Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
COMMONWEALTH REHABILITATION SERVICE REFORM BILL 1998
JUNE 1998
© Commonwealth of Australia 1998
ISSN 1440-2572 |
View the report as separate downloadable parts:
Membership of the Committee
Members
| Senator Sue Knowles, Chairman |
LP, Western Australia |
| Senator Andrew Bartlett, Deputy Chair |
AD, Queensland |
| Senator Kay Denman |
ALP, Tasmania |
| Senator Alan Eggleston |
LP, Western Australia |
| Senator Michael Forshaw |
ALP, New South Wales |
| Senator Ross Lightfoot |
LP, Western Australia |
Participating Members
|
Senator Lyn Allison
for the consideration of the provisions of the
Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service Reform Bill 1998
|
AD, Victoria |
| Senator Eric Abetz |
LP, Tasmania |
| Senator Bob Brown |
Greens, Tasmania |
| Senator Mal Colston |
Ind, Queensland |
| Senator Barney Cooney |
ALP, Victoria |
| Senator the Hon Rosemary Crowley |
ALP, South Australia |
| Senator Chris Evans |
ALP, Western Australia |
| Senator the Hon John Faulkner |
ALP, New South Wales |
| Senator Brenda Gibbs |
ALP, Queensland |
| Senator Brian Harradine |
Ind, Tasmania |
| Senator Sue Mackay |
ALP, Tasmania |
| Senator Dee Margetts |
GWA, Western Australia |
| Senator Shayne Murphy |
ALP, Tasmania |
| Senator Belinda Neal |
ALP, New South Wales |
| Senator Kay Patterson |
LP, Victoria |
| Senator the Hon Margaret Reynolds |
ALP, Queensland |
| Senator Sue West |
ALP, New South Wales |
| Senator John Woodley |
AD, Queensland |
REPORT
COMMONWEALTH REHABILITATION SERVICE REFORM BILL 1998
1. THE INQUIRY
1.1 The Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service Reform Bill 1998 was introduced
into the House of Representatives on 26 March 1998 and into the Senate
on 13 May 1998. On 13 May 1998, the Senate, on the recommendation of the
Selection of Bills Committee (Report No. 6 of 1998), referred the
provisions of the Bill to the Committee for report by 4 June 1998.
The reporting date was subsequently extended to 23 June 1998.
1.2 The Committee considered the Bill at a public hearing on 29 May 1998.
Details of the public hearing are referred to in Appendix 2. The Committee
received five submissions relating to the Bill and these are listed at
Appendix 1.
2. THE BILL
2.1 The Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service Reform Bill 1998 provides
for a number of transitional provisions to facilitate restructuring of
the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service (CRS) as a Commonwealth company.
CRS, which currently operates as a Division of the Department of Health
and Family Services (DHFS), is to be replaced by a Commonwealth owned
company limited by shares, established under the Corporations Law. The
Bill provides for the transfer of CRS assets, contracts and liabilities
to the new company. With the restructure, the CRS will become an incorporated
organisation operating under its own Board. The corporatised CRS will
continue to provide the current range of free rehabilitation services
but under legal contract to DHFS. [1]
2.2 The new company is to be declared a Government Business Enterprise
(GBE) which will bring the company under the GBE governance arrangements.
This will ensure that Ministers exercise continuing scrutiny over its
strategic directions and over financial issues.
2.3 The Bill also repeals Part III of the Disability Services Act
1986, which relates to the provision of rehabilitation services by
the Secretary of the Department (or his delegate). This Part will become
redundant once the CRS separates from the Department. However, the objects
and principles of the Disability Services Act and the programs and services
referred to in Part III will be incorporated into the legal contract between
the Department and the CRS. [2] The transfer of CRS staff will be handled
separately under the provisions of section 81C of the Public Service
Act 1922.
