The Concept of Australias Welfare System - Essay Example

Essay for Section 2 of Unit Assessment and Assignment . The Major Current Differences between the Liberal Party and the ALP in Australia on Welfare Copyright Abstract Australia has continued on its path towards a fundamental restructuring of the Australian capitalism under the government of Liberal Party Prime Minister John Howard. Neo – liberal programmes of economic deregulation, privatisation and support for business have continued, along with a transformation in labour relations and cuts in social welfare entitlements. The impetus in the welfare policy has shifted towards forcing people into paid work, because demographic changes have made it difficult for the Australian taxpayer to continue to support the long term welfare recipients. Although both the Labour and Liberal parties agree that something will have to be done to improve the welfare system, the Labour party wants a softer implementation of reforms in the interest of the Australian workers. This brief essay presents a discussion of the relatively recent Labour and Liberal perspectives on welfare in Australia. Declaration I hereby certify that, except where cited in the text, this work is the result of the research carried out by the author of this study. The main content of the study which has been presented contains work that has not previously been reported anywhere. _____________________________________________ (Name and Signature of Author) September 2007 This write-up is submitted in fulfilment for the requirements related to an essay on The Differences of Opinion between the Liberal Party and the ALP on Policy related to Welfare in Australia. Biographical Sketch Acknowledgements Contents Introduction 1 An Analysis of the Current Liberal and Labour Thinking on Welfare in Australia 3 Conclusion 6 Bibliography / References 8 (This page intentionally blank) Introduction Australia’s welfare system is somewhat different from the system which exists in many nations, because welfare in Australia is funded from general government revenue and is non – contributory, with a lack of dependency on previous earnings (Wilson, 2000, Pp. 1 – 4). A need for the reform of this system has been felt for some time because of economic and demographic changes which have presented a picture that indicates that the number of people on welfare has increased substantially, with fewer working men. The number of women who are working has seen a significant increase. Inequality in the distribution of work has meant that there are more dual worker families and also more families with no bread winners who are working. Government spending on welfare has been a cause for concern for some time, but this has to be considered in the context of assisting the unemployed and building new lives for those who are in need. Welfare recipients include the unemployed, lone parents, partners / carers / parents or those with an illness or a disability. Payments are made in the form of pensions or allowances and the system has attempted to cater for those who are likely to be in need of long – term support, such as the widows, the disabled and single parents. Up to 1.5 million individuals in a population of about 16 million, especially the older unemployed and the disabled have been considered as being at long – term risk of dependency on the welfare system. The Final Report of the Reference Group on Welfare Reform indicated that “Australia’s social support system should activate, enhance and support people’s capacities for economic and social participation” (Wilson, 2000, Pp. 19). Individualised service delivery, simpler income support structures, incentives and financial assistance, mutual obligations and social partnerships were emphasised as being a part of a long – term vision for the welfare system in Australia. However, the major political parties in Australia have not exactly seen eye – to –eye on the manner in which the welfare system should be improved, with the Liberal and Labour Parties have rather different attitudes to welfare (Mendes, 2003, Pp. 11 – 31). The Labour Party in Australia has been supportive of public sector solutions to welfare because its membership consists of those who are working class people and it is these people who are more likely to have to endure hardships if their lives are affected by a misfortune. The Liberal Party, which is the major political party in a coalition government, prefers private solutions and some sort of work effort in exchange for welfare assistance. Liberal policies are influenced by the thinking of classes which can be considered to be a success in Australia and although the Liberals do have a point about pushing people to work and self – regeneration, the complexity of practical situations sometimes do mean that individuals and families will need to be assisted in a country in which the tax payer expects that the government will judiciously