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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 7 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 2272 ..

MS TUCKER

Michael Pusey, in his book The experience of Middle Australia, makes the point that people in general are doing badly, working less effectively, being less happy, feeling less integrated in their community, all in large part due to the shift away from employment security and towards a more stressful and erratic work and social environment. That is happening to the community sector, but more so.

Whilst there are many government agencies which might imagine that the ideas and policy come from them, there is a growing body of research which emphasises the crucial role of non-government organisations in developing social and environmental sustainability. In fact, I have noticed that the Bush government in the United States are recognising the strong influence that community organisations and the non-government sector have and it has now become a target of their campaign, because they believe that somehow it is undermining democracy, which is rather ironic.

We depend on the community sector to drive, inform, invent or support our involvement in shaping a sustainable society, but we fail to resource it in any supportable manner. Despite the numerous initiatives that address identified need, that respond to analysis and experience, that can be found line after line in this budget, the sector that has driven so many of these ideas still does it on the cheap. That explains, for example, how Directions, a life and work skills provider run by Assisting Drug Dependents Inc, is still trapped in appalling accommodation. Whilst funded by government, Directions is not made up of government employees or government customers; so, year after year, nothing has to happen, and it doesn't.

Finally on the community sector, the lack of money is at times compounded by a lack of trust. The government review of statutory oversight and community advocacy agencies was established under the watchful eye of a tender selection panel consisting of the CEOs of the three government departments most likely to fund or deliver services attracting complaints or concerns. Community representation on that panel was ruled out by government. Several reasons were given in estimates. The Chief Minister denied that it was a result of a statement that there was a conflict of interest in their being on that panel, although I noticed that an official did still support that reason. That really is quite a spurious argument.

Now the review team has been selected, it will be working to a management group still consisting of the same CEOs. Despite requests, no representative of or member of any community agency or peak body will be invited onto the group. When I raised this matter in the Assembly or at estimates, the Chief Minister dismissed ACTCOSS as a mere interest group. I think we can see that there is a problem there.

At a nuts and bolts level, we could look at the introduction of the Charitable Collections Bill. The government gave a few of the larger charities a couple of weeks to comment on it. Once the legislation was passed, countless smaller community groups, such as P&Cs, preschools and scout groups, discovered that they would be captured by the act. We may now have negotiated a more satisfactory consultation regime for the regulations, but the surprise and distress only demonstrate how little the everyday reality of small community organisations is considered or understood by the team producing legislation.

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