Kevin Andrews has been billed as the "Minister for Love" thanks to his advocacy of relationship counselling. But if you look at what he wants to do with social policy reform, you would be more likely to call him the "Minister for Readiness" instead.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
On Tuesday, at a families conference in Adelaide, Andrews outlined his vision, arguing that the "most effective" form of assistance for people was to focus on helping them at key transition points across the whole of their lives. Andrews argued that people need to be "relationship-ready", "child-ready", "school ready", "life-ready" (in terms of emotional and financial skills), "work-ready" and "ageing-ready" (to ensure a productive and meaningful later life).
He is talking to experts about how to make this happen and has tasked his department to get a "framework" going. He hopes to have a more comprehensive idea about how it will work in time for another families conference next year.
The idea did not come from nowhere. In speeches since he was Minister for Social Services, he has talked of the importance of getting in early. He is fond of quoting US-based scholar Isabel Sawhill who argues that if people finish high school, work full-time and marry before they have children, poverty would drop from 15 per cent to 2 per cent. And he is much taken with welfare reforms in New Zealand where "support is invested where it can make the biggest difference".
The idea of intervening early is also not new within social policy circles. At the Family and Relationship Services Australia conference on Tuesday there was furious agreement from experts about the need for early intervention.
But behind the scenes of the Abbott government, Andrews is a quiet reformist. He wants to make a change to the way social policy is framed and delivered in Australia. He wants more "outcomes".
The challenge for him, of course will be in the detail. How does his readiness plan integrate with the McClure review into welfare (which is due to go to the government this month)? How will voters feel about their "transition points" being subject to government policy?
And most importantly, in these tight budgetary times, how will Andrews convince his cabinet colleagues – particularly those who control the money side – that it is worth spending money on people's lives up front?
