Page 2750 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
accommodation until they can afford a private rental dwelling, but the chances of that are slim. So are we going to see SAAP filling up as well? The only other place they might be able to go is community housing, but that is also at capacity and has received no additional funding in this budget.
Representatives of DHCS commented in the estimates hearings that they recognise that this is a big problem and are trying to reform the SAAP service system to deal with it. I will watch these changes with great interest, but, until the government recognises that our whole housing system cannot be based on the assumption that there is affordable private rental accommodation out there, I wonder how successful such reforms will be.
A number of ACT government commitments to the community sector have gone to ground in this budget, including the community funding policy, the social compact and the standard funding agreement. As I have previously outlined when talking about SAAP services, organisations are in fear of the future. They do not know what future pricing principles will look like and, if they are anything like the SAAP changes, they will make the sector even more unviable. That is not a future that they look forward to.
The government thought it had to slash funding, but it took no time to think about the implications of cuts for social services. In this way, it is not a budget for the future, because of its negative impact on the social wellbeing of many Canberra residents living in disadvantage. The situation will still be there in years to come. All we can do is hope that a future government will engage in actions and budgets that provide security for the government’s financial situation and for the social wellbeing of our residents. Of course, that could be this government in future years.
One of the things that the community sector was pleased to hear about was the centralised grants portal. Whilst the estimates process was unable to shed light on how it will operate, there are high hopes that it will cut duplication of effort and thus save the precious administrative time of community service organisations and, assumedly, the department, given the large amount of time that they spend on grant applications and reporting. It should be easy to find out what is available from the government and how to access it. The real concern here is how well the government can manage the portal behind the single face it presents. There are complexities to be considered and it will be a real test of the department’s coordination skills. We will be watching what impact staff cuts have on the government’s ability to have enough skilled funding managers to handle this work.
I note that rationalisation of boards and committees also fits somewhat into this process, with $875,000 expected to be saved over four years. It is amazing to see the number of consultation mechanisms the government is cutting back on, given its wonderful community engagement protocol. We will also be watching these changes closely, as little detail has been provided on this action to date. I will remain sceptical until I see the results of those changes.
It must be difficult for the public servants sitting within the community engagement unit; they must be frustrated and wondering why they are there. This government often goes out to the community under the pseudonym of public consultation but ignores the community engagement strategy when it does so. If by chance the community engagement unit is asked for advice, it is often not followed. Ironically, under the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .