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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (24 September) . . Page.. 3209 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

Mr Berry quoted Confact as being opposed. My department has been informed that Confact is no longer opposing the declaration of the common rule, in fact, and is simply seeking to negotiate respondency to a streamlined award. There is nowhere that I know of where there is any significant opposition to what Mr Berry is proposing, but it is up to the AIRC to hear the case and make a determination. We are prepared to accept that determination.

Mr Berry would know, of course - and I think he referred to it - that community service organisations in the ACT have been aware since October 1995, nearly two years ago, of the possibility of this common rule being introduced. Since that time government funding agencies have encouraged those service organisations that are concerned to position themselves for the introduction by implementing efficiency measures such as reviewing staffing and operational structures, making significant attempts to achieve efficiencies, undertaking robust negotiations in terms of staff management and completing a reasonable translation of each position to the appropriate level in the award. We have been actively seeking to have the organisations concerned prepare themselves for the possible impact of the imposition of such a rule. Our objective is to maintain the quality service provision for the community that exists today, and we have encouraged agencies to provide these services as closely as possible to the current funding base. The simple fact is that it is going to be difficult to find $4m, whether we provide it or whether the organisations themselves have to.

I understand that many service providers have demonstrated that they are moving towards paying SACS-level salaries within their current funding by making structural efficiencies. That is what we have been seeking to have them all do. We know that some will succeed and others may not; but those that are unable to do this because of special circumstances, such as penalty rates and crisis work, will have to make application for assistance on a case-by-case basis after demonstrating implementation of efficiencies and reasonable translation. That is not unreasonable, Mr Speaker; it is not a penalty; it is simply saying to the organisations, "If you have done everything within your power and you cannot meet the increased costs, we will look at each case on its merits". That is the best that any government can do. You cannot give a carte blanche approval that every time there is a change in the cost structure of such an organisation the Government will automatically pick up the tab, regardless of what it is or regardless of the circumstances. The extent of ultimate need for funding at this moment simply is not clear.

Reference has been made to a KPMG report commissioned by the Government which provides evidence of significant increases in salary - in some cases, up to 12 per cent; and, in some cases, up to 24 per cent. As I have said, the additional cost for services is potentially of the order of $4.2m. Non-government service providers have been aware of these implications since October 1995 and have been advised that the onus was on them to consider efficiency measures within existing funding levels should they need to meet additional costs associated with the award.

It is no surprise to anybody, except maybe to Mr Berry, that if these costs are not absorbed other services somewhere else will be affected. I suppose one could reasonably ask the question, using Mr Berry's own words, "Why penalise other services instead of requiring efficiencies to be achieved?". It is an interesting question. Mr Berry talked about unfairness. There is no question of unfairness. People will be paid whatever the

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