Charities are on Abbott’s hit list
Tony Abbott ran a campaign specifically targeting government waste and reckless spending. The mainstream media was quick to applaud, especially when from the sparse amount of detail provided, it amounted to cutting 20,000 jobs. However, as these jobs were only those of government employees, it was high-fives all ’round. Apart from this populist piece where making people unemployed had somehow become a virtue, the rest of the cutting was something unspecified. However, the rhetoric endlessly repeated by the mainstream media, parrot-fashion, was that it was “waste”. “Waste,” the Liberals roared; and they were the ones who had been ordained with the task of cutting it.
The Liberals clearly knew, or rather lead the public to believe that they knew, where “waste and reckless spending” was, or perhaps might be. It was just a matter of being elected, and then they would deal with it.
Tony Abbott did promise, and specifically that there would be “no cuts” to education, health or pensions. It must therefore be concluded that as of the 5th September, that Abbott’s Opposition had found no “waste and reckless spending” in these areas:
The Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has reiterated that if elected he wants to secure the jobs of today and build the jobs of tomorrow. He’s told AM there will be no cuts to education, health or pensions, and that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s talk of a $70 billion black hole will be proved wrong. The Coalition is preparing to outline how it intends to balance the budget should it win on Saturday.
The irony of it all: snouts in the trough, and the much publicised waste and misuse of public funds by Abbott and his claiming of traveling expenses, for hobby and recreational purposes.
It was therefore with added dismay that I read the following in Sunday’s Sydney Morning Herald. The headline read as an overly benign: Hit and run on crime prevention likely.
“The Abbott government has backed away from distributing millions of dollars in grants promised to dozens of charities, community groups and local councils under Labor’s National Crime Prevention program. And at what cost? It surely cannot be ‘waste’ when you consider:
- The biggest loser is the Police Citizens Youth Club, which has been warned the $7 million it was promised is ”on hold and unlikely to be delivered”.
- Father Chris Riley of Youth Off The Streets hit out at the Coalition’s decision, pointing out that national crime prevention grants were funded through the proceeds of crime rather than general revenue and were not election promises. Father Chris Riley’s NSW-based Youth Off The Streets charity has received the first instalment of the $5 million he was promised because he expedited the signing of contracts before the change of government.
- Wangaratta and Wodonga’s Junction Support Services, which applied for $305,559 for its youth re-engagement program, has been told by local state MP Bill Tilley that it may not get the money.
- One group that was warned not to spend on the assumption that agreements were valid is the Women in Prison Advocacy Network. The not-for-profit organisation has been warned that expected grants “may not be delivered”.
- The National Aboriginal Sporting Chance Academy had secured a total of $600,000 for programs for indigenous youth in Sydney and Dubbo but was warned the money was under review.”
Mission Australia, which had been promised nearly $500,000, said it ”remains optimistic”. As above, the biggest loser is the PCYC, therefore hardly an organisation would could be labelled either as either “bleeding hearts” or “femi-Nazis”.
So this is “the waste” which Tony Abbott has in mind: Charities. Note also how the goals and aims of these charities concern young people, women and Aboriginal youth, and are all aimed towards social inclusion and ultimately at crime prevention. What could be the reasoning? Why take money away from crime prevention? Why specifically target organisations which assist women and Aboriginal youth?
The Women in Prison Advocacy Network (WIPAN) as an example, has the aims of addressing:
… the many issues facing criminalised women and female youth both systemically, by advocating to improve the criminal justice systems and individually, by mentoring. WIPAN know from experience that by providing women and female youth with gender-responsive social support, recidivism rates will be reduced and the burgeoning prison population will be minimised.
Target groups being:
- Aboriginal women and young women.
- Torres Strait Islander women and young women.
- Culturally and Linguistically Diverse women and young women.
- Women and young women with Disabilities.
- Mothers and Expectant Mothers.
- Victims of Family Domestic and/or Sexual Violence.
- Lesbian and Transgender women and young women.
Yet on March 3, 2013, Tony Abbott promised to do exactly the opposite; he was making promises to assist with crime prevention.
AN ABBOTT government would reinstate a Howard government program that funded CCTV cameras in crime hotspots around the country.
Announcing the $50 million policy at Leumeah train station on Saturday, the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, said the program would give local governments the tools they need to tackle street crime.
”We will restore the $50 million-plus that’s been cut … that was going to crime prevention programs. That money will be available for councils to apply so they can get better lighting and things like CCTV,” he said.
By August 20, Abbott was still making promises that crime prevention was to be tackled, this time with $300,000 pledged to Liverpool Council for CCTV cameras. But that was before the election. The reality now is:
Local councils, which have been pledged millions of dollars – mainly in crime hotspots in Sydney and Melbourne – are concerned that money allocated for CCTV cameras will not materialise. In Victoria, council-run public safety projects are at risk in Ballarat, City of Casey, Greater Dandenong, Frankston, Hume, Mitchell Shire Council and Greater Shepparton.
At first glance it seems that Abbott’s plans are to take money from charities; charities which target crime prevention and instead use that money to purchase CCTV cameras. Father Chris Riley said that, “national crime prevention grants were funded through the proceeds of crime.“
”We will restore the $50 million-plus that’s been cut … that was going to crime prevention programs. That money will be available for councils to apply so they can get better lighting and things like CCTV…
The program would be funded using money confiscated under the Proceeds of Crime Act. ”We want to see people understand that crime does not pay.”
Surely this cannot be so. Surely it cannot be that Tony Abbott has taken money from charities and decided to give that same money to councils for “better lighting and things like CCTV”… well, so he said …
While “things like” CCTV cameras are useful in identifying situations after the event, after the crime has been committed, are these more important than programs which are aimed at crime prevention and recidivism? I will stand corrected if this is “different money” and not the same money taken which the government has taken from charities. As stated by Fr. Chris Riley: “national crime prevention grants were funded through the proceeds of crime rather than general revenue …”. If so, this is an appalling situation, and one for which the government should be condemned.
So is this where Tony Abbott is heading, and with much more still to come? From the Financial Review:
The chairman of John Howard and Jeff Kennett’s audit commissions, Bob Officer, has urged the incoming Abbott government to follow Queensland’s example and cut thousands of inefficient jobs from education and health bureaucracies in its first term.
Professor Officer concluded:
“The politicians can then dress is it up how they like, as indeed Howard did with our report,” he said. “They’ll hand-pick through it for the things that justify their prejudices.
Perhaps this is exactly what we are seeing now with the Abbott Government specifically targeted hit list being those charities whose objectives are to assist some of the most vulnerable in our society. Are Abbott’s prejudices showing? Does Tony Abbott believe that his promise to spend one week each year in an Aboriginal community will somehow make up for taking funding away from organisations such as Youth off the Streets when our young Aboriginal people are more at risk than any other demographic? How can you take money away from crime prevention and think that installing a few security cameras is going to solve the problem? Is Abbott not interested in real problems concerning real women, or only interested in his imaginary “women of calibre”?
There has been no suggestion whatsoever that these charities, the PCYC et al are not worthy recipients of government assistance, but rather for some reason Mr. Abbott considers that the money is best spent on “street lighting”.
Well, that will certainly fix everyone’s problem. It will save money being wasted on disadvantaged groups. And perhaps all the street lighting can shine a light on all those roads he wants to build.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969