2.4 The Minister in the Second Reading Speech stated that:
Separation of the CRS from the Department, in conjunction with the
proposed introduction of competition from 1999 is intended to provide
eligible clients with choice of service provider, and to promote greater
efficiency, flexibility and innovation in service delivery and best
value for clients from the Commonwealth's substantial investment in
this program. The government will be consulting widely with clients,
industry and the general community …on the best mechanisms for
introducing competition….In the interim, the Department of Health
and Family Services will continue to purchase rehabilitation services
from the CRS under contractual arrangements. [3]
2.5 The Department, referring to the Parliamentary Library's Bills Digest,
summarised the benefits of separation as follows:
Policy priorities will be better specified and clearer. Conflicts of
interest can be minimised because providers are not the sole source
of advice on targets, evaluations and standards, and the balance of
power is not weighed in favour of the provider. Contestability can be
enhanced or introduced. Accountability can be heightened because the
purchaser may specify what performance information is expected from
the provider. Managerial autonomy can be increased because relevant
roles and structures can be clarified. Responsiveness to clients can
be improved because purchase agreements require the provider to meet
client needs. They are the benefits that we could see from the actual
achieving of the purchaser-provider split. [4]
2.6 DHFS stated that the reforms will change the corporate structure
of the CRS but will not result in changes to existing rehabilitation policies
or services. Rehabilitation policy and the `purchase' of these services
are not being devolved to the new company. The Government's intent is
to separate the provider function being performed by the CRS from the
policy or `purchaser' function which will remain with the Department.
[5] The Department further noted that `while
the bill facilitates the incorporation of CRS there is no change in existing
rehabilitation policies and services. All services will continue as they
currently exist. In particular, eligible clients will continue to receive
the full range of services currently available'. [6]
2.7 The Department emphasised in evidence that the Bill is really only
about the corporatisation of CRS and the separation of the purchaser and
provider functions. It does not provide for the introduction of competition.
DHFS added that:
The whole issue of competition, how it should be introduced and in
what way and the safeguards that should be provided and all those sorts
of things will be the subject of consultations over [the next 12 months]…
It is a bit speculative to talk about the impact of competition at this
point of time because competition will not occur with just corporatisation
of CRS. You have to take other measures to introduce competition as
well. [7]
3. ISSUES
Access to CRS Work Training Scheme
3.1 ACROD and Jobsupport commented on the benefits of the CRS Work Training
Scheme and the problems it would cause the employment future of people
with high support needs if access to the scheme were removed as a result
of the corporatisation of the CRS. [8]
3.2 Under the scheme the client is paid a training allowance and covered
by Comcare for workers compensation during the trial period of employment.
ACROD noted that the scheme has allowed people with disabilities to access
an unpaid work trial to allow a `try before you buy' period for both the
person with a disability and the employer. The scheme also provides adequate
levels of workers compensation coverage for unpaid work trials, which
is not accessible under other schemes. [9]
3.3 The Department advised that the Government had made no decision concerning
the future of the scheme but will be consulting widely with stakeholders
over the next 12 months over possible options – `whether or not it
stays with the CRS and we pay for it there as a community service obligation
and specify access by clients that are not directly clients of the CRS.
That is certainly one option. Other options would involve taking the money
out of the CRS budget and offering it as a separate budget to provide
the money to other service providers who can then purchase it from the
CRS'. [10]
3.4 DHFS stated that the restructured CRS will continue to provide the
existing range of services, including training allowances. Clients participating
in work training will continue to be covered by the current workers compensation
arrangements. [11] DHFS stated that `there
will effectively be no change in those [workers compensation] arrangements
because all existing services will continue and be provided by the corporatised
CRS'. [12]
3.5 Jobsupport noted that work experience insurance coverage varies between
the States and that in some States coverage is not at a level comparable
with workers compensation coverage. [13] DHFS
noted that the need for this cover is `fairly peculiar' to New South Wales
– `many non-government service providers in other states actually
take their own workers compensation policies when they place people in
a work trial'. [14]
3.6 The adequacy of assessments performed by Centrelink to determine
who should be referred to disability services was also raised in evidence.
