* * * * 此聲 cǐ shēng 稱 chēng 在 zài 事實 shì shí 上 shàng 是 shì 準確 zhǔn què 的 de 。 。
**The claim is FACTUALLY ACCURATE.**
The Coalition government did abolish the Australian Social Inclusion Board (ASIB) on 18 September 2013, the same day the new Abbott government was sworn in [1].
* * * *
According to parliamentary budget estimates documents, "The Government abolished the Australian Social Inclusion Board (ASIB) on 18 September 2013.
The Social Inclusion Board had been established in May 2008 by the Rudd Labor government as a high-profile advisory body with a brief to advise government, consult with the community, and report on social inclusion in Australia [3][4].
The board's chairwoman at the time of abolition was Roslyn Healy, who warned that "the new government must commit to helping the poorest Australians" [5].
**What the claim omits:**
The claim presents this as a simple negative action without providing important context about the partisan nature of this policy change and what replaced it.
1. **The Social Inclusion Board was a Labor-created institution:** It was established in May 2008 as a centerpiece of the Rudd/Gillard government's "social inclusion agenda" [3][6].
The board was explicitly a Labor policy initiative, with Deputy Leader Julia Gillard having ministerial responsibility for the area [6].
2. **Policy framework discontinuation:** The abolition was part of a broader discontinuation of the "social inclusion" policy framework that had been central to Labor's social policy agenda between 2007 and 2013 [7].
Academic analysis confirms that "the demise of the ALP Government has meant that social inclusion is no longer a guiding framework or policy priority at the political or departmental level" [7].
3. **New government established alternative structures:** The Coalition government established its own welfare advisory mechanisms, including the Welfare Reform Reference Group and later the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, pursuing different policy approaches to poverty and disadvantage [8].
4. **Standard practice for new governments:** Incoming governments routinely restructure advisory bodies and policy frameworks to align with their own priorities.
While it is one of Australia's two nationally distributed daily newspapers and is generally considered reputable for factual reporting, it is owned by News Corp, which has been documented as using content for conservative political advocacy [10].
The article itself appears to have been straightforward reporting on the abolition, including a quote from the board's chairwoman warning about the need to continue helping disadvantaged Australians.
**Did Labor do something similar?**
**YES - This reflects standard practice in Australian politics.**
1. **Labor created the board as a partisan policy initiative:** The Social Inclusion Board was established as a key element of Labor's 2007 election platform and the Rudd government's early policy agenda [6][11].
* * * *
It was never intended to be a bipartisan, permanent institution but rather a mechanism to advance Labor's specific "social inclusion" policy framework.
2. **Labor also abolished or restructured Coalition advisory bodies:** When the Rudd Labor government took office in 2007, it similarly discontinued advisory structures and policy frameworks established by the previous Howard Coalition government.
This is standard practice when governments change - new administrations establish their own advisory mechanisms aligned with their policy priorities.
3. **The "social inclusion" framework was a Labor ideological project:** Academic analysis describes the board and the broader social inclusion agenda as representing a specific policy approach championed by the Labor government, not a neutral, apolitical anti-poverty mechanism [7].
**Comparison:** Both major parties create and abolish advisory bodies according to their policy frameworks.
* * * *
The Coalition scrapped Labor's Social Inclusion Board; Labor would have similarly discontinued Coalition-established advisory mechanisms when it took office in 2007.
**The full story:**
While the claim correctly states that the Coalition abolished the Social Inclusion Board, it frames this as a negative action without acknowledging that:
1. **This was a partisan policy reversal, not an attack on anti-poverty work:** The board was a Labor-created body designed to advance Labor's specific "social inclusion" policy agenda.
Its abolition was consistent with the Coalition government's different approach to welfare and disadvantage, which emphasized welfare reform, employment participation, and different advisory structures [12].
2. **The Coalition maintained anti-poverty commitments through different mechanisms:** The new government established alternative advisory structures including the Welfare Reform Reference Group and continued funding for anti-poverty programs, though with different policy emphases [8].
3. **This is normal government transition behavior:** New governments routinely restructure advisory bodies to reflect their policy priorities.
The same occurred when Labor took office in 2007, when it established the Social Inclusion Board and discontinued previous Coalition advisory mechanisms.
4. **The board's chairwoman acknowledged continuity concerns:** Roslyn Healy's warning that the government "must commit to helping the poorest Australians" suggests the concern was about policy continuity rather than the specific advisory structure itself [5].
**Key context:** The abolition of the Social Inclusion Board was a partisan policy change typical of government transitions, not evidence of anti-poverty policy abandonment.
However, the claim frames this negatively without explaining that: (1) the board was a partisan Labor policy initiative created in 2008, (2) its abolition was part of a normal government transition where new administrations establish their own advisory structures, (3) Labor similarly restructured Coalition advisory bodies when it took office in 2007, and (4) the Coalition maintained anti-poverty commitments through alternative policy mechanisms.
However, the claim frames this negatively without explaining that: (1) the board was a partisan Labor policy initiative created in 2008, (2) its abolition was part of a normal government transition where new administrations establish their own advisory structures, (3) Labor similarly restructured Coalition advisory bodies when it took office in 2007, and (4) the Coalition maintained anti-poverty commitments through alternative policy mechanisms.