Page 2755 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
multicultural affairs in the territory. That is evident when you read the government’s response to this year’s estimates committee report.
The estimates committee report noted several concerns coming out of the estimates hearings. These concerns include the scrapping of the multicultural affairs advisory council, the fact that funding for multicultural affairs is not separately identified in the budget but included in community engagement, and the lack of specified funding for multicultural programs in the ACT. In its response to these concerns, the Stanhope government has refused to provide a breakdown of funds for multicultural affairs in future budgets and has refused to reinstate MACMA or a similar representative body, even a new gaggle of people. I echo the concerns expressed by Dr Foskey. We firmly believe that there should be a ministerial-level advisory body of some sort.
The government’s excuse for not reinstating a body such as MACMA is that it reckons it is engaging in consultation by holding various consultative forums. The opposition believes that that is no substitute for receiving ministerial-level advice and direction from a ministerial forum, council, body or cooperative which has been purpose formed and is across and aware of the issues more than those who provide more casual advice may be. We think that the best answer is to have both.
We know that the minister has been getting good advice and has been active in talking to a wide range of community groups, but we think that he ought to be doing both. He ought to be able to continue with that engagement, but he still needs a body of people who are well-qualified, well-experienced and well-respected by the range of community groups to be the anchor point for ongoing and continued ministerial advice. The government does not believe that this balance is needed, which is quite a shame. Why is that? Are they concerned that they might be compelled to take advice from an advisory council or forum? That should not worry this government because it does not take advice from anybody unless it suits the government.
The government also said in its response to the estimates committee’s report that it had formed a Muslim advisory council to supplement community consultation. So we have gone from having no multicultural advisory council to having only a Muslim advisory council. Whilst having a Muslim advisory council is extremely useful in the current difficult political environment internationally and some special attention is needed to support our Muslim community, what has happened to the government’s commitment to the rest of the multicultural community? Why would the government seek advice from an advisory council from one section of the multicultural community and not others? The multicultural community, if we count families with at least one parent born overseas, constitutes about 25 per cent of the broader Canberran community.
Mr Hargreaves: It would be more than that.
MR PRATT: At least that. Perhaps you are right; perhaps it is more. Any government and, I might add, any opposition, any MLA in this place, ignores at their peril the fact that the multicultural community is a very large segment of the Canberran landscape, and we should never forget that. Mr Speaker, this is an extremely disappointing budget from the multicultural community’s point of view. This government does not appear to be serious about supporting the multicultural communities in their diversity and entirety across the scope of the ACT.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .