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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 10 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3686 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

I refer, first, to non-fire expenditure. The government allocated money for lifts and travelways at the Griffin centre, which illustrates the inadequacy of the planning process for the rebuilding of that centre before tenders were let. I refer also to the SACS award, an issue which was not included in this year's budget but which was raised by the estimates committee. I welcome the recommendation for a standard process to index funding for community organisations in line with SACS increases, as determined by the Industrial Relations Commission. The SACS award is a safety net award. It is not necessarily a measure of reasonable pay; it is a measure of absolute minimum pay.

ACTCOSS, in its budget submission, also reminded the government that the system for assessing costs should include a methodical accounting of the growth in wages and salaries; the costs of training, compliance, data collection and volunteer management; and the cost of assessing all those things during contract negotiations. I refer next to the budgetary allocation for Unions ACT to enable it to participate in tripartite reviews and government consultancies and to carry out a major review of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The committee transcript shows that the minister said that Unions ACT had only a secretary and a couple of administrative positions and that, on that basis, it was likely to stretch its funding. However, as the committee pointed out-and without taking away the apparent need for additional resources for Unions ACT-many other community groups that are involved in government bodies, consultations, reviews and law review work are struggling in one way or another.

Perhaps the relevant ministers are not aware of how much work is involved and what impact that work has on community organisations. It is essential to reflect in these reviews the expertise that has been gained from working with people with difficulties. For example, the Tenant's Union has been included in a review of the Residential Tenancies Act-a review that has not been accommodated by extra funding. The Conservation Council has had an input into a number of reviews, including a spatial plan, but that body is struggling. ACTCOSS, in its budget submission this year, noted the strain on it and on its member groups in the provision of services. In its submission on the review of service funding arrangements, ACTCOSS raised a number of points that have a bearing on the burden that has been placed on the community sector. It stated:

The Compact states that government undertake to "adopt an approach to consultation that seeks early input in policy development and planning processes, as well as provide opportunities to respond when options have been developed."

A further concern is that both the community and Government sectors need to be adequately resourced, especially in terms of the amount of time allocated, to effectively undertake this important work. The delayed, and consequently attenuated, process makes this difficult.

The Consultation Protocol states, "for issues requiring comprehensive consultation, community groups need a minimum of 6 weeks to consult their constituents and respond".

In its submission on the 2003-04 budget, ACTCOSS specifically recommended:

The Government provide funds to compensate community organisations and their members for their time and effort in participating in Government consultation

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