[15] DHFS advised that the work of the former
disability review panels is now performed by Centrelink – `[they]
do the same function that the panels used to do – that is, identify
clients on pensions and benefits who can benefit from a rehabilitation
or other disability employment program'. [16]
Appeal rights/complaints process
3.7 Some groups claimed that the removal of the right of clients to appeal
reviewable decisions to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) will
disadvantage clients. [17]
3.8 DHFS advised that as the corporatised CRS will be a service provider
acting under contract and will not be exercising any statutory powers
or functions, appeals to the AAT would become redundant. However, the
Department noted that under the new arrangements there will be a range
of mechanisms for clients to lodge complaints or appeal decisions:
– Departmental decisions will be subject to normal administrative
law processes;
– Centrelink, which will make decisions regarding eligibility on
behalf of the Department, will be subject to appeal processes;
– CRS will have its own complaints handling processes and these
will be explicitly provided for in its contract;
– dissatisfied CRS clients will also be able to lodge complaints
with the Department as purchaser; and
– rights of appeal and complaint handling processes will be a feature
of a new Accreditation System which is to be introduced for the CRS and
non government service providers. [18]
3.9 DHFS stated that these new arrangements `will offer clients an enhanced
and improved complaints and appeal process than is possible under the
current arrangements, including review at various levels of the system'.
[19]
Provision of services
3.10 Some groups claimed that the Bill would effect clients through the
charging of fees to both employers and job seekers, loss of the independent
living program and the potential loss of services to clients in regional
and remote areas. [20]
3.11 DHFS confirmed that there will be no change to these arrangements
when the CRS is corporatised. In relation to fees, DHFS indicated that
CRS will be bound by its contract with the Department which will not allow
it to charge for services to clients eligible for free services, or to
employers for employing those clients. [21]
The Department further stated that the independent living program will
continue. [22]
3.12 The CRS gave an undertaking that in relation to services in regional
and remote areas `the clear intention is to continue to provide the same
level and quality of service in the whole of Australia that CRS does now.
The intention is that that will continue….[T]here has been no change,
and no intention to change, any of our locations and service delivery
points in rural, remote areas'. [23]
Staffing arrangements
3.13 The Community and Public Sector Union claimed that CRS staff would
be subject to the `forced transfer' to the corporatised CRS with consequent
loss of positions with `tenure' in the Australian Public Service and a
potential loss of entitlements and conditions. [24]
3.14 DHFS confirmed that CRS staff are to be transferred to the new company
along with their existing entitlements under the provisions of section
81C of the Public Service Act 1922. That will include continued
access to the CSS and the PSS superannuation schemes for existing staff,
and also provide staff with the right of return to the public service.
[25]
3.15 Regarding the terms and conditions of employment, CRS responded
that `a transfer under section 81C of the Public Service Act is really
focussed on retaining those conditions and transferring those conditions.
At the same time, CRS has been negotiating with its staff for some time
a new certified agreement, which sets out those conditions of employment
in the future… Any change in the future to employment conditions
will be as a result of any amendments of that certified agreement'. [26]
The CRS noted that the certified agreement currently under consideration
makes provisions for ongoing employees, as employees transferred under
section 81C of the Public Service Act, and employees who are engaged post
corporatisation. [27]
3.16 In relation to staffing levels the CRS advised that `to date, that
adjustment has been done on a voluntary redundancy basis and the intention,
in the future, is that any adjustments which are required will either
be done by natural attrition process or continue on a voluntary redundancy
basis'. [28]
4. RECOMMENDATION
4.1 The Committee reports to the Senate that it has considered the Commonwealth
Rehabilitation Service Reform Bill 1998 and recommends that the
Bill proceed.
Senator Sue Knowles
Chairman
June 1998
MINORITY REPORT - AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY
COMMONWEALTH REHABILITATION SERVICE REFORM BILL 1998
This Bill gives rise to a number of very significant concerns. Some of
these concerns relate to the Government's stated intention that the Bill
is the first step in a process that will eventually lead to opening up
rehabilitation services to competition. Others arise as a more direct
result of the Bill itself, particularly the repeal of Part III of the
Disability Services Act and the corporatisation of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation
Service. The repeal of Part III with no legislated replacement
(only a contract) may lead to the situation that people with disabilities
would be even less likely to maintain employment status in the future.
1. Whether it is appropriate to introduce competition into the field
of rehabilitation services:
With regard to this issue it should first be noted that officers of the
Department said in their evidence that the Bill does not provide for the
introduction of competition and that the Government is still to make decisions
on how competition is to be introduced (Mr Blazow, Hansard transcript,
pages CA57 and 61). Nevertheless, it is clear that one of the key aims,
of the Bill is to open up the field to competition and that that is the
long-term aim of the Government. In the Second Reading Speech to the Bill,
the Minister said that the corporatisation of the CRS “paves the
way in the longer term for the introduction of competition in Commonwealth
funded rehabilitation services…”. While the precise way in which
competition is to be introduced is yet to be determined, it is not correct
to say that this Bill is not about competition.
The issue here is whether competition in this context will prove effective
at improving the quality, affordability and accessibility of rehabilitation
services, or whether it will in fact compromise these objectives. Of particular
concern is the risk that an increased focus on competition combined with
a reduction in government funding will shift the focus of service providers
away from providing free services to pensioners with disabilities and
toward fee-paying clients.
There is also the risk as one witness put it, that:
…the temptation for creaming in an outcomes and profit based
system would be irresistible, particularly where the method of payment
to a corporatised CRS or private rehabilitation service does not reflect
the real cost of actually providing a service. People with more profound
disabilities who are costly to place and who perhaps are a bigger risk
in terms of successful placement would tend to be overlooked for people
who are low risk and less costly. So the decision to offer assistance
would be based on economics rather than need. (Mr Sawyer, Hansard
transcript, page CA47)
That the Department does not appear to see this issue as posing any significant
challenge (Mr Law, Hansard transcript, page CA60) offers little comfort.
Nor is much comfort gained by the fact that work into the classification
of client needs is ongoing (Mr Law, Hansard transcript, page CA60). In
a complex area such as this, where client needs vary greatly, it is absolutely
essential that an adequate system for assessing need be in place if payment
for service is to be linked to outcomes.
A further concern raised by some witnesses is that smaller specialised
services that have developed a considerable amount of expertise over the
years will be at a competitive disadvantage and may not be awarded tenders
which will go to larger organisations with more resources to devote to
the tendering process. This could mean a loss of valuable services and
expertise from the field (Mr Corcoran, Hansard transcript, page CA48).
This concern has certainly been borne out with the abolition of the CES
and full competition in the delivery of employment services. Many community
based providers with a proven track record in placing the unemployed were
not successful tenderers. The Government has indicated that this is the
model which is being used to open up the CRS to competition.
Concerns about the effects of competition in regional and rural areas
were raised by a number of witnesses (Hansard transcript - Ms Taylor,
page CA41; Mr Sawyer, page CA46; Mr O'Neill, page CA50; Mr Greasley,
page CA51). The issue is simply that the provision of rehabilitation services
in these areas is less profitable and, as competition shifts the focus
toward profit, the number and quality of services in these areas may decline.
As one witness put it:
…it is simply not a profitable area to work in , and that is
why private rehab agencies do not go there. Once you privatise CRS,
the question remains: will CRS continue to go there? Indeed, even if
they do, will CRS offer the same high quality programs as they have
offered in the past? I do not think they will. (Mr O'Neill, Hansard
transcript, page CA55)
The Department has given conflicting evidence on this issue to the Committee.
One witness stated, “the clear intention is to continue to provide
the same level and quality of service in the whole of Australia that CRS
does now” and “there has been no change, and no intention to
change, any of our locations and service delivery points in rural, remote
areas” (Mr Law, Hansard transcript, page CA61). Another witness from
the Department stated that the contract between the Department and the
CRS will include terms aimed at ensuring that “it continues to be
a national organisation with national coverage. We will leave scope for
the CRS to work out how they do that: whether they do it through a physical
location or through outreach services, travelling services and so forth”
(Ms Blazow, Hansard transcript, page CA61).
It appears that the CRS will be given some scope to change the way it
operates in rural and remote areas and the concern remains that it may
be forced to make such changes for commercial reasons rather than for
the purpose of improving the quality of its service.
2. The effects of the repeal of Part III of the Disability Services
Act and the corporatisation of the CRS:
It has been said that it is necessary to repeal Part III of the Act to
achieve the separation of the provider function from the Department. The
guidance provided by Part III with respect to the delivery of rehabilitation
services will not be replaced by the proposed legislation and will, instead,
be provided in the terms of the contracts between the Department, the
CRS and, eventually, private service providers.
According to the Department's evidence, the objects and principles of
the Act and the detailed provisions relating to service delivery, payment
of allowances and so forth will be incorporated into the contract (Mr
Blazow, Hansard transcript, page CA57). It is impossible to make a confident
assessment of this aspect of the proposal without actually seeing the
contract containing the essential details.
Of course contractual terms can, at least in theory, be negotiated at
the outset, taking commercial considerations into account, and altered
during their currency by agreement of the parties and this can be done
much more easily than amending legislation. There would therefore be less
certainty in the way the scheme operates under this proposal than under
the existing provisions. This issue could have been avoided by inserting
provisions in the Bill setting minimum terms to be contained in all such
contracts. However, the Government has chosen not to follow this path.
3. The future of the Work Training Scheme:
A number of witnesses raised the issue of the work training scheme under
which people with disabilities are placed in open employment for particular
periods (Hansard transcript – Ms Taylor, page CA41; Mr Tuckerman,
pages CA41 to 43; Mr Sawyer, page CA46). According to these witnesses,
this scheme is one of the most important that the CRS has to offer. The
scheme involves payment of a training allowance to participants, which
provides them with some monetary incentive. It also involves an arrangement
whereby participants are deemed to be Commonwealth employees and therefore
covered by Comcare. This means that the burden of providing insurance
coverage is removed from prospective employers. Witnesses indicated that
there would be serious problems for the work training scheme if the insurance
arrangement were not maintained (Mr Sawyer, Hansard transcript, page CA46).
The repeal of Part III of the Act and the corporatisation of the CRS
have the potential to affect both of these important elements of the work
training scheme. Under this proposal, payment of the allowance would be
governed by contracts agreed to by the parties rather than enshrined in
the legislation, as is presently the case. This can only make entitlement
to the allowance less certain.
A witness from the Department stated that there will be no change to
the insurance arrangements and that participants in the scheme will continue
to be covered by Comcare, even where they are being assisted by private
service providers (Mr Blazow, Hansard transcript, page CA59). But it is
not altogether clear how the present arrangement will not be affected
by the proposed changes. The service providing assistance, whether that
service is the corporatised CRS or a private provider, will not be a part
of the Commonwealth under this proposal and it is therefore unclear how
a participant in the work training scheme could come within the terms
of the Comcare legislation.
4. The issue of appeals:
A further concern raised at the hearing is that with the repeal of Part
III, the right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal disappears.
It is understood that an internal complaints process within the CRS will
replace that right of appeal and that a person who is still not happy
with the service of the CRS can approach the Department as purchaser (Mr
Blazow, Hansard transcript, page CA60). The Department also pointed out
that work is being done to develop an independent complaints and appeals
mechanism to ensure that the disability service standards are complied
with and that this mechanism will have the authority to deal with complaints
against the CRS and private providers (Ms Blazow, Hansard transcript,
page CA60).
But this misses the point. The AAT is not a complaints mechanism concerned
with the quality of service being provided. It is an appeal body, which
is independent of the Government Departments over whose decisions it has
jurisdiction, and it has the power to make determinative decisions regarding
the entitlements of individuals. It enhances the quality of Departmental
decision-making because it puts officers of the Department on notice that
their decisions may become the subject of external scrutiny and because
it provides valuable feedback. An intradepartmental review process by
the Department of Health and Family Services is not an independent mechanism.
Of equal importance, the AAT provides individuals with the opportunity
to have adverse decisions reviewed in a rigorous fashion by a body that
is independent of both the purchaser and provider of services. The loss
of AAT appeal rights would represent a loss to the CRS and the individuals
who use it.
It is also of concern that, while complaint and appeal mechanisms are
currently being developed, the right of appeal to the AAT will disappear
immediately upon the repeal of Part III of the Act. Any alternative dispute
mechanisms would need to be in place before that happens.
Conclusion:
Due to the failure of the Government to address the concerns outlined
above adequately and their intention to risk the quality, affordability,
and accessibility of rehabilitation services to Australians with disabilities
we oppose the bill and reserve the right to seek amendments. We are not
convinced that the possible advantages of corporatising the CRS and opening
up disability services to competition outweigh the risks. Clients of the
CRS form a particularly vulnerable group and we have grave concerns about
the potential of this proposal to shift the focus away from the vocational
needs of pensioner clients. This is so despite the Department's evidence
that the CRS will not be dominated by the profit motive to the exclusion
of all else (Mr Blazow, Hansard transcript, page CA58).
To conclude, the repeal of Part III of the Disability Services Act will
replace existing and substantial services and community obligations with
a future contract that has no legislative basis, leaving people with disabilities
without the protection afforded to them under Part III of the Act as it
now stands.
Senator Michael Forshaw Senator Kay Denman
(ALP, New South Wales) (ALP, Tasmania)
DISSENTING REPORT – THE AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRATS
COMMONWEALTH REHABILITATION SERVICE REFORM BILL 1998
The Democrats acknowledge the important work undertaken by the Commonwealth
Rehabilitation Service (CRS) in assisting people with a disability or
injury to get or keep employment.
The Democrats support the key objective of the CRS: to minimise the
personal, social and financial costs of the disability by the provision
of rehabilitation services. We believe that this service is vital
to provide some measure of equity in employment opportunities for people
with a disability.
The Democrats do not believe that the aim of the CRS is more likely to
be achieved through corporatising this service. The Democrats accept that
there are some government agencies and services where corporatisation
can contribute to more efficient service delivery, however, as there is
no private sector equivalent of the CRS we do not believe that in the
case of the CRS such a move is warranted.
The Democrats do not believe that the Government has made a convincing
case for separating the CRS from the Commonwealth Department of Health
and Family Services (DHFS). While we acknowledge that in the short term
this Bill may not directly impact upon services, we understand that this
Bill forms part of a wider government move to open up the provision of
rehabilitation services to competition. The Government has stated that
from 1999 the CRS will cease to be a monopoly provider of rehabilitation
services and this Bill forms part of this long-term strategy.
The Democrats do not believe that the Government has adequately supported
its claims that the corporatising of the CRS is the only or the best way
to achieve greater efficiency in service delivery, a clearer policy direction
and increased accountability.
While there may be some benefit in effecting a purchaser/provider split
in the area of rehabilitation services, the Democrats believe that this
could be achieved in a range of different ways (for example establishing
a Commonwealth company or Commonwealth authority) and are not satisfied
that corporatisation of the CRS as a Government Business Enterprise (GBE)
is the optimum strategy. We are also concerned that the Government has
not adequately justified its proposal to corporatise the CRS as a GBE
or detailed any specific governance arrangements or accountability measures
that will apply to the CRS under corporatisation in recognition of its
community service obligations.
The Democrats have noted the concerns of a number of disability service
consumers and advocates regarding the corporatisation of the CRS. In particular
we are concerned that in corporatising the CRS there will be a disincentive
to provide services to people with high level needs. We are also concerned
that there will be an adverse impact on people in rural areas where services
are expensive to run and there are few opportunities for profit making.
These concerns were raised by Disability Action in its submission to the
Committee:
We are concerned that, in a reformed environment where profit is
the key to success, those customers who may not be so profitable will
be disadvantaged. This is a general concern about the reforms. However,
the concern is heightened in relation to service providers which may
be commercially marginal die to being in regional or remote areas.
The Democrats are also concerned that when competition is introduced
to this area, some of the most important (but expensive) programs such
as the Work Training Scheme may be closed down if they are not considered
profitable. We note the concerns raised in submissions and at the Public
Hearing about the potential for competition to result in cost cutting
measures which will adversely impact upon some of the most disadvantaged
clients.
We think that the temptation for creaming in an outcomes and profit
based system would be irresistible, particularly where the method of
payment to a corporatised CRS or private rehab does not /reflect the
real cost of actually providing a service. People with more significant
disabilities who are costly to place and who perhaps are a bigger risk
in terms of successful placement would tend to be overlooked for people
who are low risk and less costly. (Mr Maurice Corcoran)
The Democrats support the concerns raised by stakeholders regarding the
removal of right to appeal to the AAT and the impact of unclear procedures
for appeals on people with disabilities.
We also have a more general concern as an advocacy agency. In our
experience of advocating for many hundreds of people with disabilities
over the years, the surest way to generate complaints in any system
is to not have clear procedures for its operation. ….We would be
gravely concerned about the removal of the AAT from the field of play.
(Mr David Morrell)
The Democrats support the continuation of AAT appeal rights as an appeal
mechanism independent of the DHFS.
The Democrats are also concerned about the impact of corporatisation
on CRS employees as they undergo compulsory transfer to the new company
by virtue of section 81C of the Public Service Act. In particular, we
are concerned that current employees may lose their status as Australian
Public Service employees and consequently some of their current working
conditions and benefits.
