Guide to Giving
MEDIA, JOBS & RESOURCES FOR THE COMMON GOOD
NEWS  |  Politics

Coalition Slams Social Inclusion Portfolio


Thursday, 5th January 2012 at 11:41 am
Staff Reporter
The Gillard Government’s Social Inclusion portfolio has come under fire from the Coalition, with Senator Mitch Fifield saying the Government should abolish the Social Inclusion unit and direct the funds towards the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

Thursday, 5th January 2012
at 11:41 am
Staff Reporter


1 Comments


FREE SOCIAL
SECTOR NEWS

 Print
Coalition Slams Social Inclusion Portfolio
Thursday, 5th January 2012 at 11:41 am

The Gillard Government’s Social Inclusion portfolio has come under fire from the Coalition, with Senator Mitch Fifield saying the Government should abolish the Social Inclusion unit and direct the funds towards the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

In an article published today in The Australian, the Coalition spokesman on disabilities, carers and the voluntary sector, Senator Fifield said “the government is spending money on social inclusion, and they don’t even know what it is.”

Fifield said the Government should “abolish the Social Inclusion Board and the whole social inclusion portfolio”, and direct the funds towards the $6 billion National Disability Insurance Scheme. The nine-member social inclusion board was set up in 2008 to provide advice to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Gillard’s cabinet reshuffle late last year saw Minister Mark Butler given the ‘Social Inclusion’ Portfolio and moved into cabinet – a post previously held by Tanya Plibersek and Julia Gillard. According to an article in The Australian on December 21, Butler struggled to explain what the Social Inclusion portfolio was on his first day in the job, saying “it means different things to different people”.

Butler said he would take time to get briefing on the portfolio, but to him social inclusion is about government delivering services and support in a different way.

“Too many times, people who are experiencing social disadvantage find different portfolios and different agencies deliver their services very much in a siloed way.” Butler said.

Fifield said “the term social inclusion remains little more than bureaucratic newspeak — a mere platitude devoid of substance.”

“It's all about the importance of seeming to do something,” said Fifield, citing the Gillard Government’s National Volunteers Strategy, the National Carer Strategy, the National Disability Strategy and the government's compact with the Not for Profit sector, as other worthy documents gathering dust. 

Fifield said the Coalition does not have a social inclusion portfolio, “If social inclusion means supporting the marginalised and helping those who face particular challenges, often for reasons beyond their control, then surely that is part of the core business of most ministerial portfolios.”

A spokesman for acting Social Inclusion Minister Nicola Roxon told The Australian, "It's no surprise that the Liberal Party is opposed to social inclusion. They represent the big end of town and have little interest in helping these groups out of the cycle of poverty and disadvantage."

The Social Inclusion Board has been criticised in The Australian recently for spending almost $60,000 on airfares last financial year and more than $13,000 on accommodation, meals and catering.

Let us know you opinion of the Government’s Social Inclusion portfolio. Is it an important part of ensuring a fairer Australia, or a waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere?



AON

FEATURED SUPPLIERS


Brennan IT helps not-for-profit (NFP) organisations drive gr...

Brennan IT

Helping the helpers fund their mission…...

FrontStream Pty Ltd (FrontStream AsiaPacific)

Yes we’re lawyers, but we do a lot more....

Moores

HLB Mann Judd is a specialist Accounting and Advisory firm t...

HLB Mann Judd

More Suppliers


YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

Mental Health Groups Call for Same-Sex Marriage to Prevent Suicide

Luke Michael

Thursday, 21st September 2017 at 4:24 pm

Public Interest / Private Interest – A Fundamental Distinction

David Crosbie

Thursday, 14th September 2017 at 8:46 am

Boosting Philanthropy For A Stronger Australia

Wendy Williams

Monday, 11th September 2017 at 5:16 pm

POPULAR

Moves to Stop Volunteering at Overseas Orphanages

Luke Michael

Wednesday, 13th September 2017 at 1:54 pm

Future Uncertain for Disability Organisations Following Funding Cuts

Wendy Williams

Tuesday, 19th September 2017 at 8:29 am

Majority of NFPs Are Not Believed to be Well-Run, According to New Survey

Luke Michael

Tuesday, 12th September 2017 at 4:14 pm

More Australians Are Giving Time Not Money

Wendy Williams

Monday, 11th September 2017 at 5:07 pm

One Comment

  • Staff Reporter says:

    The Office of Social Inclusion is laudable, assuming that no one is otherwise advocating for socially marginalised people of various persuasions. The NFP sector is increasingly oriented to advocacy, so the question is whether those voices will be otherwise heard – and championed – within government.

    If this is more than a headline grab, the Coalition should promptly make an undertaking (and provide a framework) to grant meaningful and effective government access to marginalised people, including representative NFPs.

    David Cumming, Sydney

Write a Reply or Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Guide to Giving
pba inverse logo
Subscribe Twitter Facebook

The social sector's most essential news coverage. Delivered free to your inbox every Tuesday and Thursday morning.

You have Successfully Subscribed!