Senate debates

Wednesday, 15 August 2007

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Payment Reform) Bill 2007; Northern Territory National Emergency Response Bill 2007; Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Northern Territory National Emergency Response and Other Measures) Bill 2007; Appropriation (Northern Territory National Emergency Response) Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008; Appropriation (Northern Territory National Emergency Response) Bill (No. 2) 2007-2008

In Committee

6:37 pm

Photo of Rachel SiewertRachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Stephens, a bus is a very good example. The government could say: ‘That bus can provide the services. We’ll require you to give it to another community service organisation or to the Commonwealth’—which means take it to the Commonwealth—‘or to another specified person.’ If this is about delivering services in communities, there is a lot of power here and an awful lot of things for community organisations to be very worried about, because it is not limited. My interpretation is—and I think I have just had that agreed—that, if an organisation has an asset that may be used in one of these business management areas, it can be taken. This is astounding! If I were running an organisation, like I used to, I certainly would not be providing services in these areas because the government can come and take any of the other assets that it thinks might be useful to deliver services in that area.

This is way beyond what the government was talking about earlier in trying to improve services. I understand what the minister was trying to say earlier. I do not agree with it, but I understand that what the minister was trying to say earlier was that this is about improving delivery of services in the business management areas. As I said, I do not agree with it, but this is way beyond what the government was talking about earlier. I would be really happy to be told and shown in this bill where the brakes are put on this. You have just agreed with my interpretation that it is wide open for the government to come in and require community service entities—because the definition is very broad—to do things and use their assets in ways that those community service organisations may not want to, as well as put observers into the organisations to spy on them. I understand that applies to any community service entity that may want to put up its hand to carry out services in the business management or prescribed areas. This is another huge disincentive for any organisation that wants to provide services into these areas, yet the government keeps saying they are trying to improve services. This is a huge disincentive to that.

Comments

No comments