot of this could be lost.

The other issue I want to raise is in relation to the community houses for younger disabled. One of the questions I asked about at the Estimates Committee hearings was the number of people who were in Jindalee. I do not seem to have received those figures. That aside, there is to be the construction of four houses as residences for 16 younger people with disabilities. I think everyone is looking forward to the announcement of these. During the 1995 election campaign it was said that we were going to set up houses to house 40 younger people with disabilities. When are we going to see the rest of them?

This is a very disadvantaged group. It is a group that needs high levels of care. Everyone accepts that nursing homes are not the place for these people. They should be in separate homes and we need to house them as soon as possible. The fact that 16 may be housed by the end of 21/2 years is not a suggestion of any real commitment to those people. It is interesting to note, in relation to the questions about the Jindalee Nursing Home and the capital upgrades, that a number of the items that they have expended money on have nothing to do with capital costs. Most of them are ordinary maintenance and consumables items. I am wondering how much Johnson Village Services is spending on Jindalee Nursing Home.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .