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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 13 Hansard (20 November) . . Page.. 3840 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

everywhere I went-to put the squeeze on community bodies, which were very often required to deliver more, and sometimes with less money. Certainly we would argue for accountability, efficiency and for being very clear as to what is being done. However, as you know from the discussion before the election, and in some of the actions which have taken place since, we do not hold the same view of the purchaser provider model. We do not believe that model should be used to place an unnecessary squeeze on community agencies.

I refer to another matter. I do not think Ms Tucker developed it in her speech but she certainly has it in her motion. I refer to the facilities at which many of these people work. I do not argue that many of them are not in great condition. The Griffin Centre is a case in point. It will go and will be replaced by a better building. I commend those who made the decision to add another $1.7 million and add floor space. That was before my time. Although some people say it is not costing the government, it is costing the government-that was part of the deal. Somewhere in that deal, you could factor in a very significant sum of money-some millions of dollars-for the revenue forgone as we arrange to move the Griffin Centre to the new complex.

From all the advice I see, the former government did put a squeeze on maintenance. Maintenance was not readily available. Sometimes, whoever is around, maintenance is something you think can be cut because it is not the first need, but it always catches up with you. We are having to look at what we are doing in respect of maintenance. Among the priorities in the next budget, as we balance up what we have to do, we will be looking at maintenance and struggling to try to find money to catch up that ground. One day in the future, Ms Tucker, you will see how that went. You will also see how we weighed it up against increased services in other areas.

There is another important area that I do not think Ms Tucker emphasised-that is, that these community agencies play a critical role in policy development, in providing advice to government and, indeed, to all members. There is pretty much a pattern-or there was when I was in opposition-of tracking around to as many agencies as you can get to. There is a very large number of them. I would talk to them, listen to them and get a report on how things were, on the ground. The government formally goes to a number of these agencies-ACTCOSS is the standout example, and there are others like that. Indeed, we provide the level of funding necessary for them to fulfil the role of forming a link between this Assembly and the community.

Mr Stanhope mentioned, in passing, some of the areas. For example, we had to increase our contribution to ACT Shelter because they are paid under the SACS award. We had to find some more money because the award went up. Ms Tucker could argue-and I will not dispute it-that the awards are not high enough, but they are the awards. We have to top up that award when the industrial commission gives increased salaries to the people working in those groups.

We recognise those people as a vital component in the role of government-not just in the way of contracting out a very large amount of work to them, but in taking advice from them and consulting with them and all the subgroups that belong to them-as we develop policies for the territory. We recognise just how important these groups are. We set out to back up that recognition with the sorts of measures in Ms Tucker's motion.

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