Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 916 ..
MS TUCKER (continuing):
sure that Mr Hird is familiar with it. It is interesting that he has not accused us before of failing to test rigorously evidence from the community, but everything we were told in this draft budget process we had been told before in other inquiries of this Assembly and of the Social Policy Committee of the last Assembly, so the approach here of Mr Hird has been quite inconsistent.
Another general issue which came up and which has come up in every single inquiry I have been a part of since I have been in the Legislative Assembly is the need for government to put more energy and commitment into intersectoral or cross-portfolio action. I do, of course, acknowledge and commend the work that has been done by the Government on addressing this issue, but we are hearing from the community that things are still not working properly. It is obvious from reports on social matters that it is an issue for governments all over Australia. Recently, I read a book written by a couple of academics on policies about homelessness in Australia. The comment was made there that the intersectoral work, the coordination of different departments working together to provide support for the homeless people in this country, is a complex problem for governments to resolve. I think it would be silly for the Government to say that it is not a problem. What the community is doing is pointing out particular areas where we could improve the situation. I hope that the Government will take note of that.
The first recommendation we made deals with the grants issue, which I have already covered. The second recommendation is about social outcomes. Once again, I am very concerned about Mr Hird's comment on this recommendation in his dissenting report. The second recommendation of the committee reads:
The committee recommends that in future budget papers the Government address the issue of accountability for social outcomes.
As is said in the text:
... none of the key result areas in the draft budget relate directly or indirectly to the achievement of social outcomes. The Department of Education and Community Services, as the funding body for a wide range of social and community services, has a vital stake in the achievement of social outcomes. The committee is of the view that the Government needs to develop ways which demonstrate in the budget papers that it has a commitment to achieving social objectives.
What does Mr Hird say in the dissenting report? He says:
A number of recommendations made in the Report are of the type normally associated with post-budget Estimates hearings, and should have been retained for that format. Recommendations relating to the issues of accountability for social outcomes, and service purchasing processes are better debated at this time. These issues are difficult to reconcile with the terms of reference for this inquiry, and whilst no
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .