Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Tackling ‘corrosive’ welfare



Download PDFDownload PDF

Parliamentary library briefing book: Key Issues for the 43rd Parliament Page | 26 Page | 27 addressing social disadvantage

Can reforms to the way welfare is delivered change individual behaviour in a meaningful way?

While a ustralia’s income support system is primarily aimed at alleviating disadvantage, a number of recent welfare reforms have focused on the potential role welfare has in sustaining or even causing disadvantage. t his reflects an emerging policy consensus on the need for governments to address the negative effects of welfare dependency, including engaging in active interventions in the lives of welfare recipients.

Concern that welfare has a ‘corrosive’ or ‘corrupting’ influence on its recipients has been a feature of welfare policy debates throughout australia’s history. t his concern has contributed to a policy focus on targeted income support payments to those most in need. r ecent debate has shifted from participation requirements and the means tested conditions of entitlement. i t now centres on the living conditions of those being targeted and whether the behaviour of welfare recipients is contributing to their disadvantage.

recent reforms and proposals targeting the personal behaviour of welfare recipients include:

income management (or ‘welfare quarantining’), • under which a portion of a recipient’s payments is set aside for ‘priority needs’, such as food, rent and utilities. t his measure was introduced

by the howard government as part of the northern t erritory e mergency r esponse in 2006 and was expanded under the rudd-gillard government. the school e nrolment and a ttendance through •

Welfare r eform m easure, which uses case management and the threat of payment suspension/cancellation to encourage parents to enrol their children in school and take steps to ensure attendance.

the labor Party’s election commitment to require children of income support recipients to undergo health checks before their parents can receive an end of year f amily tax b enefit a supplement.

the stated purpose of these measures is to address the health and welfare needs of children living in families dependent on income support. a further purpose is to encourage people to move from ‘passive welfare’ to participation in employment and/or education.

australia is not alone in implementing behavioural conditions for welfare recipients. a number of states in the u nited s tates and developing countries in Central a merica have introduced systems to encourage certain kinds of behaviour, including child immunisations and increased school enrolments. t he australian approach differs markedly in the extent to which intervention occurs in welfare recipients’ lives.

few dispute that the lives of many families dependent on income support could be improved by ensuring income is allocated towards necessities and spending on alcohol, drugs and gambling reduced. h owever, critics have highlighted a range of concerns with recent policy in this area. e vidence as to the effectiveness of these policies is limited, administrative costs are high and a question persists as to whether it is possible to encourage people to take responsibility for themselves if they do not have control over important aspects of their lives. s ome critics have also argued that targeting personal behaviour by withholding income payments is inconsistent with the rights-based approach to income support that has been a feature of welfare policy in a ustralia since World War ii .

a further issue is that the main objectives of this more paternalist approach to welfare—ameliorating the detrimental effects of welfare and encouraging

Tackling ‘corrosive’ welfare Dr luke buckmaster and m ichael k lapdor, s ocial Policy s ection

participation—may not always be complementary. for example, it could be that income management simply helps individuals to manage their livelihoods as ‘passive’ welfare recipients better. a ddressing both objectives will most likely require reforms to welfare payment delivery to be coordinated with other policies addressing disadvantage, employment participation and opportunity, as well as access to services; that is, policies aimed at the non-behavioural factors affecting the lives of ‘at-risk’ welfare recipients.

both l abor and the Coalition have expressed commitment to addressing long-term welfare dependency, and for this to be achieved through greater government control over the spending of income support recipients. t he push for income management to become a mainstream approach to welfare delivery, and for further reforms to the social security system in terms of conditionality, raise a number of questions for the new parliament to address:

What evidence will be required to evaluate • whether the new approach to welfare has been a success? What, if any, limits ought there to be on the •

nature and extent of interventions in the lives of welfare recipients? to what extent can these reforms deliver • enduring changes to the behaviour of

individuals and to the lives of those in disadvantaged communities in a ustralia?

library publications and key documents

l buckmaster, J g ardiner- garden, m t homas and D s pooner, Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform and Reinstatement of Racial Discrimination Act) Bill 2009, bills digest, no. 94, 2009-10, Parliamentary l ibrary, Canberra, 2009, http://www.aph.gov.au/ library/pubs/bd/2009-10/10bd094.

pdf

australian i nstitute of h ealth and Welfare ( aihW), Report on the evaluation of income management in the Northern Territory, AIHW, Canberra, 2009, http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/indigenous/pubs/nter_reports/Pages/ income_management_evaluation.asp x

senate Community a ffairs l egislation Committee, Report of the inquiry into the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform and Reinstatement of Racial Discrimination Act) Bill 2009 and two related Bills, the senate, Canberra, m arch 2010, http://aph.gov.au/ senate/committee/clac_ctte/soc_sec_ welfare_reform_racial_discrim_09/index. htm

new income management

commenced July 2010 • will affect 20 000 people in the n orthern • territory including disengaged youth and long-term welfare recipients

to cost $350 million over four years plus $53 • million for support services.

Cape y ork project

welfare reform trial in four communities • welfare recipients are referred to a f amily • responsibilities Commission ( frC) for anti-social behaviour, criminal activity or if

their children fail to attend school frC can impose income management • and compel individuals to attend support services.

Wa pilot

child protection/income management trial in • Perth and the k imberley more than 200 hundred families have • volunteered for income management

more than 60 families placed on income • management as a result of a referral from state child protection. authorities.