Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (29 June) . . Page.. 2212 ..
MS TUCKER (continuing):
The parallels are clear through all levels of government currently in most developing countries, and it is becoming more and more of a concern to communities all around the world.
If as a community in Canberra we are to proceed into the future in a way which will increase social equity and environmental sustainability, we have to move away from the superficial and inadequate approach to governance which is exemplified by this government.
There is stark contrast between the statements in the government's media releases, budget speech and supplementary paper, Building Social Capital, and what is happening. Social capital as a concept has been around for a number of years now. Mr Humphries interpreted my objection to his government's focus on social capital as being motivated by a churlish resentment at being gazumped.
MR SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired. You have two periods.
MS TUCKER: I obviously need to explain that the Greens would not mind at all being gazumped on this matter if the government moved away from its narrow and unsustainable approach rather than just grabbing a line that sounds good. If it moved from a crisis response and reactive mode to a considered approach based on a model of governance which acknowledges the redistributive function of government and the importance of ecological sustainability, the Greens would be happy to be gazumped.
Social capital is a concept which it appears is likely to repeat the experience of other useful and interesting social science concepts in the past, where intellectual insight is taken over by spin doctors and goes on to oblivion. Eva Cox is one of Australia's most prominent advocates of the concept. However, her understanding of what social capital means is different from this government's. This government's commitment to increasing competition and free market principles is in contrast to the principle of collaboration. The use of the concept looks like little more than a tawdry attempt to present an image of social responsibility. The reality as shown in this budget is not consistent with this claim.
Eva Cox, speaking in the Boyer Lectures in 1995, drew heavily on the concept of social capital to explain her argument for a truly civil society. She said:
I have serious concerns about the current dominant fashion of macho, competition-driven 'progress' and the intensity with which these economic frameworks are promoted. These frameworks are particularly dangerous because alternate views are denied, ridiculed or ignored ...
The dominant ideas of competition and deregulation of markets, and the attacks on the redistributive roles of government are ... dysfunctional ... part of an oversimplified dogma which can destroy a truly civil society in pursuit of the cashed-up individual.
I will deal in more detail with specific issues during the later debate on the various lines in the budget, but a few examples raised show the inadequacy of government response, a response which I will cover now. Several significant undertakings made last year have not been delivered. The community sector is funded by a combination of funding
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .