Page 4947 - Week 13 - Thursday, 12 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
My office and Ms Hunter’s office were debriefed by the executive director of ACTCOSS that afternoon, and I took a further briefing from officials yesterday afternoon. It is a bit telling that it took until yesterday afternoon to obtain the briefing that I was promised in this place and Ms Hunter was promised on 15 October. That was after considerable clamouring on my office’s part to get that briefing. In the meantime, my office and I have been in contact with a range of the roundtable attendees. The views of most is that the meeting was of little help in terms of answering their concerns. Their concerns are widespread.
There generally is a view that the purpose of establishing the scheme is to improve the capacity of the sector to attract and retain staff. As I have said, they still believe that this will not make any difference. The main issues are still those that relate to the potential of the scheme to put additional financial pressure on the sector, particularly the smaller organisations, raising the potential for a call for supplementary funding from the government. The government has given no undertakings in this regard. Indeed, the feedback from the sector is that the government has rejected any possibility of additional funding.
There is potential for the scheme to result in increases in charges for services delivered by NGOs, particularly in the childcare sector. I am aware of one childcare centre that manages its long service leave commitments in such a way as to generate income for the organisation. This revenue is put into childcare services as a means of alleviating the cost of childcare. For this centre, not only will the cost of long service leave increase under the scheme, but they will also lose that revenue stream that they generate from their prudent management of their long service leave liability. This will result in increased costs at that childcare centre, and they are not the only childcare centre. Every childcare centre in the community sector in particular will see an increased cost of childcare as a result of this scheme.
Indeed, one person, in giving us feedback on the roundtable the other day, said that every answer began with “I think” and most of the questions were taken on notice. The question of financial support from the government for the increased cost and lost revenue that community sector organisations will face was not addressed at all. It is hardly conducive to allaying the concerns of the sector.
Let me reiterate what I said earlier: the community sector is not the same as the construction or the cleaning industry. These industries are commercial in nature; any increases in their costs of doing business are simply passed on to the customer. The community sector does not have that luxury. The effect of increased costs on the community sector usually means either reduced services or reduced staff, or both.
It has been clearly demonstrated to me that the government has not adequately addressed these issues. The portable long service leave scheme for the community sector, once introduced, will be almost impossible to unravel. It is crucially important, therefore, that we get it right before it starts.
It is interesting that really what we are being asked to do is pass this today and in the next six months between now and when this bill comes into operation take it on trust
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video