Earlier this year, the Australian Federal Government released their report (with stylish matching brochure),
A Stronger, Fairer Australia.
This is their version, I mean vision, of a ‘socially inclusive’ Australia. This long awaited report, which was launched with all the fanfare and excitement that comes from wearing a beige cardi to church, was going to herald Australia into a new, enlightened and inclusive era. After so many years of neo-conservative governments fostering fear and otherness, we were finally going to emerge, eyes blinking into the light.
Now I have worked in the community sector for over six years and I can tell you 92 pages of report, 24 pages of gloss and umpteen number of hours of the PM’s staff time does not social inclusion make. If you write a report and no one knows about it, does it make a sound?
So what is this magical panacea of all social ills we call social inclusion? Social inclusion is the idea that by ensuring that people are included and able to meaningfully contribute to the broader community, such as through work (paid and unpaid), education, group participation or something like that, they will be overall healthier people. By people being healthier mentally, physically, emotionally, spiritually and so on, they reduce the burden poor health has on society (read, the budget).
At the risk of sounding cynical, with our ever fiscally aware politicians talking about increasing the productivity of the nation (ask not what your country can do for you, but how much you can do for your country), social inclusion is at the fluffy end of the spectrum for making people more productive and minimising the chances they will be exposed to various risks that lead to poor health, and therefore, are less productive.
This is opposed to the more hard-line methods of increasing people’s productivity such as whip cracking and making people work longer hours.
Now social inclusion isn’t the problem, it is the approach being used by the government I have issues with. I have never felt very comfortable when large, cold mechanisms such as government and bureaucracy try to do the warm and fuzzy stuff. I find it particularly disconcerting when it is talked about as a new innovation. Anyone who has ever worked with people, especially those at risk or disadvantaged, respond to this ‘innovation’ as stating the bleeding obvious!
The LGBT community has been particularly good at social inclusion, even if it has not always been considered in these terms.
Everything from groups like BearsCanberra and the Qwire, which have been around forever and a day, to more recent developments such as the Canberra Kings and FUSE Magazine all help include people into a thriving community. These provide chances to meet and interact with like minded people, engage in discussion, take on responsibilities and feel connected to a larger network of people when people can often feel so isolated by their sexuality or gender identity from the broader community.
If that group you have always wanted doesn’t exist yet, why don’t you try starting it yourself? It could be the group or venture that we have always needed, tapping into that unmet need. If you need help, the AIDS Action Council and Westlund House are great resources.
So did we really need to wait on tenterhooks for our Fairy Rudd-Mother to deliver this report? Well it sure does look and sound good, but I think that the LGBT community in particular can carry on business as usual.
By Keiran Rossteuscher Social Marketing Officer at the AIDS Action Council
At the risk of sounding cynical, with our ever fiscally aware politicians talking about increasing the productivity of the nation (ask not what your country can do for you, but how much you can do for your country), social inclusion is at the fluffy end of the spectrum for making people more productive and minimising the chances they will be exposed to various risks that lead to poor health, and therefore, are less productive.