utilise their tax dollar to assist the needy. However, the political opinion has broadly evolved over time, with the Australian civil service experimenting with the manner in which the welfare policy ought to be implemented and the difference in the Liberal and Labour thinking is one of emphasis rather then principle. In view of the fact that evolution in thinking and experiments related to implementation has influenced opinions, it is appropriate to investigate the relatively recent differences in the thinking of the two major political groups in Australia. Newspaper reports continue to both inform and shape public and political opinion and it is these reports that can assist in an analysis of the latest issues related to welfare in Australia (The Australian, 2007, Search Results for Work to Welfare related stories). This brief essay presents a discussion of the major current differences in the Liberal and Labour thinking about welfare issues. An Analysis of the Current Liberal and Labour Thinking on Welfare in Australia Although the Liberal Party in Australia has been a party which has been influenced by the social liberal, classical liberal and the social conservative tradition, it has increasingly appeared in the recent years that the party has been taken over by the neoliberals who have had a tendency to emphasise individual rights, free market rationality and self – help (Mendes, 2003, Pp. 31 – 51). The Liberal Party of the late 1940s has had little to offer to the new ideology and it has proven to be difficult to create a truly inclusive national Liberal Party (White, 1994, “The Origins of the Modern Liberal Party”). In the relatively recent past, the Liberal Party in Australia has constantly trued to shift the welfare agenda to private charitable welfare and emphasised that a distinction be made between the ‘genuinely needy’ or the deserving poor and those who have been called the ‘undeserving poor’. The undeserving poor presumably refer to those who have a tendency for self – destruction by not seriously trying to work or indulging in destructive activities including gambling or substance abuse etc. As a political party in government, the Liberal Party has increasingly tried to tighten up on welfare payments and it has also tried to push those who try to seek welfare assistance to seek jobs and to become productive earners. The Liberal Party thinking prefers providing government assistance to employers for enhancing economic activity that will provide jobs to the deserving poor rather then to provide welfare payments and to somehow control those who squander their funds on culturally acceptable but destructive Australia pursuits including alcoholism or gambling etc in order to shift their welfare provided spending on the essentials that are necessary to maintain their wellbeing. In a recent speech, John Howard the Liberal Australian Prime Minister strongly defended his party’s work to welfare policies and declared that these policies have resulted in a redistribution of support to the lower end of the income earning brackets of the country and although the rich have become richer, the poor are now better off (Howard, 2007, Paragraph 18). The Liberal Party has been said to indulge in “wedge politics”, which refers to targeting stigmatised social issues in order to gain support for its welfare agenda (Wilson, 2001, Pp. 1 – 10). The Labour Party, on the other hand, has a stated policy of doing that which will make the Australian workers to be better off and this is the impression that is clearly evident from a speech in the House of Representatives by Kim Beazley, who has been a Federal Labour leader and who is now a member for Brand (Beazley, 2005, Paragraph 1). Labour policies have generally opposed deregulation of labour markets and although the Labour party also accepts that work for welfare is better then having a large number of individuals subsisting on Australian taxpayer, this party wants to go further then the Liberals in assisting those on welfare by providing assistance with retraining of those who have been unemployed for a relatively long time. The Labour Party Job Compact had previously guaranteed that job seekers on welfare benefits for 18 months or more were to receive intensive training and temporary employment for 6 – 12 months with generous wage subsidies (Mendes, 2003, Pp. 107). The Labour Party has accused the Liberals of squandering away values which Australians had fought hard for a hundred years (Beazley, 2005, Paragraph 2) and wants softer implementation of welfare reforms. It will appear from the recent news reports related to welfare that Australia has embarked on a policy of “work – forcing” and disciplinary approach to welfare reform. Attempts are now being made to drive more people off welfare into any jobs which the labour market can create for them (Carney, 2007, Pp. 10). However, problems of unemployment in certain areas are acute and the younger