- From: The Australian
- January 07, 2012
IN a civilised society there is an important role for the state to step in to assist people to overcome their own difficulties when they may not be able to do so on their own. Although this seems to be the intention of the government's oddly named Social Inclusion Unit, the minister and the unit itself have made a hash of -
* explaining what the term means,
* how the unit works; and
* what it has achieved.
It has been found wanting in its work outcomes while it spends extravagantly on travel and other expenses.
Catholic Health Australia chief executive Martin Laverty supported the unit, but said tangible results needed to be achieved. Mark Henley from UnitingCare Wesley says the idea has not worked as well as it did under the Labour government in Britain. It begs the question from the nation's poor: what have we done to deserve this? We can understand why the Coalition has vowed to scrap the unit, just as the South Australian Labor government did, along with the Labour government in Britain. The Gillard government and the Greens remain committed to it. But what matters, to borrow a phrase from Tony Blair, is what works.
Clearly, the unit is not yet working. Social democratic governments have a philosophical instinct to show compassion. But they need more than a strategy; they need a strategy people can understand, and one that works. If the minister responsible doesn't understand it, as Mark Butler appeared not to when he inherited his portfolio, then what hope is there for the rest of us? A strategy needs to make a real difference in the lives of those it is supposed to help. Dealing with human difficulties is a core part of most ministerial portfolios. Those who suffer from serious mental illness, for example, need considerable assistance. Governments provide health, housing, education and community services. There are programs that are better performed by the private sector and through the generosity of volunteers. There will always be people who act against their own self-interests, and some who cannot help themselves. We have a duty to come to their aid. After eight research reports, many meetings and an exorbitant travel bill, the unit has not yet found the answer. The Coalition suggestion the $3.3 million saved by abolishing the unit could help fund a National Disability Insurance Scheme which could make a difference in the lives of some of the most needy is an understandable one.