Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Human Services, Senator Kim Carr. Is the minister aware of any calls to adopt the so-called Big Society approach from the United Kingdom in Australia?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Brown, for this question. I can advise the Senate that the opposition spokesperson for human services confirmed that the coalition will be seeking to adopt the approach of the United Kingdom Tories in terms of its application to service delivery in Australia. I can also advise the Senate that I recently had the opportunity to discuss the implementation of the so-called Big Society with British ministers, shadow ministers and community organisations. I can indicate to the Senate that the overriding impression that I have been left with as a result of those conversations is that, when the Conservative government were elected in the United Kingdom in 2010, they promised to expand the role of volunteers and to empower citizens, but what in fact they have given has been budget cuts and privatisations.

I understand how important the thinking of the British Tory party is to those opposite. They have always seen their guiding light as the high Toryism from London. What we have seen in the name of so-called strengthening of communities in the United Kingdom has been a 52 per cent cut to social housing development and a 25 per cent cut to community development. This approach undermines the various rhetorical claims that have been made about empowering citizens which, of course, we saw were a hallmark of Toryism in Britain. On this side of the chamber—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on a point of order: I know it is unusual to take a point of order on the answer of a government senator to a question from their own backbench. However, with respect, Mr President, in relation to the standing order that prohibits questions asking opinions, can I direct your attention to the fact that this question asks the opinion of a minister about the policies of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom. It is not relevant to his portfolio, nor is the question itself allowable.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. The minister has 22 seconds remaining.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I can say is that the Australian government is working with communities, particularly to strengthen those communities where there are very high levels of disadvantage. We have communities like Broadmeadows in Victoria and Bankstown in New South Wales. We are working with communities to improve the level of social and economic participation in this country. Of course, we cannot— (Time expired)

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for his answer. My first supplementary for the minister is: from his discussions in the UK, can the minister further advise of what he has learnt about the impact of the UK's so-called Big Society approach on community organisations?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's got nothing to do with his portfolio.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This has everything to do with this portfolio, the portfolio of Human Services, which is about the delivery of services to the public of this country. It is very much about the approach that is taken to undermining the levels of participation in our society in economic or in social terms. What we have seen in the United Kingdom with those that have followed this practice of so-called empowering of citizens through this policy of the Big Society—a policy which is now being adopted in this country by those opposite—is that there has been a massive fraud. A massive fraud has been inflicted upon the people of the United Kingdom. What we have seen is the massive cutting of government programs, privatisations and, of course, the disempowerment of local communities. What we have seen is an approach which, of course, has meant that the architect of the Big Society, Phillip Blond, who was in Australia just last year, has managed to persuade those opposite to follow this course of action. (Time expired)

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Can the minister advise the Senate of what the result of the so-called Big Society approach has been when it has been implemented by governments in Australia?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we have seen is that in states such as Queensland community groups have lost $368 million. Local councils have lost $60 million. Skills and training have lost $287 million. Of course, this is the approach that has been followed by conservative governments across Australia, drawing inspiration from the Big Society advocates in England. We note that, of course, in Queensland the conservatives are eager to go even further. Peter Costello's Commission of Audit have made it clear they want a focus upon the privatisation of essential services. So conservative parties in this country are using this rhetoric of the Big Society to actually attack community organisations, undermine the rights of citizens and undermine the levels of social engagement in this country. This is an excuse for the privatisation of services and budget cuts to services which we have seen— (Time expired)