Social inclusion - what is it good for?

Image source: Australian Government

In recent weeks, social inclusion has become a topic of some debate. This follows reports that, subsequent to his appointment to the social inclusion portfolio in last year’s front-bench reshuffle, Mark Butler was unable to define what social inclusion means.

In response to an article on social inclusion by Butler published late last year, Senator Mitch Fifield and former Keating Government Minister Gary Johns both criticised the term as being devoid of substance. Fifield went on to propose that the Social Inclusion Board should be abolished, with the $3 million annual cost of the Board being allocated towards the $6.5 billion annual cost of a disability insurance scheme.

The above comments beg the question: What is meant by the term social inclusion, and is it as inconsequential in policy making terms as Fifield and Johns suggest?

Attitudes to same-sex marriage

The Federal Parliament is currently debating a motion on same-sex relationships moved by Adam Bandt—the recently elected Australian Greens party member for the seat of Melbourne. The motion notes there is ‘widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community’ and calls on ‘all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality’. As a result of this and other related debate, there is currently great interest in what public opinion polls may be able to tell us regarding changing attitudes towards same-sex marriage.

New - Journal of Social Inclusion

Last week former High Court of Australia justice, Michael Kirby launched the Griffith University-based Journal of Social Inclusion. The Journal is described as seeking to contribute to 'current knowledge and understanding of the social processes that marginalise individuals, families, groups and communities'.