Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on an important local issue that affects the most disempowered and vulnerable people in the Fairfield local government area. The Fairfield LGA missed out on a large part of its $267,000 emergency relief funding in 2005-06. Emergency relief targets individuals and families in dire financial straits who are struggling to pay the rent and bills—those on struggle street.

Last year, the Department of Family and Community Services raised concerns with Fairfield Community Aid and Information Service, which had been administering the emergency relief in Fairfield for over 30 years, about their accounting processes. Fairfield community aid pointed out to the department that, with only $5,000 allocated for the administration of a $267,000 scheme, it was difficult to meet all the department’s requirements.

I have said in the House before that I fully respect and support the right of the department to ensure that funds under this program are properly administered, but the government’s handling of the upshot of this dispute has been nothing short of a disgrace. This is Yes, Minister at its worst. Fairfield community aid did not receive its funding for the 2005-06 financial year. I understand that the department made the commitment to Fairfield community aid that emergency relief would be released within Fairfield to it or another organisation to distribute before Christmas. However, it was not until the end of January that we discovered that the Salvation Army had hastily been given an additional $40,000 in emergency relief funding; they could not handle any more.

The department was asked by local newspapers why the local community, clients of Fairfield community aid or even the local member were not alerted to the extra funding going to the Salvos. The department’s answer was: ‘There might be a stampede.’ So, after holding back funding for six months, the department said, ‘We cannot let anybody know where it has gone in case they find out about it and turn up to claim the money.’ This is why I say that this is Yes, Minister at its worst. We have the situation where the department cuts off funding to one organisation and gives a small portion to another organisation but will not reveal where that funding went.

I make the point that at no stage in the last 12 months has anyone from the department contacted me or my office to discuss my concerns or to offer a briefing about how they propose to fix the situation, despite three letters from me to the successive ministers, a question on notice, requests for meetings and my statements in this House and in local newspapers. I find this attitude from the department to be contemptuous. The new minister had a chance to fix the situation. I wrote to him in a genuine attempt to sit down and find a solution, but this problem has been ignored. The department has now called for tenders. It is now 10 May and no announcement has been made. The department must fix this problem.