More support for peak body merger
An independent report commissioned by ACSA says the positives of a single national body outwieght the negatives.
Aged and Community Services Australia (ACSA) should investigate a merger with Aged Care Association Australia (ACAA), an independent consultancy firm has recommended.
In a confidential report obtained by AAA, the Nous Group said there was “value in a merger” between the groups as it would help to establish a “leading voice” for the sector.
The consultancy group was commissioned by ACSA to investigate ways to improve industry representation and to bolster its national focus.
It held a series of meetings with the boards and staff of the national and state associations, along with a small number of providers, before handing down its final report last month.
While acknowledging that a merger between the two groups would involve a number of challenges, particularly in relation to tax policies, it said the positives would outweigh the negatives.
“A merger of ACAA and ACSA would provide a stronger voice that would represent the majority of aged care providers and be better positioned to develop a long term aged care policy, lobby effectively at a national level and lead in industry development,” the report said.
However the Nous Group noted that the state associations are strongly divided over the idea of a national merger.
It noted that Aged and Community Services Association of NSW & ACT and Aged and Community Services WA are “very opposed” to a national merger.
On the other hand, the state associations in Queensland and Victoria, which already include for-profit members, supported a national merger.
More pressingly, The Nous Group called for a major overhaul of ACSA’s national structure.
It recommended that the national association should be transformed from a federation of state associations to a single, national association with state branches.
“The current model is weak in providing a national focus at the national level and a state/territory focus at the state/territory level,” the Nous Group said.
“This results in confusion and complexity in developing National policy and lobbying positions, pockets of overlapping skills in each state/territory organisation and at the national level and duplication of tasks and resources.”
The report revealed that ACSA’s key stakeholders feel that national policy development, lobbying and industry leadership are not being delivered effectively under the current model.
“[Members’] satisfaction with lobbying and advocacy is low, it’s hard for us to justify fees with members given the outcomes of national lobbying and advocacy activities,” said one anonymous stakeholder during consultations.
However the Nous Group acknowledged that it may not be possible for ACSA to become a single national organisation in the short term, citing complex legal changes and a range of opposing views.
In that case, the report said it was “critical” that the national organisation assumes full responsibility for national policy development and lobbying.
It recommended a change in the structure of the national board, from the current structure based on state representation to a truly national system with members selected according to their ability to drive industry leadership.
The report also called for a survey of relevant stakeholders to test current assessments of ACSA’s performance and its planned future direction.
