Page 2611 - Week 08 - Thursday, 30 June 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I am not going to talk about Quamby. Mr Seselja did that in relation to the Office for Children, Youth and Family Support. There is an example there, and the government readily admits it, of breaching its own act. I think we are going to see a lot more of that. There are some significant problems there.
The contradiction between what the government expects to be standing up for and what they do in terms of rights is glaring, too. In fact, only this week they refused to back an opposition private members bill to affirm the rights of animals to humane treatment. The same day the Chief Minister was making a media statement in relation to the International Whaling Commission and being against Japan killing whales commercially. I would certainly agree with him on that. Yet his government’s failure to show the same care for local animals certainly was not lost on animal lovers in the ACT.
The proportion of money spent on administration of the victims services scheme is also a concern. Around $200,000, or 20 per cent of the total budget of $1.2 million for the victims services scheme, is spent on admin by JACS alone. The Victims of Crime Assistance League, commonly known as VOCAL, which provides three-quarters of all victims services, gets only $144,000 per year to deliver the only 24-hour response service. Victims and their family can ring up any time of the day and night, including on weekends, to get support. There is also no time limit on this, as there is for the government’s departmental service through ACT Health, which is limited to 12 hours. Yet between 2001 and 2004 the percentage of the budget for victims services being consumed by paid professional services climbed from $173,484, or 26 percent, to $114,309, or 43 per cent, last year.
Judging by the attorney’s answers at the estimates inquiry, the government has a totally erroneous belief in the superiority of professional counsellors over the volunteers at VOCAL. The attorney stated in estimates recently that there is a difference between the two services, as though a volunteer service must, ipso facto, be an inferior one. I will take my next 10 minutes now, if I may.
As I understand it, many of the volunteers at VOCAL are very qualified. Some have masters or even PhD degrees and qualifications in psychology and social work. They have provided a magnificent service since its inception in about 1989 to so many victims in society. I think it is terribly important for this government to look at what it is spending and where it can really get value for money and ensure that the bureaucracy does not take over and shut down, which appears to be the case, a very good volunteer service that has provided excellent 24-hour, 7-day a week support to so many needy people in our community.
The government does not seem to be able to comprehend that a volunteer organisation can provide that emotional support, guidance and practical help, such as finding emergency accommodation when it is most needed outside office hours or on weekends. Moreover, professional counselling is often not appropriate for people who need to move house, deal with practical difficulties and financial costs. Being settled and capable of introspection is required to benefit from counselling and is usually not what victims of crime need, certainly at the outset.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .