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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (24 September) . . Page.. 3237 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

The position we have taken is that we do not support or oppose the Australian Services Union application. The reason we do not support it or oppose it is that we are not the employer in this case. We may be a funding arm, but we are not the only funding arm. A lot of our community organisations gain a lot of their money from fundraising and from other sources; but we are a major player, an interested party. We have never opposed the SACS award. In fact, we have supplemented organisations that have had the SACS award applied to their particular areas. Mr Kaine ran through that very appropriately. The approach that we have taken is innovative and appropriate.

I indicate now that at the appropriate time I will move two amendments that have been circulated. Those two amendments are in line with the approach that Mr Kaine spoke about, the approach that the Government has taken up to now to work with organisations. We have had KPMG on board. We have spent lots of time with various organisations working through the implications of the SACS award for them and helping them determine how best to implement the award in an area that has been without awards in the past. We have found that some of them have no structure whatsoever upon which to determine at what level to pay various people. Not only are you dealing with just a new pay rate, but frequently the people who will fall under the SACS award have had no experience in how to deal with people at various levels in their organisation being able to access an award in different ways. It is very important that we work with organisations, so that they do not have to employ consultants to help them implement the new award and so that the cost of the new award is minimised as much as possible.

I am going to suggest to the Assembly that the approach that we should take is to suggest that the Government should take all reasonable steps to ensure that organisations are not unduly disadvantaged. Of course we will do that. We have done it all the way through up until now. We will continue to do it. We have made some money available in our various budgets to handle the implementation of the SACS award, but I have to say that there is not $4.2m in any budget. Some budgets such as the HACC budget are closed budgets because there is money from the Federal Government and money from the ACT Government. We need to ensure that they work properly, that we do not end up with people getting services from community-based organisations being the ones who pay a price.

From an ACT Government perspective, we believe strongly that there should be no disadvantage for people working in the non-government or community sector. We believe strongly that they do a great job for the community; that they should not be underpaid; that their conditions should be appropriate. All of those things go without saying. Our record in this area shows that we have taken a very caring and constructive approach to the organisations that have already been part of, or subject to, the SACS award. We will continue to do that.

We have to stick within a budget. This Assembly passed the budget. All of a sudden, it is being implied that $4.2m, or something leading up to that, can somehow be plucked out of the air. Mr Berry is probably going to say that not all of that would be this year. Some of it would be, though, and it is not budgeted for. The ACT Government is subject to decreasing revenue from the Commonwealth. Since self-government, funding to the ACT has been reduced by 50 per cent in real terms. Those opposite have opposed things

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