Three months to get accredited, LGS finally kills off merger and some Public Health Act news too

 

We might not like it, but get accredited now

The BPB has expressed their concern in the most recent BPBulletin that you lot have not been falling over yourselves to get accredited under the new regime. Despite the benign nature of the new accreditation regime and the BPB’s assurances that they will provide the individual accreditation levels sought by each council, they still don't get our concern that this is all so, so unnecessary. How ungrateful we must all be.

Anyway, leaving aside our almost decade-long opposition to the accreditation of individual local government employees, now is the time for us to be recommending that councils do apply for accreditation and that they do so in a way that allows them to continue doing what they are doing now. The argument is now over.

A number of members have approached the office wondering when, if ever, they should seek accreditation. We did contemplate a campaign of refusing to cooperate with the accreditation regime but, because we wouldn't be able to stop people doing it if they wanted to, that would have been a largely ineffectual and empty gesture. Something we don't really like to do.

The new Committee of Management at our Strategic Planning Session resolved to encourage members through their councils to take advantage of the benign nature of the accreditation process and make application as soon as possible.

All councils should ensure that they seek accreditation at the maximum level possible for each employee currently carrying out this work. Anyone with experience of alternative solutions should be targeting AI and anyone with reasonable experience should be looking at A2. And it makes sense for councils to accredit everyone - even qualified people who might temporarily be currently working in health, for example, but who would be called on to assist in any surge in building activity.

Costs of accreditation and the training which accompanies the continued accreditation are minimal by any measure. That means it makes no sense for those councils contemplating only accrediting a handful of employees potentially capable of doing work which now requires accreditation. What's the point of not accrediting everyone (and leaving your health people out even though they may have building experience) when that compromises the Council's ability to move staff around, restructure, deal with increased the building pressures etc?

So, do it now and do it by pursuing levels that allow employees to do what they do now and allow the Council to continue to offer the services they offer now.

There may be reluctant councils contemplating cost savings by restructuring work to minimise the number of people who will need accreditation. We already know of some councils which are toying with the idea of accrediting only those employees currently directly involved in this work and not accrediting those employees who are qualified to do the work but, at the moment, be working in health. We regard that as a retrograde step.

In our discussions with the BPB Chair Sue Holliday and CEO Neil Cocks it was acknowledged by the BPB that they would welcome depa’s role in "helping" councils reluctant to accredit the employees doing the work, or who can do the work or at the appropriate accreditation level.

Contact us if:

Meanwhile in the Local Government (State) Award discussions we will pursue a clause making it abundantly clear that all costs associated with accreditation are met by councils. This makes sense and is really beyond dispute and a recent survey of all councils by another union asking questions about accreditation and even raising the possibility that councils may not pay accreditation fees etc, does no one any favours. We will ignore that survey.

The claim made in our Log of Claims was that if the implications of accreditation are clear, we will pursue some sort of salary compensation for the additional level of accountability. We don't think the implications of accreditation are clear, nor will they be clear before we make the new Award to apply from 1 November and that will have to be an issue that we deal with during the life of the 2010 Award.

 

LGS kills off any merger with EIS

What a sorry little story this is. Secret negotiations with officials of the NSW Treasury during 2009 by the Energy Industry Super Scheme aimed at merging with Local Government Super and none of us at LGS knowing anything about it until, by accident, UnionsNSW Secretary Mark Lennon found out about it early in December.

The reaction from the industry was overwhelming opposition to any merger.

While the USU may have initially thought it sounded like a good idea (through their own representative on EIS) the secret nature of the failed coup steeled their resolve to oppose it. The USU moved from being "open-minded" to their Executive resolving their opposition and insisting that no merger should ever proceed without a plebiscite of members supporting it. That will ensure it never, ever happens.

depa and the LGEA were always opposed to it - even as far back as the preliminary meeting with ETU and USU officials in November 2008 - the only meeting between the unions involved. It would have happened only over our dead bodies.

The LGSA obtained their own report on whether a merger would be to the advantage or disadvantage of the industry and, while it remains confidential, the four LGSA representatives voted as part of the unanimous resolution of the LGS Board on 27 May to oppose any merger with EIS and to continue LGS as a stand-alone fund catering solely to Local Government.

A good thing too.

 

Consultation on Public Health Bill lumbers on

NSW Health conducted 10 workshops at councils across the State and the result of that exercise was considered by a meeting of the Local Government Strategic Liaison Group last week which was attended by depa President Andrew Spooner. It's a pity that NSW Health didn't think it appropriate to get the Strategic Liaison Group involved earlier.

Anyway, the general observations from the workshops mirrored those in the written submissions and confirmed that the draft Bill will require significant amendment to meet the needs of local government.

Just to throw a spanner in the works, the Local Government and Shires Association advised the SLG that would be lobbying the NSW Government to allow local government to hand back all public health functions contained within the draft Bill back to the State. Nice.

We know that the LGSA has always been a bit reluctant to discharge local government’s public health responsibilities. Sometimes councillors don't like the idea that local businesses in small communities are being busted. Sometimes councillors are also a little bit too involved in the action and should step away and let the industry ensure proper health standards, whether the food premises are run by their mates, or influential local business people or anyone else.

NSW Health has agreed to re-draft the Bill to address the following issues:

depa will continue to be involved in the amended draft Bill but the Government has expressed an intention to have the Bill before the NSW Parliament in the spring session. No time to be tardy.

 

Goodbye Jan, hello Veronica

Our long-serving Jody went off on maternity leave in July and has now decided not to return. During her absence we had Sally for a while, Jan to get us out of trouble when Sally left (thanks Jan, enormously appreciated) and we would like you to now welcome Veronica Weir.

Please make Veronica welcome next time you ring the office.

 

Ian Robertson
Secretary