Once again you hear that poverty has a huge impact on childhood obesity and the availability for children to have proper nutrition. We hear that again and again.
I thought it was an interesting question, and I did not really hear the answer. My colleague Mr. Batters asked it. You have $1,200 a year. It's meant to go to early childhood education and child care, but you have to make a choice between helping your children be educated in the earliest years of their lives so they can get out of poverty--which as we know is one of the answers--or giving it for food. What a choice to make. How do you choose between food or early childhood education and the long-term well-being of your children? That's the first question.
The second question I would like to ask is this. It's obvious that you're talking about life skills--lifetime of change, a new behaviour, and a new attitude--to move people out of poverty and into being able to take control of their lives. I think programs and projects don't do that; they don't give you that ability to change in the long term. Would you suggest a way you could make those long-term changes, in other words, to apply funding to the things you know will allow for behavioural change, as opposed to waiting every six months to see whether you're getting money for another project? I mean, it's been shown that projects don't matter. That's the second question.
The final one is whether anyone has done a cost-benefit analysis of the cost to educate, to feed, and to change the lives of aboriginal people so that they can get out of poverty--and the long-term results, and obviously that's what a cost-benefit analysis does, of the better health, better housing, better education, and the high employability rates of aboriginal people. Does anyone have that study?