Doug PollardA Whole of Government Initiative
August 23rd 2009 07:32
The Social Inclusion Board
The Rudd government is big on ‘Social Inclusion’. There’s a Minister (Julia Gillard), a Parliamentary Secretary (Ursula Stephens), a Board, a Task Force, and a Social Inclusion Unit in almost every ministry. It’s a ‘whole of government’ priority.
I only had a vague idea of what Social Inclusion actually was, but my curiosity was aroused following Stephens party turn at that highly exclusionary Holy Brekkie in Canberra. So I Googled.
There are many definitions, but Vic Health says: “A socially inclusive society is … one where all people feel valued, their differences are respected, and their basic needs are met so they can live in dignity. Social exclusion is the process of being shut out from the social, economic, political and cultural systems which contribute to the integration of a person into the community (Cappo 2002).”
The federal government defines some ‘indicators’ of social exclusion: poverty, unemployment, homelessness, youth, age, mental illness, physical disability, limited or no support networks, family breakdown/disfunction, and membership of a minority.
Well, we’re a minority, so that’s one box ticked. Here’s some more (some of these stats come from overseas, because the research simply hasn’t been done here, but they broadly agree with the experience of professionals here).
USA: gay and lesbian youth are two to three times more likely to commit suicide and 30% of all youth suicides are related to the issue of sexual identity.
Australia: 25% to 40% of young lesbians and gays have attempted suicide.
USA: 28% of gay and lesbian high school students dropped out of school because of harassment.
Australia: between a quarter and a third of all homeless young people are same sex attracted.
USA: 26% of gays and lesbian youth are forced to leave home because of conflicts with their families over their sexual identities.
UK: A 2008 poll found 6% of Britons define themselves as homosexual or bisexual, 13% have had some same sex experience.
US: Best available data indicates 4-6% have regular ongoing same-sex experience.
The conclusion is inescapable. GLBTIQ people – especially the young – undeniably suffer social exclusion. And with all those Ministers, Boards, Task Forces and Units, the government is clearly hot on Social Inclusion. So how much of this massive ‘whole of government’ effort is directed at our community?
None. Nada. Zip. Zero.
Of the 14 members of the Social Inclusion Board, 4 are expert in indigenous issues, 3 (including the vice-chairman, the deputy Archbishop of Adelaide) front Catholic charities, 2 represent ethnic minorities, the rest are health experts, and one is Eddie McGuire. It’s a similar story with the Social Inclusion Taskforce.
I don’t want to get into a numbers game, but I can’t resist pointing out that indigenous people represent around 2.5% of the Australian population (according to the last census), while we number at least 4%. And the indigenous community also gets a Minister for Aborginal Affairs and a Minister for Indigenous Health.
No-one for one moment begrudges the first Australians one iota of this effort. But even if GLBTIQ were only 1% of the population, there would still be no excuse for excluding us from the very mechanism designed to ensure everyone enjoys “full participation in Australian society”.
Ursula Stephens says, “Labor has adopted social inclusion as an objective and organising principle of the nation's social and economic policy.” And excluded us from it.
It seems like the governments commitment to GLBTIQ inequality extends beyond the simple issue of relationship recognition: it’s a ‘whole of government’ initiative.
| 65 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Greg Adkins
GLBTIQ - well aren't we a socially inclusive bunch... if we talk about gender then it narrows to "TI"; if we look at sexual orientation then those uncomfortable with our sexual orientation are focusing on the "G&L". Ask the "B"s and very few align with our community - though we probably don't ask them. "Q" - well has anyone asked a "Q" identifying person if their issues resonate with the broader "G&L" community or any subest of the letters? Probably not.
Minority - I'm not a member of a minority, nor is the same-gender partner whom I love, our gay and lesbian friends, work-mates, colleagues, the gay guys I have swum with for a decade... need I go on.
We are part of the majority. We love another human being. We breath. We have inalienable rights - thankfully. And never at anytime, such as now, have we had more of our inalienable rights equal to and shared by others in this vast majority of people who love other people. Our fight for equal rights is resonating and many "H"s are joining us in support, including (shock, horror) the nation's governing political party and many from the Opposition. Sorry to include those "heterosexuals" (oooh, aahhh the protesting masses groan) in my majority, but hey, they're most welcome in this socially inclusive world.
OK, so breaking your "GLBTIQH" argument down.. We didn't ask the "H"eteros if they wanted to play...
...OK, so its now "GLBTIQ" ...ooops, we didn't ask the "I"ntersex people if just because their sex chromosomes didn't match their gender expression they would like to be included in with the same-sex attracted (...when really many just wanted to be part of the "H"s)
...and we didn't ask the "Q" people if they wanted to be lumped into a group that wore "Queer" as a label when we were illegal and being bashed for it and who were more comfortable wearing the "G" and the "L" instead of being labelled "Q".
The perpetrators of violence against us "GLBT" people are even less inclusive. They thump us because we are gay; they vilify us if we are lesbian. Why, becasue we are same sex attracted. If we are "T" they categorise us as a gay in a frock and bash us anyway. If we are "B" its OK as long as we don't make physical contact with them while we have a threesome, if we do we're a filthy faggot or dyke, coz we're then "G" or "L". SO the "LGBT" seems to be far more socially inclusive model, but others may disagree.
The point really is that if we always frame ourselves as a minority - as part of the "GLBTIQ" rather than as part of the "GLBTIQH" we will be shackled to minority-speak forever.
This "Greens-speak" is not one I want to see as part of how we as a LGBT community work to support our interests as part of the majority with equal right. Nor is it how we can best assist those with a minority self esteem to lift themselves away from the fringe. And nor is it how we truly offer support to others making the conscious choice to align themselves with us.
Post-script: Aussie stats? They are available Doug... just search a bit harder... GLHV is a great place to start; the VicAVP is another great resource. Many of us would be more than happy to assist in your research.
There: headache is much better thanks!
Comment by Rodney Cruise
It is quite fine for Greg to see himself as part of the majority but he does go on to move from "I" to "we" quite quickly. It is possible to be part of a minority and a majority at the same time, just in different contexts.
And simply if we all joined the majority, then there wouldn't be a minority and therefore there wouldn't be a majority.
Oh...my head hurts now
PS. Senator Stephens said that some people are more equal than others. It is what she truly believes. Obviously, eminently qualified for her position. (link available on request)
Comment by Doug Pollard
Current Affairs
Rainbow Reporter
But you can't run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. I'm all for everyone being viewed as same-same but different, but the govt. has adopted this Social Inclusion concept.
The concept of social inclusion views society as consisting of one dominant majority/mainstream with a number of other groups detached or semi-detached from it.
It was originally devised as a way of describing and dealing with second and third generation disaffected French youths of North African origin who were on the one hand constantly told 'you are French, not Algerian', while at the same time being discriminated against for being 'not really French', i.e., non-white.
A bit like the joke about the boy of Vietnamese ancestry in Glen Waverley being told to 'go back where you came from', answering, 'but I don't like Frankston.'
Since then, as Wikipedia points out, Social Inclusion is like Humpty Dumpty language in 'Alice' - it means pretty much whatever the person using wants it to mean.
This government has adopted social inclusion as an overarching narrative binding together all its activities, it says, so we have to engage them on that ground. Their choice, not mine.
Their particular meaning of the term is not immediately clear - the field suffers from an excess of flowery jargon, perhaps reflecting its French origins, more likely the usual bureaucratic act of making it sound as though a lot is actually being done when in fact there is little, the kind of dead language that conceals rather than communicates - but I have been offered a rather cynical alternative view by a jaded Labor insider, who didn't want to be identified. It went something like this:
"Doug mate, if you think you poofter boys are going to get a sniff of SI, you can think again. SI is about tipping money to the god boys, buying them back from the oppo, keeping them on the team. So we can't let you lot in or the blokes in the red frocks'll run screaming back to the Libs. Doesn't hurt that it buys a lot of feel good, help the downtrodden stuff, on the cheap - all those volunteers, eh?"
I think there is at least an element of truth in this, though probably overstated.
The trouble with adopting the 'we are one, I'm not in a minority' attitude is that people who ARE excluded and do have specific needs related to their gender, sexuality etc., just disappear.
E.g., if we don't appear in the census, in the stats, then government does not see a problem and does not take action.
For example, from another arena entirely: because a lot of homophobic crime isn't reported, or recorded as such, the stats don't show it as a problem, and police command are reluctant to fund fulltime GLLOs.
BTW I asked GLHV about stats re GLBTIQ homelessness, self-harm etc. (at all ages) and was told, with a sigh, that this is one of those catch-22s, there's lots of good anecdotal evidence but a lack of good empirical data, without which it's impossible to attract funding which could be used to look for that empirical data.
That's the excuse beyondblue have been using to ignore us for so long.
If you want to post links to appropriate material online, please go ahead - love to see it.