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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 10 Hansard (23 September) . . Page.. 3480 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

Recommendation 3 and 4 talk about the involvement of the community sector in the aftermath of the disaster. I support both recommendations. It is important that we understand that response is a multifaceted thing when it comes to bushfires and it is not just those people who are articulated in the disaster plan who actually come to the fore. A range of community sector organisations come to the fore and do a heck of a lot more than they would otherwise be required to do.

The reason I am supporting these particularly is that I think that the disaster plan, known as the displan, could be refined a little bit more to talk about what the impact on the community sector is going to be in the event of a disaster. I can recall doing disaster response training and saying that we have to get St Vincent de Paul and the Red Cross to kick in. We do not realise that they have to keep going with their normal day-to-day operations anyway. That has not been taken into account. I would not suggest that it should have been anticipated, but we know about it now. That is why I support the recommendations.

Recommendation 6 talks about funding levels for FaBRiC as a result of the bushfires. It is but one organisation. It is interesting that the community has been critical of the committee for putting forward bids, if you like, without proper analysis. It is interesting that the FaBRiC bid was an initial grab for $350,000, which was later determined to be $60,000 because they spread it over a couple of years instead of just one, and then it went down from $1.036 million, if my memory serves me correctly, to $870,000. These are basic inaccuracies one does not expect from organisations like that. So, in terms of criticism about the analysis, let's be a bit fair about it. I would also encourage community organisations to do their sums properly before submitting numbers to a committee which might just pick them up and run with them because, unless a proper analysis is available, it ain't going to happen.

Recommendation 7 is a thinly veiled exercise in union bashing. The government is providing a certain amount of funding to Unions ACT to assist it in the provision of occupational health and safety information and policy direction. That shows the commitment of this government to occupational health and safety. Members will see further evidence of that commitment in the industrial manslaughter legislation when it is debated. More will be said about that later today, Mr Speaker.

In terms of equity, questions have been asked about why the government is giving the funding to the unions and statements have been made about the unions getting special treatment. Nothing could be further from the truth, Mr Speaker. I can cite two examples off the top of my head. The Youth Coalition gets money to assist the government in policy development for young people. It is just a grant. It is not a contract. It is not something that they had to bid for. That is because they happen to be experts in their field.

A series of parents and citizens association organisations get $70,000 a year under exactly the same scenario. Why? It is because they know what they are doing; they are experts in their field. It is the government's view that, when it comes to occupational health and safety, Unions ACT might be well placed to augment the government's bank of knowledge. But nothing is free in this world. As with the Youth Coalition and the P&Cs, the government is prepared to put its money where its mouth is.

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