workers are often the ones who are seriously affected, with youth unemployment running as high as 41 % in Wollongong (Wilson, 2007, “Young aspiring workers reject the surf bum label”). This clearly indicates that something has to be done to assist those who have tried very hard to get a job, but cannot work things out due to the nature of the employment market. Perhaps this is what motivates the Labour Party to take a softer stance on welfare reform. Conclusion It can be said that the new welfare policy in Australia is oriented towards pushing individuals who are receiving welfare support into jobs, but this too is not an easy task because it is not easy for a government to somehow stimulate the employment market to provide for everyone. Both the Labour Party supporters and the Liberals agree with this approach to welfare, but differences do exist about the rigour with which the welfare policy is to be implemented in a market in which very high unemployment rates are evident in certain areas, especially for the younger workers. In view of the fact that the resources of the Australian taxpayer are not limitless and real need may exist through no fault of the individual, a fine balancing act is required to deliver a decent welfare system for the country. (This page intentionally blank) Bibliography / References 1. Beazley, Kim. 2005. Speech - House of Representatives - 6th December 2005. Beazley, Kim. Retrieved: September 24, 2007. From: http://alp.org.au/media/1205/speloo070.php 2. Cahill, Damien. 2004. The radical neo-liberal movement and its impact upon Australian politics. Australasian Political Studies Association Conference University of Adelaide, 2004. Retrieved: September 24, 2007. From: http://www.adelaide.edu.au/apsa/docs_papers/Aust%20Pol/cahill.pdf 3. Carney, Terry. 2007. Welfare reform? Following the ‘work-first’ way. Brotherhood of St Laurence and University of Melbourne Centre for Public Policy 2007. Retrieved: September 24, 2007. From: http://www.bsl.org.au/pdfs/Carney_welfare_reform_work-first.pdf 4. Cook, Beth. 2005. Welfare “Reform” in Australia, 1975 to 2004: from entitlement to obligation. Queensland University of Technology. Retrieved: September 24, 2007. From: http://www.basicincome.qut.edu.au/docs/Beth%20Cook%20Coffee%20Paper%202004%20for%20Biga.doc 5. Cox, Lloyd. 2005. Trajectories of the Welfare State in New Zealand and Australia 1980-2003. La Trobe University. Retrieved: September 24, 2007. From: http://saanz.rsnz.org/Cox.doc 6. Fenna, A. & York University (North York, O. 1992, Social origins of social policy: the emergence of welfare states in Australia and Canada 1900-1945 North York, Ont.: York University. 7. Graycar, A. 1979. Welfare politics in Australia: a study in policy analysis London: Macmillan. 8. Henman, P. 2002.The poverty of welfare reform discourse, in T. Eardley and B. Bradbury, Eds. Competing Visions: Refereed Proceedings of the National Social Policy Conference 2001, SPRC Report 1/02, Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 180-191. Retrieved: September 24, 2007. From: http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/nspc2001/NSPC%202001Papers/Henman.pdf 9. Howard, John. 2007. Address to the Liberal Party of Australia - Victoria Division - State Council Meeting Sofitel Hotel, Melbourne on 28 April 2007. Howard. John. Retrieved: September 24, 2007. From: http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Speech/2007/Speech24285.cfm 10. Jamrozik, A., Saunders, P., University of New South Wales. Social Policy Research Centre., & National Social Policy Conference (1989, Social policy in Australia: what future for the welfare state? proceedings of National Social Policy Conference, Sydney, 5-7 July 1989 Sydney: University of New South Wales Social Welfare Research Centre. 11. Marston, G. & McDonald, C. 2006. Analysing social policy: a governmental approach Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. 12. Mendes, Philip. 2003. Australia's Welfare Wars: The Players, the Politics and the Ideologies. University of New South Wales Press. Retrieved: September 24, 2007. From: http://books.google.com/books?id=_8KM6p90pv0C&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=liberal+party+and+the+alp+on+work+to+welfare+in+australia&source=web&ots=41d_Bc8u6X&sig=WmvN_4u-yAhE19JVYu2_aYBYI9U 13. Mishra, R. 1990. The welfare state in capitalist society: policies of retrenchment and maintenance in Europe, North America and Australia London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. 14. Myers, G. C. & Australia. Social Welfare Policy Secretariat. 1981. Population and public welfare policy in Australia: a report to the [Social Welfare Policy] Secretariat Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. 15. Social policy, I. A., Saunders, P., Jamrozik, A., & University of New South Wales. Social Welfare Research Centre. 