Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Mental Health and Ageing) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Mayo for his question and his interest in the concepts of social inclusion and for giving me the opportunity to talk a little bit about that and to answer, as best I can, his questions and maybe take on notice some of the more specific questions about dollars.

The government, since we came to power in 2007-08, thought it was important to have a social inclusion approach to government. I will talk a bit about the precise focus of that agenda, because I am not sure the member for Mayo has completely understood the idea of the social inclusion agenda, at least from our government's perspective.

Social inclusion, essentially, is about a fair go for all Australians. But taking particular account of the fact that, in spite of our extraordinary economic success over the periods of the Hawke government, the Keating government, the Howard government and our government since 2007, 21 years of uninterrupted economic growth which, as the parliamentary secretary eloquently said, has been the envy of the advanced economies around the world, that rising tide has simply not lifted all ships. We know through research that there remain around 600,000 adults in Australia who experience multiple points of disadvantage, by which I mean that it is not just that they are experiencing poverty or it is not just that they are experiencing disability or it is not just that they are experiencing unstable housing or perhaps homelessness. It is that they are experiencing a whole range of those disadvantages.

The Social Inclusion Agenda recognises two things: 1) that any country worth its salt needs to continue to focus on ensuring that, in our case, those Australians have the opportunity enjoyed by all others to participate in this country's success; and 2) that some of the traditional approaches to dealing with disadvantage are simply not working for that group. By that I mean that traditionally what we have done for someone experiencing poverty is to give them an income support program. What we have done for someone experiencing mental illness or disability is to give them some mental health support, and what we have done for someone experiencing housing issues is to give them housing support. Where people are dealing with multiple points of disadvantage we recognise there is an obligation on government and delivery agencies funded by government to work more in a joined-up way so that rather than those Australians having to go forum shopping with eight or 10 different agencies, they are given an approach that is centred upon them rather than centred upon different government agencies or different NGOs.

The member for Mayo will see that through a number of different reform initiatives pursued by this government. In my area of mental health, the Partners in Recovery program, which seeks to support some of the most chronically and seriously unwell in our community, is deliberately a joined-up program that seeks to bring together often eight or 10 different agencies that are providing support to these 60,000 or so Australians and ensure that the agencies work through one centralised support program rather than expecting those Australians and their families or carers to go shopping time and time again for different supports from different agencies. That is the purpose of our Social Inclusion Agenda.

I think the member for Mayo has slightly misunderstood the idea of social inclusion and taken a much broader sweep than we are intending to do through our agenda. Be very clear, our agenda on social inclusion is focused on those Australians experiencing the most intractable disadvantage. We receive very good advice and support from the Social Inclusion Board. Their How Australia is faring report is one of the best reports to bring together a range of different sources of evidence and research to understand better what is driving that level of disadvantage among those Australians—the extent to which it is locality based, the extent to which it focuses around poor health and disability. We know through those research pieces that these are the surest paths into intractable disadvantage, but we also understand that the surest path out of that disadvantage is training and employment. I appreciate the advice we have received from the Social Inclusion Board. I will take on notice the particular questions about the dollars that the member for Mayo has asked me and I thank him again for his interest in this very important policy agenda.

See this speech in context