The Democrats believe that the Government should work with the relevant
unions to ensure that the rights of CRS employees are protected in the
move toward corporatisation. If this does not occur, the Democrats will
consider amending this Bill to strengthen the position of public servants
being transferred under Section 81C.
Finally, the Democrats acknowledge concerns about the potential conflict
of interest resulting from the portfolio Minister being required to balance
the shareholder interests in GBEs, with the other relationships that the
Government has with its GBEs. The Democrats believe that consideration
should be given to removing the responsibility for the shareholder function
from the portfolio Minister and appointing another Minister to this role.
Senator Lyn Allison
Australian Democrats Senator for Victoria
APPENDIX 1
Submissions received by the Committee
| 1 |
ACROD |
| 2 |
Jobsupport Inc.
- Additional Information, dated 12 June 1998 |
| 3 |
Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services |
| 4 |
Community and Public Sector Union, PSU Group (CPSU) |
| 5 |
Disability Action Inc. |
APPENDIX 2
Public hearing
A public hearing was held on the Bill on 29 May 1998 in Senate Committee
Room 1S3.
Committee Members in attendance
Senator Sue Knowles (Chairman)
Senator Lyn Allison
Senator Kay Denman
Senator Alan Eggleston
Senator Michael Forshaw
Senator Brenda Gibbs
Witnesses
ACROD
Ms Sue Taylor, Deputy Executive Director
Mr Scott Holz, NSW Representative, National Committee on Employment and
Training
Jobsupport Inc
Mr Phil Tuckerman, Director
Disability Action Inc via teleconference
Mr Maurice Corcoran, Executive Officer
Mr David Morrell, Systems Advocate
Mr Gary Sawyer, Manager
Mr Lindsay Spackman, DARE Advocate
Community and Public Sector Union
Mr David O'Neill, National Industrial Officer
Mr Keith Greasley, Deputy President, CPSU Health and Family Services
Section Council
Department of Health and Family Services
Ms Judy Blazow, Assistant Secretary, Strategic Management Branch,
Disability Programs Division
Mr Nick Blazow, Assistant Secretary, Corporate Development Branch,
Corporate Services Division
Mr Alan Law, General Manager, Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service
Footnotes
[1] Explanatory Memorandum; Submission No.3,
pp.3-4.
[2] Submission No.3, p.4.
[3] Minister's Second Reading Speech
[4] Committee Hansard, 29.5.98, p.62.
See also Parliamentary Library, Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service Reform
Bill 1998, Bills Digest No.172, 1997-98, p.4.
[5] Submission No.3, p.3.
[6] Committee Hansard, 29.5.98, p.57.
[7] Committee Hansard, 29.5.98, p.61.
[8] Committee Hansard, 29.5.98, pp.41-42;
Submissions No.1, pp.1-2; No.2, pp.1-2.
[9] Submission No.1, pp.1-2.
[10] Committee Hansard, 29.5.98, p.66.
[11] Committee Hansard, 29.5.98, pp.57-59;
Submission No.3, p.5.
[12] Committee Hansard, 29.5.98, pp.59.
[13] Submission No.2, p.2.
[14] Committee Hansard, 29.5.98, p.65.
[15] Committee Hansard, 29.5.98, p.52.
[16] Committee Hansard, 29.5.98, p.63.
[17] Committee Hansard, 29.5.98, pp.46,
48-49,52; Submissions No.4, p.1; No.5, p.1.
[18] Submission No.3, p.5. See also Committee
Hansard, 29.5.98, p.58.
[19] Committee Hansard, 29.5.98, p.58.
[20] See, for example, Submissions No.4, pp.1-2;
No.5, pp.2-3; Committee Hansard, 29.5.98, pp.46-47,49,51-56.
[21] Committee Hansard, 29.5.98, p.65;
Submission No.3, p.6.
[22] Committee Hansard, 29.5.98, p.65.
[23] Committee Hansard, 29.5.98, p.61.
[24] Submission No.4, pp.2-3; Committee
Hansard, 29.5.98, pp.50-51.
[25] Committee Hansard, 29.5.98, pp.58,62,66;
Submission No.3, p.3.
[26] Committee Hansard, 29.5.98, pp.62-63.
[27] Committee Hansard, 29.5.98, p.63.
[28] Committee Hansard, 29.5.98, p.62.