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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 6 Hansard (1 September) . . Page.. 1636 ..

Ms Tucker: I asked: Is it fair that you quoted the New South Wales SACS award?

MS CARNELL: You asked a number of questions. You asked about the comparison between New South Wales and the ACT, and why we would go down that path. I am telling you why we would go down that path and the reason I think it is essential to do that. The reason I think it is essential is that if we do have terms and conditions that are significantly higher than those in New South Wales that equates directly to fewer services. If that is what the Assembly wants, if that is what Ms Tucker wants, fine but that is what it equates to.

The fact is that the amount of money the ACT gets is based upon Commonwealth Grants Commission allocations. The amount of money that we get per head of population is very close to that for New South Wales. We have only two ways to get money in the ACT. One of them is from the Grants Commission, and per head of population our grants are about the same as those for New South Wales - slightly higher but basically the same. Our revenue is at the same level as for New South Wales. If the amount of money we get per head of population is about the same as New South Wales gets, and if we end up with significantly higher costs in a particular area, then it has to have an effect. If we pay lots more than New South Wales, and we can determine we should, inevitably that will produce lower levels of service. It must, because the dollars are the same. I am sorry that that is the case, but it is. There is no money tree at the bottom of the garden. There are no huge amounts of new dollars if we end up with a SACS award that is significantly more generous than that in New South Wales, just over the border. Remember, the financial situation in New South Wales significantly affects the Grants Commission and that significantly affects us. It is that simple.

MS TUCKER: I ask a supplementary question. It seems that you have no choice at all as Treasurer and that is not how some of us would see it. Are you aware that at present some community organisations are no longer able to employ relief staff or pay for training because of the cost of paying the SACS award? If you are not satisfied with that, what will you do about it?

MS CARNELL: The ACT Government has said and said and said that it will take all reasonable steps to ensure that organisations are not unduly disadvantaged. The Government has taken and is taking those steps. The Department of Health and Community Care will provide funding for an advisory service for community organisations to assist them in the translation process under the SACS award. While the Government will have to remain within its existing budget despite the implications of the SACS award, it is negotiating purchaser contracts with non-government organisations to establish a fair service price, harnessing available efficiencies without resorting to arbitrary cuts in services. Allowances have been made within existing budgets to provide support for those service providers who will be transferring to the SACS award.

This is not a matter of cuts to programs or defunding of services. Rather, it involves clear and open negotiation between the Government and service providers to establish the most reasonable way forward in each case. I believe really strongly in this situation that everyone in this place has to take responsibility for everything they do. Mr Speaker, this morning Ms Tucker argued against the Insurance Levy Bill and said that we did not need the $10m.

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