Community Sector Banking
MEDIA, JOBS & RESOURCES for the COMMON GOOD
News  |  Policy

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?




Got a story to share?

Got a news tip or article idea for Pro Bono News? Or perhaps you would like to write an article and join a growing community of sector leaders sharing their thoughts and analysis with Pro Bono News readers?

Get in touch at news@probonoaustralia.com.au


One Comment

  • Avatar 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 *



YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

Coalition missing as Labor and Greens champion charities

Wendy Williams

Tuesday, 14th May 2019 at 8:24 am

Humanitarian Organisations Warn SDG Recommendations Shouldn’t Be Ignored

Maggie Coggan

Wednesday, 20th February 2019 at 5:03 pm

Peak Indigenous Bodies Plead For Close the Gap Involvement

Maggie Coggan

Wednesday, 21st November 2018 at 10:27 am

POPULAR

Morrison vows to prioritise NDIS following election win

Luke Michael

Monday, 20th May 2019 at 4:05 pm

Guide dogs business venture set to shake up traditional charity model

Maggie Coggan

Monday, 13th May 2019 at 4:11 pm

Why NFPs need to ask powerful questions

Luke Michael

Thursday, 9th May 2019 at 3:46 pm

Community Sector Banking
pba inverse logo
Subscribe Twitter Facebook

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

You have Successfully Subscribed!