Close Search
 
MEDIA, JOBS & RESOURCES for the COMMON GOOD
News  |  Policy

Coalition Slams Social Inclusion Portfolio


5 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.

Staff Reporter | 5 January 2012 at 11:41 am


1 Comments


 Print
Coalition Slams Social Inclusion Portfolio
5 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?



PB Careers
Get your biweekly dose of news, opinion and analysis to keep you up to date with what’s happening and why it matters for you, sent every Tuesday and Thursday morning.

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 or download our contributor guidelines.

Advertisement

2021 Impact 25 nominations now open!


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

Your email address will not be published.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



YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

The 12 days of advocacy

Neil Pharaoh

Monday, 30th November 2020 at 5:49 pm

Organisations refusing to join redress scheme face loss of charity status

Luke Michael

Monday, 30th November 2020 at 5:08 pm

Charities as drivers of employment, productivity, and growth

David Crosbie

Thursday, 26th November 2020 at 8:48 am

pba inverse logo
Subscribe Twitter Facebook
×