Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 5 Hansard (3 May) . . Page.. 1452 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

to the community sector, such an approach falls way short of addressing the basic needs of the services, such as the capacity to adequately pay their workers and look after basic occupational health and safety issues.

One point of support the community sector has been patiently asking for over many years is adequate funding to cover the SACS award-that is, to adequately pay community sector workers who provide the basic social work which governments are responsible for. This year we have an increase to cover SACS awards for supported accommodation assistance providers in a joint arrangement with the Commonwealth. That is good, but it is the only area where this is occurring. I am concerned about the other areas. What about disability services? What about drug and alcohol services? What about advocacy services?

I understand that Mr Humphries has said today-and I am happy for him to correct me if it is not true-that it is not government policy to fund organisations to a level that would allow the full implementation of the SACS award. This stands in stark contradiction to the government's claims that social capital is about working with trust and in partnership with the community sector. We know full well what the cost has been to community organisations that have attempted to integrate the SACS award. They have had to reduce their capacity for training and support for workers, as well as salaries and so on.

A sustained investment in these services, rather than in car races and football stadiums, would have seen a more effective and timely response to the needs identified in this budget. Canberra people would then be in a position at the next election to judge the government on its achievements in addressing the issues of early intervention, poverty and innovation across the community, rather than on its stated intent.

Another part of social capital that the government has trouble with is the crucial role of freedom to voice dissent, to criticise and to bring to light problems. Community service groups and their peak bodies need funding for advocacy and policy comment, not only particular projects. The community as a whole should hear the problems, not only the government of the day. This means that advocacy agencies and community agencies generally need to feel free to speak their mind on the situation and the social condition in Canberra.

Over the past few years many invaluable community organisations have found that government, its partner in building social capital, has become quite specific about whom it chooses to work with. The Women's Legal Centre is one such organisation which has suffered at this government's hand. While its refusal to fund the CARE financial counselling's legal service to the tune of $80,000 in the face of significant community agitation and support stands in stark contrast to this government's impulsive approach to supporting industry and sporting facilities.

A plethora of fairly small initiatives also raise questions of sustainability. A number of these programs, while clearly addressing acknowledged need, have a tremendous capacity to grow further as they develop. This government's unabated enthusiasm for tourist promotion, business support, free school buses and reduced car registration charges inhibits the capacity of government to develop these programs further.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .