Page 1330 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 27 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
brought in two new organisations that were successful in the tender process—those being the Ted Noffs Foundation and the Conflict Resolution Service. Those programs will be in place shortly.
Ms Hunter also made comment about the youth and family support program, and she mentioned that the tender process happened over a holiday period. I recognise that that is not the best time for that to have happened. But what was not noted and what was glossed over was the long discussion on the change to these programs. The youth and family support program was not a tender, and it had been discussed with providers across the sector. Certainly Christmas time, or the holiday period, was not the first time the community sector had a chance to comment on this. The discussion on the change in these programs lasted many months—in fact, years. The change was years in the making with active conversation and discussion and key input from the community sector itself.
It was very clear from the outset that this was a new focus targeting those most in need, and much has been said about the services that are no longer there. Not enough has been said about the services that will be there. There was mention that there was no early intervention. That is just absolutely wrong. If you look at the program, if you look at the structure, you see that early intervention for those at most need is very strongly in the game.
Ms Hunter seems to gloss over the need for government to ensure value for money, putting a position that human services is beyond that. I think that is a somewhat flawed assumption. The government must ensure that organisations and services provided are worthy, targeted and provide value for money.
As I have said, these are new programs and a new way of doing things. Given that there has been no procurement process for youth, child and family services since self-government, the government would be reckless to not consider and review how it delivers those important programs.
As members can see, the government supports, promotes and works in partnership with the community to improve community wellbeing and to build an inclusive society and improved quality for all. That was very clearly evidenced when this government without hesitation committed to paying its share of funding for the community sector following the decision of Fair Work Australia, something those opposite, the Canberra Liberals, are yet to commit to. Heaven help the community sector should the Canberra Liberals be in charge of the chequebook.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (3.36): I welcome this matter of public importance from Ms Hunter. I was a bit mystified by the choice of this particular MPI, especially after the incident this morning where staff of the Greens came around to tell members of the opposition that this was the subject of the MPI. When our staff asked the Greens’ staffer what the social compact was, he sort of put his head down, shook his head, scratched his head and said, “Actually, I don’t know,” which is a bit of a problem.
When I started to think about this and thought back through my memory banks to the publication of the social compact some years ago I started to realise the relevance of it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video