Don’t get too carried away with the 2020 summit glow.
Julia Gillard wrote this in late March:
THE Rudd Government recognises the importance of women’s participation in the labour market for Australia’s productivity and prosperity.
This hasn’t hit the media, perhaps because compassionate conservative Dr Brendan Nelson doesn’t see a vote in it, but word from Labor sources is that Lindsay Tanner has slashed funding entirely for the Working Women’s Centres - voluntary organisations that rely on government funding - and that survived Peter Reith and Tony Abbott among other responsible Ministers. Not a peep from Gillard’s office, I’m told. Wasteful government spending apparently. Some ALP backbenchers are not happy.
It was this sort of organisation that new Governor-General Quentin Bryce cut her teeth in the public sector establishing and supporting - under Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s government.
Join the dots.
Or better, email your MP.
Not surprised that Tanner did this. He has form.
Oh well back to reality.
The lobbying from here will start soon as soon as she wakes up.
There’s lobbying under way already!
Labor sources?
If true, that would be a disgraceful cut.
There are literally hundreds of NFP services across Australia that provide information and advice in this area.
http://naclc.org.au/directory/centres.html
Given the “community hub” philosophy, much enamoured of the Summiteers, (”build capacity/reduce overheads”) then it might be that WWC service provision continues in a different service delivery framework?
I certainly can’t see the government coming to the conclusion that the service - in some shape or form - isn’t required.
Not having any specific knowledge about this area, I suppose the question I’d ask is whether these organizations provide something over and above what other services do. Sometimes, rationalization is worthwhile, even when it’s gut-wrenching for the people involved.
Does anybody have more information?
Didn’t even know these centres existed. None in regional areas I noticed. That is how effective they are, total waste of money, replicating other organisations.
I’ve never head of a Working Women’s Centre. I wonder how many working women have. The only time I had problems at work, I contacted my union.
I’ll bet not just Darlene but everybody who has commented so far on this thread has not heard of them. For those who are reflexively scandalised by the proposed cut, how do you know these centres are any good at what they do, or that the service can’t be had elsewhere?
I note that WWC only operates in QLD, SA and NT. In other states and territory, WWC’s website refers to the existing range of NFP community info/legal resource centre service provision. It also advises that the Tasmanian WWC office closed its doors two years ago.
It may be that rationalisation/merger has been ongoing. As Robert says the providers affected by these sorts of changes in the NGO sector often - understandably - see their service as special, exceptional, unique and unable to be replicated or delivered in another service delivery framework. More often than not, experience proves otherwise.
…under Joh??? You mean the old codger presided over something practical and forward-thinking????
Before it closed I worked opposite a nice little restored cottage that was signed the the Working Womens Centre in Hobart. Other than opening everyday there appeared to be no activity at all.
Tasmania is small and if an organization is active it will be noticed. The WWC was invisible. No-one seem to care when it closed.
I was informed by a couple of Labor Party members who aren’t happy with the decision. I can’t speak to the effectiveness of the centres myself, but generally I’d have thought it would be better policy to review them rather than just treat them as a line item in the budget to be deleted. That’s what I’m told happened.
The point goes to the lack of consultation with these decisions, and also the apparent inconsistency with government policy, and that’s valid regardless of what you think of the centres themselves.
Like, John Howard’s big project for this term was destroying the government welfare system. For those of you who are moaning, would you have preferred that!?
I don’t see the fact that we’re very lucky to have seen the back of John Howard as a good reason never to criticise Rudd’s government, Paul!
“I’d have thought it would be better policy to review them rather than just treat them as a line item in the budget to be deleted. That’s what I’m told happened.
In an ideal world, yes. But reviews take time and the budget is imminent.
“The point goes to the lack of consultation with these decisions”.
Sometimes governments have to stop farting around and just make decisions.
I wonder if any of this reaction would be different if this decision had been made by Peter Costello and Joe Hockey.
If any such decision has in fact been made.
I think it’s a fair bet that it has been since the people I spoke to are lobbying against it, Amanda.
Well its all a bit hazy as pre-Budget Chinese whispers tend to be.
“I wonder if any of this reaction would be different if this decision had been made by Peter Costello and Joe Hockey.”
