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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (24 September) . . Page.. 3208 ..

MR KAINE (Minister for Urban Services and Minister for Industrial Relations) (12.11): Mr Speaker, as is often the case with motions put forward by Mr Berry, one really has to wonder what is behind it. The only inference that one can draw from the fact that Mr Berry has put this motion on the table is that somehow the Government is trying to do a nasty to certain employees in the private sector. The fact is that nothing is further from the truth. Therefore, one has to ask: Why is he putting this motion forward? The interesting thing is that the second part of his motion talks about employees in the community sector being penalised. This Government is not doing anything to impose penalties on such people. I am just confounded as to what it is that Mr Berry seeks to achieve.

I think he needs to be very careful, Mr Speaker, because I am not sure that he understands what he is committing himself to potentially, on the basis that, after February, it is possible that Mr Berry might have to live with the consequences of his own motion. I will explain what I mean. But let me make it quite clear that the Government does not oppose the implementation of a common rule for the social and community services award. That is fact one. But, in considering our position, we have to be, since we are in government, cognisant of the public interest here; and it is significant. What we have an obligation to do, I think, is to make sure that people, and the Opposition, understand that if the SACS workers are covered by the making of a common rule the costs will be substantial and may be beyond the capacity of either the organisations or the Government to fund easily. We are not talking about a few dollars here.

Mr Speaker, the history is that the matter was heard in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission on 9 September and that hearing was adjourned until 15 October - next month - when an officer of the Chief Minister's Department, on behalf of the Government, will present a full submission to the AIRC. In the hearing on 9 September the union provided evidence that in the past the Government has provided top-up funding for organisations where there has been a budget shortfall. The problem is that there may be some assumption flowing from that evidence that governments have an obligation and will automatically continue to do so every time there is a change that imposes additional costs on these community organisations. I think that is an untenable position and an untenable inference to draw.

Mr Speaker, a number of service organisations that will be affected by this have already been logged, and these organisations were given support to contribute to the additional costs, in part because they were locked into triennial agreements which are not over yet. Support was provided to those particular organisations on the understanding that it was a one-off funding arrangement - no permanent commitment, no unlimited and infinite commitment. We stated in the AIRC that the Government neither supports nor opposes the Australian Services Union's application. The Government is seeking to assist the AIRC by providing information relating to the financial impact of the implementation of the award and the possible effect of that on the community services concerned. It is intended that the AIRC and other parties be made aware of the major cost implications associated with the declaration of a common rule, should the application be granted, and that government funding for this increase in costs may not be available. We are talking about an increase in the vicinity of 10 to 12 per cent or in the order of $4m. It is in excess of $4m.

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