Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (2 July) . . Page.. 2165 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

I will read out some of the key findings. Seventy-seven per cent of agencies reported an increase in demand for their services. The main reason for the increase in demand for services included an increase in the number of people in need, 25 per cent; an increase in the complexity of client needs, 21 per cent; an increase in referrals of clients from other agencies, 24 per cent; and changes in government policy, 10 per cent, with many agencies citing changes to social security rules and entitlement from Centrelink administration as critical factors. Seventy-seven per cent of agencies reported they were acting at maximum capacity at the time of the survey. Also, 73 per cent of agencies reported that they were operating in a maximum capacity six months prior to the survey.

MR SPEAKER: You are on your last 10 minutes, Ms Tucker.

MS TUCKER: Thank you. This suggests that agencies were operating at maximum capacity over a sustained period of time. The increase in demand for community services appeared to be a sustained trend. The first Australians living on the edge survey, conducted in November 1998, found that 65 per cent of agencies had experienced an increase in demand for their services and that 73 per cent expected further increases. The expectation of further increases in demand at the time of the first survey seems to have been well founded. The community welfare sector is operating under enormous pressure. Of the agencies experiencing an increase in demand for their services, 58 per cent are stretched and 25 per cent report not being able to cope with the increased demand.

This is an Australian survey the ACT participated in, but I do not have to refer to that. If you want to know whether or not there is a growing social deficit, you just have to look at the reports that have come out of this Assembly, particularly in the last Assembly but this Assembly also, on social issues. Whenever we have done an inquiry into issues relating to services, there has been a clear picture of unmet need. We hear it recognised by the Government. We hear Mr Moore say, "I am sorry we can only give $1m to disability". It is acknowledged. How can we have a statement which says there is not a growing social deficit?

The unmet need in these areas is absolutely well known and is recognised by government. That is why there is such a strong voice from the community and from people interested in social equity for governments to look at where this is heading, how we can measure it and what we can do as a society together to address these needs. I think it is perfectly legitimate that the community did make those statements, and they are supported by evidence.

I move on to another topic, Totalcare. While I supported the recommendation that the Estimates Committee made, I would have liked it to have been stronger. I supported it so we would have an agreed report. I am very concerned about the delay in action by Totalcare in installing pollution control equipment to reduce dioxin emissions from its incinerator. Totalcare has always known that there would be some dioxin emissions from the plant and that testing as early as October 1997 had shown that the dioxin emissions exceeded both European and US standards.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .