Community cabinets: a vehicle to promote government policy

In contrast to housing, the government’s policies on disability services were more effective. In May 2008, the Rudd government announced an extra $1.9 billion (totalling $5.3 billion over five years) for the new Commonwealth State/Territory agreement (2009-13) with an extra 24,500 disability services to be available from 2009. Further, the Commonwealth’s contribution was now indexed at more than 6 per cent over the life of the five-year agreement, compared with a previous arrangement of 1.8 per cent.

But again, the Rudd government used cabinet meetings mostly to promote its disability services policies. At Launceston (November 5, 2008), the government noted how 1,700 married disability pensioners received $2,100 per couple, while 2,800 single disability pensioners received $1,400. At Geelong (December 7, 2008) and Townsville (December 8, 2009), Rudd spoke of the assistance that one-off payments had given carers and people with disabilities.

At Ballajura, Western Australia (April 22, 2009), Nicola Roxon, the Health Minister, noted Labor’s recent efforts to establish six early childhood centres to “support children very early in their life with autism”. Bill Shorten, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services, added that “we’re providing workshops for 7,000 teachers” and “funding 150 extra playgroups”.

At Elizabeth, South Australia (July 28, 2009), when asked what the Commonwealth was doing in regards to accessibility for people with disabilities, Shorten argued that the Howard government did nothing from 2004, and “that the Rudd government has put issues of access to the physical premises well and truly on the map”.

Community cabinet meetings made little difference. Even after considerable effort by key interest groups, it took nearly two years before Treasurer Wayne Swan (October 2009) announced that the Productivity Commission “will undertake a feasibility study” in regard to a no-fault social insurance scheme to cover people’s disability and mental service needs”. That was only if “the economy gives us the means to afford them”.

In contrast to community cabinet meetings, greater policy influence is much more likely at elections when more people are exposed to issues.

Take the Coalition’s promise to spend $1.5 billion on mental health services, an announcement which led Gillard (July 27, 2010) to inject a further $277 million to boost suicide-prevention measures.

This policy struggle followed events in June 2010 when the National Advisory Council on Mental Health chairman John Mendoza resigned in disgust and about 70 mental health experts and organisations pressured the Rudd government for more action.

And on July 29, 2009, Gillard announced the first ever National Disability Strategy. It included up to $12,000 for early intervention services for each child prior to their seventh birthday (a maximum of $6,000 to be spent in each financial year); a Medicare rebate for the treatment and management of each diagnosed child under the age of 13 to cover up to four allied health diagnostic services; and up to 20 allied health treatment services. And additional funding to support more than 300 supported accommodation places for those being looked after by older carers.

To conclude, community cabinet meetings, illustrated by both housing and disability services, made little difference to the Rudd government’s policies. They do not demonstrate any substantive difference when compared to the other sources of influence that exists between competition between political parties and their interaction with interest groups and public opinion.

Whoever wins the 2010 federal election, community cabinets should go in order to remove a forum that, at best, promotes a government’s policies at a local level. Or, at worst, its rhetoric.