1989. Social policy in Australia: what future for the welfare state? : National social policy conference: Papers and addresses Kensington, NSW: Social Welfare Research Centre University of New South Wales. 16. The Australian. 2007. Search Results for “Work to Welfare”. The Australian. Retrieved: September 24, 2007. From: http://searchresults.news.com.au/Search.action?site=theaustralian&searchoption=yes&queryterm=Work%20to%20Welfare&pageidx=2 17. Wearing, M. & Berreen, R. 1994. Welfare & social policy in Australia: the distribution of advantage Sydney; Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace. 18. White, Harold. 1994. The Origins of the Modern Liberal Party - A lecture by Harold White Fellow, Ian Hancock, at the National Library of Australia, Canberra, 1994. National Library of Australia. Retrieved: September 24, 2007. From: http://www.nla.gov.au/grants/haroldwhite/papers/ihancock.html 19. Wilson, Serena. 2000. Welfare to work policies in Australia and the welfare reform process. The Year 2000 International Research Conference on Social Security Helsinki, 25-27 September 2000. Retrieved: September 24, 2007. From: http://www.issa.int/pdf/helsinki2000/topic4/2wilson.pdf 20. Wilson, Lauren and Berkovic, Nicola. (2007). Young aspiring workers reject the surf bum label. The Australian, September 18, 2007. Retrieved: September 24, 2007. From: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22436549-5006784,00.html 21. Wilson, Shaun and Turnbull, Nick. 2001. Wedge Politics and Welfare Reform in Australia. Australian Journal of Politics and History. Retrieved: September 24, 2007. From: http://dspace.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/41763/2/wilsonpaper.pdf Analysis for Section 1 of Unit Assessment and Assignment . An Analysis of the Latest in Australia’s Welfare Wars Australians have always favoured giving a hand to those who are in need, rather then a handout. However, giving a hand instead of a handout means that that it is also important to somehow ensure that individuals who are in need of assistance do not indulge in acts of self destruction and use the hand that is being extended in a constructive manner. In his article entitled “White welfare gets some tough love”, which was published in The Australian newspaper of Saturday September 15, 2007, Mr. Faulkner presents a news story about a white single mother of three children living in Adelaide’s depressed “Peachy Belt” – a small cluster of hard luck suburbs in the city’s north (Faulkner, 2007, “White welfare gets some tough love”). Although, the author is sympathetic to the plight of a single mother, who is likely to be subjected to Canberra’s “carrot and stick” approach to paying welfare, he is also aware of the fact that Canberra is getting tough and that Aborigines in the Northern Territory were recently provided welfare in a manner that will make it difficult for them to squander what they received on alcohol, drugs and gambling. Australians and their government will prefer that what is provided as welfare assistance to needy Australians be used for essentials and for finding a way out of their difficulties. However, it appears that many unemployed residents of the area in which the single mother lives prefer to take a bit of a punt in order to see if welfare payments can somehow be turned into something far more substantial by spending what they do receive on gambling. Unfortunately, such an approach to solving financial problems has a very minute chance of success and often leaves those who attempt it in greater difficulties. It is important to break the poverty cycle and although many Australians like having a bit of fun, this is not supposed to be the way to go when an individual is receiving welfare support. Welfare that will be delivered through swipe cards which reserve a certain percentage of what is received for essentials, such as food and rent, are being proposed as a solution and government wants to somehow enhance economic activity in economically depressed areas with the help of local business so that the unemployed can be put to work. Although Mr. Faulkner tries hard to take a neutral stance when presenting facts in his article, it is clear that the author is somewhat inclined towards economic rationalism, despite a certain sense of sympathy for those who have been less then fortunate. The article is in fact about the proposed changes in the ways in which welfare recipients are expected to be treated in the future, but the author’s choice of characters that are presented and an indication of the difficulties of those who have to be provided support does support the previous observation and this is something which has to be agreed with, because it is important to rebuild lives. Appendix A – The Article References / Bibliography 1. Faulkner, Andrew. 2007. White welfare gets some tough love. The Australian, September 15, 2007. Retrieved: September 22, 2007. From: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,22421013-2702,00.html?from=public_rss Read More