Of course, because their motives would have been bad.
Amanda, I’m told the centres themselves have been informed by letter.
I was wondering that myself, Mark. But, we know there’s going to be pain in this budget.
What does the letter say? What do the WWS say? What do the unions say?
That the funding will be discontinued from next financial year due to a budget decision. Not happy!
“We know there’s going to be pain in this budget”
That’s either stupid spin or stupid actions. With our economy in good shape and with a large budget surplus there is no reason why there should be ‘pain’ in this budget. Yes they need to avoid wasteful spending but that shouldn’t mean cutting useful programs.
The Reserve Bank is moderating inflation with interest rates and an already guaranteeed large budget surplus will help as well. I think they are going too far with certain cuts. These will do next to nothing to help the economy, but will harm certain groups of people. Seems just plain stupid.
We don’t know that the program is question is actually “useful” do we? OK, some Labor members, according to Mark, are lobbying against the cut. I’m a Labor member, I’ve seen plenty of Labor members in my time resort to knee-jerk reactions against government policy of all persuasions. I think the jury is still out on this one.
I’m a Qlder, never heard of them either. Hopefully it is rationalisation.
What a piece of work is Lindsay Tanner!
A nosebleed elitist. A sexist swine. A reactionary piece-of-shit from way back.
A hypocrite and a conservative. This is a strong right arm of the worst Kruddy Gileadism if ever there was one. Fuck him and all the sexist Alternative Liberal Party bullies that sail in him. I looked up ‘ stuffed - shirt’ the other day and it said ‘ See Lindsay Tanner.
Don’t have them in Victoria either.
Why would the Federal government fund a service that isn’t available to all states? surely the individual states should support them.
I would also suggest the reference to Quentin Bryce is a bit twee - did she get her start in Working Womens Centres or in something like them??
If the second, what was the something and does it still exist?
You can’t justify keeping funding for something just because another similar program (which may still exist and not be under threat) was beneficial.
Similarly, just because Howard et al did not axe something does not mean it is therefore inherently bad for the ALP to do so…I’m a fiercely lefty type and there’s lots of programs I would be happy to see the back of, despite them not being axed by Kennett or Howard.
If they’re a waste of money then I’d rather the money went to programs that aren’t.
All sounds a bit knee jerky to me.
Yes, she did. She established the Women’s Advice Centre in Queensland in the 1980s. And, yes, it still exists.
The reason why these centres don’t exist nationwide is that they’re community organisations not a government program.
You got it gorgeous.
These days, an Budget is the biggest and most accountable statement Australian Governments can make. So a Budget’s media/vested interests/general public audiences are strategically spun and tatically managed well in advance through a cloud of leaks, rumours, hints of ambit claims honoured or ignored and unsurprisingly surprise advance announcements.
Remember, the one true test of a politically well balanced budget is if everyone is equally pissed off. The moment one pressure group starts with the unconditional praise, you know you’ve fucked up equally unconditionally elsewhere.
I live in SA and I’ve never heard of them, either. In fact, no-one I know, including my daughter and her circle of friends, has heard of them, so I doubt they’ll be sorely missed. I live in rural SA and there certainly aren’t any offices in this neck of the woods. My daughter and her scaly mates live in Adelaide where you’d be more likely to find them and they seem to be pretty thin on the ground there. What is/was their function?
I reckon they’re like a lot of government programmes which are studiously kept below the radar and then quietly axed.
In the meantime, to paraphrase Spiros @9, knee-jerk foaming at the mouth and red-faced outrage should be saved until we know what we’re getting excited about.
I won’t be emailing my waste-of-space MP Patrick Secker about it.
They’re definitely here and visible in SA (there’s one in the Central train station Arcade, for example). I’ve encountered them (tangentially; I’m a lawyer vaguely in the Labour Law area) where female workers want advice or follow through on discrimination claims, unfair dismissal claims, sexual harrassment claims, etc.
I understand that they provide a first point of call for those women and can help them liaise with other organisations or navigate the Industrial Relations Tribunal and suchlike. From looking at the office from outside, they also seem to provide things like computer access, information on various rights and resources.
I’ve never dealt with them personally, but I’m surprised to hear that no-one else has heard of them.