tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/welfare-reform-6422/articlesWelfare reform – The Conversation2023-07-04T20:08:39Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2023372023-07-04T20:08:39Z2023-07-04T20:08:39Z‘The culmination of years of suffering’: what can we expect from the robodebt royal commission’s final report?<p>On Friday, the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme will submit its final report to the federal government, which is expected to release it to the public shortly thereafter.</p>
<p>The report will be the culmination of years of suffering and work by victims to hold their government to account. </p>
<p>So what can we expect?</p>
<h2>Conspiracy or ‘stuff up’?</h2>
<p>The headline questions the commission will adjudicate are confronting:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Did officials at one Commonwealth department deceive another when removing key legal and policy warnings from the cabinet submission that launched robodebt?</p></li>
<li><p>Even worse, did two departments collude to remove references to the unlawful method of averaging?</p></li>
<li><p>Did department officials mislead the Commonwealth ombudsman in its 2017 investigation?</p></li>
<li><p>Why was damning legal advice left unactioned by officials?</p></li>
</ul>
<p>The whistleblowing of true public servants like former Centrelink employee <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/dec/03/you-are-being-misled-the-centrelink-worker-who-tried-to-stop-robodebt-as-it-started">Colleen Taylor</a> means the report’s release will not be a dark day for the whole public service.</p>
<p>It will, rather, collapse the established worldview of its senior executive class. A worldview that denies Australians the facts about their government and fobs off independent oversight.</p>
<p>Adverse findings against individuals will not be lightly reached. Hearings, however viral they go, only explore possibilities, but reports make careful findings. Shockingly poor record creation practices in Commonwealth agencies may limit the character of what can be found.</p>
<p>If it recommends further investigation into individuals’ conduct, the report’s release will be tailored to avoid prejudicing any future proceedings.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1635045723220656129"}"></div></p>
<h2>Standards in political life</h2>
<p>Coverage surged for politicians’ appearances at the commission, with many holding out for “who knew what when” moments. In giving evidence, politicians often relied on public servants’ failure to deliver warnings at key moments in the scheme. Ministers who oversaw robodebt consistently used this lack of frank advice to defend their failure to stop it.</p>
<p>The final report will spend time reacquainting our political class with basic expectations of responsible government and standards in public life.</p>
<p>Our public representatives emerged as utterly insubstantial figures, consumed by marketing political images like “welfare cop” and party political combat. They displayed a striking lack of curiosity towards key questions. Adverse information flowed around, rather than through them.</p>
<p>The final report will reflect on standards in our public life and the ethical lows that are plumbed for party political ends: for example, the <a href="https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2023/02/04/fw-urgent-tudge-leaked-personal-data-cow-welfare-critics">leaking of private information</a> by the office of then-Human Services Minister Alan Tudge to “correct the record” and discourage people speaking out.</p>
<p>It will tackle <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-02/qld-robodebt-scheme-government-royal-commission-stuart-robert/102034796">warped ideas</a> of ministerial responsibility and cabinet solidarity that see facts or views suppressed in the name of defending a position.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-robodebt-scheme-failed-tests-of-lawfulness-impartiality-integrity-and-trust-193832">The Robodebt scheme failed tests of lawfulness, impartiality, integrity and trust</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This commission was fiercely independent, despite <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/25/witch-hunt-peter-dutton-decries-morrisons-ministries-inquiry-and-robodebt-royal-commission">misdirected efforts</a> by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton to portray it as a “witchhunt”.</p>
<p>It painstakingly examined the history of unlawful income averaging (which was used to calculate robodebts), setting out <a href="https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/dutton-misleads-with-shorten-robodebt-claim/">the fundamental differences</a> in investigation approaches over time. It found <a href="https://robodebt.royalcommission.gov.au/system/files/exhibit/Exhibit%208737%20-%20CTH.9999.0001.0041_R%20-%20%5BFinal%5D%20Services%20Australia%20-%20Updated%20Response%20to%20NTG-0014%20%5B27%20October%202022%5D%20%5BCLEAN%5D.pdf">2010 documents</a> describing the use of averaging as a last resort to close files where evidence was not available.</p>
<p>It uncovered the <a href="https://robodebt.royalcommission.gov.au/system/files/exhibit/Exhibit%204-6548%20-%20CTH.4000.0068.4975%20-%20310120%20Remediation%20user%20stories_1.pdf">corners cut</a> in remediation, as debts such as these were never paid back. These are the invisible spaces no political slogans ever address, where unapproved practices take root against people who can’t argue back.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1636218449230807040"}"></div></p>
<h2>Access to justice at the frontline</h2>
<p>The governance dynamics that sustained robodebt are not limited to a certain time or place. Consider <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/AATA//2023/1286.html">the unlawfully crude use</a> of bank statements by Services Australia when reprocessing robodebts, which was called out by an appeals tribunal in May. </p>
<p>Our social security system is <a href="https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/AATA/2023/719.html">still failing</a> to provide people with disability adequate reasons for life-changing pension decisions.</p>
<p>Robodebt used <a href="https://robodebt.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/exhibit-4-7628-cth100000089520-attachment-d-dhs-population-insights">behavioural economics approaches</a> to engineer feelings of shame and prevent legal consciousness from forming.</p>
<p>It gamed our administrative law system to overwrite or rapture the debts of those who did complain, while nothing changed on the frontline.</p>
<p>It imposed an administrative burden on those unable to carry it, confident they would triage the trauma and cop the debt.</p>
<p>We must have legal reform to oblige Centrelink to implement tribunal standards of decision-making where it matters: right at the frontline.</p>
<h2>Building a culture of accountability</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.themandarin.com.au/217248-gordon-de-brouwer-apologises-for-robodebt-flags-ses-crackdown/">early signs</a> are that Australian Public Service leaders are pursuing a robodebt response that centres on non-binding, internal cultural reforms put forward by themselves.</p>
<p>When it comes to careerism or the pursuit of power, history tells us human nature will not be changed by refreshed seminars on ethics. You need to change the underlying relationships of power and accountability.</p>
<p>Change is always hard. But we know what stops it. Consider a freedom of information appeal handed down in the last week of the royal commission. </p>
<p>Six long years ago, transparency advocate Justin Warren sought the weekly manager reports on robodebt’s disastrous launch. Services Australia refused to hand them over. About 2,220 days later, the information commissioner (<a href="https://www.themandarin.com.au/213913-foi-commissioner-resigns-says-change-needed-to-address-timeliness-of-reviews/">who resigned</a> in protest recently) <a href="https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/AICmr/2023/13.html">had to order</a> their release. He found the basis Services Australia thought they could even try denying the documents was “not readily apparent”. </p>
<p>Beware those who offer “cultural” fixes and non-binding reassurances to self-correct. The Albanese government should not fall back on the very institutions who never fully investigated or acted until the political fluke of an exceptional royal commission.</p>
<p>Future scandals will be prevented by the things that stopped robodebt: access to facts, firm legal rights and enforceable remedies for injustice.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/202337/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Darren O'Donovan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Beware those who offer ‘cultural’ fixes and non-binding reassurances. The government shouldn’t fall back on the very institutions that never fully acted until a royal commission.Darren O'Donovan, Senior Lecturer in Administrative Law, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1795732022-03-21T03:18:35Z2022-03-21T03:18:35ZThe Greens’ liveable income guarantee is a serious idea the major parties won’t touch – yet<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/453187/original/file-20220321-17-1i5mmmm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5166%2C2630&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Australian Greens have lobbed a large rock into the placid pool of economic policy by announcing a proposal for a “<a href="https://www.aap.com.au/news/greens-unveil-89b-income-support-increase/">Liveable Income Guarantee</a>”. </p>
<p>The policy would increase all income support payments – for those looking for work, studying full-time or unable to work because of age, disability or caring responsibilities – to A$88 a day (about $32,000 a year) from July 2023. </p>
<p>This payment level is based on the poverty line calculated by the <a href="https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/research/labour/henderson-poverty-line">Melbourne Institute</a>. Increases to all payments would be indexed to changes to the poverty line. The policy would also scrap mutual obligation programs such as “work for the dole” and relax eligibility restrictions.</p>
<p>Currently welfare payments vary widely, with the age pension for a single person being about $70 a day, while JobSeeker is about $44 a day. </p>
<hr>
<p><strong>JobSeeker vs age pension</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/371424/original/file-20201126-25-1hrhd0f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/371424/original/file-20201126-25-1hrhd0f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/371424/original/file-20201126-25-1hrhd0f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=240&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371424/original/file-20201126-25-1hrhd0f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=240&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371424/original/file-20201126-25-1hrhd0f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=240&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371424/original/file-20201126-25-1hrhd0f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=301&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371424/original/file-20201126-25-1hrhd0f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=301&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371424/original/file-20201126-25-1hrhd0f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=301&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/individuals/services/centrelink/age-pension/how-much-you-can-get">Source: Ben Phillips ANU, Services Australia</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>This is the first significant economic policy in the undeclared campaign for the next federal election campaign. Up to to this point it looked like there wouldn’t be much to talk about.</p>
<p>Apart from some sweeteners carefully targeted at marginal seats and voting blocs, and small-scale initiatives like Labor’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/labors-proposed-10-billion-social-housing-fund-isnt-big-as-it-seems-but-it-could-work-174406">social housing program</a>, the only significant new policy from either major party likely to follow the election is the “Stage 3” tax cuts legislated under the Turnbull government. </p>
<p>These cuts are supported by both the government and the opposition. Both major parties have also committed to “budget repair”, a euphemism for expenditure cuts, but are unlikely to provide any details until after the election.</p>
<h2>COVID-19 changed the landscape</h2>
<p>The Greens’ plan shares its name, and many of its design features, <a href="https://theconversation.com/forget-jobseeker-in-our-post-covid-economy-australia-needs-a-liveable-income-guarantee-instead-141535">with a proposal</a> put forward in July 2020 by Tim Dunlop, Elise Klein and myself. </p>
<p>We proposed this after the massive expansion of the JobSeeker program to deal with COVID-19 demonstrated Australia did have the resources to eliminate most sources of poverty when it was considered necessary to do so. We argued a liveable income guarantee would be an ideal way to make the achievements of JobSeeker permanent. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/forget-jobseeker-in-our-post-covid-economy-australia-needs-a-liveable-income-guarantee-instead-141535">Forget JobSeeker. In our post-COVID economy, Australia needs a 'liveable income guarantee' instead</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The Greens’ policy differs from our 2020 proposal in two main respects. </p>
<p>First, it is more generous, raising all benefits. The Parliamentary Budget Office has calculated this will cost about $43.7 billion in the first year, and $44.9 billion in the second.</p>
<p>On the other hand, we proposed expanding payment eligibility to people engaged in volunteering, community projects and artistic and creative activity. The Greens’ proposal maintains the existing set of benefit categories. </p>
<h2>How to pay for liveable welfare payments</h2>
<p>As debt and deficits have faded as a political point-scoring issue, the idea that all new spending programs need to be matched with other cuts or extra revenue has become less compelling. </p>
<p>But resources used for one public program can’t be used for other programs, or for private expenditure. So it’s important to ask what kinds of measures could offset the call on public resources proposed in the liveable income guarantee. </p>
<p>The option with the biggest impact would be to cancel or defer the Stage 3 tax cuts, which will cost an estimated $18-20 billion a year. That would offset nearly half the money spent on the liveable income guarantee. </p>
<p>The Greens have also pointed to tax measures they have previously proposed, including a billionaires tax and a corporate super-profits tax. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-camouflage-150-billion-in-spending-call-it-tax-expenditure-176236">How to camouflage $150 billion in spending: call it 'tax expenditure'</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It has always hard to estimate how much revenue such measures would collect, given the capacity of wealthy individuals and corporations to rearrange tax affairs. </p>
<p>On the other hand, with improved global cooperation on tax, thanks mainly to initiatives from the OECD, there is more capacity to make billionaires and large corporations pay a fairer share of the costs of the society that supports them.</p>
<p>Another source of offsets could arise from what used to be called “<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-camouflage-150-billion-in-spending-call-it-tax-expenditure-176236">tax expenditures</a>” and are now referred to more obscurely as tax benchmark variations. These are tax concessions or exemptions applying to particular activities or classes of taxpayer.</p>
<p>These total about <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-camouflage-150-billion-in-spending-call-it-tax-expenditure-176236">$150 billion a year</a> according to the latest Treasury estimates. The biggest elements are concessions on capital gains tax and superannuation.</p>
<h2>A policy for serious debate</h2>
<p>The Greens proposal would greatly improve the position of millions of Australians on low incomes at the expense of reducing the disposable incomes and wealth of the well-off, with a particular impact on the very rich. </p>
<p>Barring a complete revolution in Australian politics, there’s no chance the next election will lead to such a result, or even a serious move in that direction. </p>
<p>It is a striking commentary that the Greens’ Liveable Income Guarantee will be rejected by a government led by Scott Morrison, a self-declared conservative, and also by Anthony Albanese, a leader from the Labor Party faction still sometimes called the “socialist left”.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-happens-when-you-free-unemployed-australians-from-mutual-obligations-and-boost-their-benefits-we-just-found-out-157506">What happens when you free unemployed Australians from 'mutual obligations' and boost their benefits? We just found out</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Based on current polls, the most that millions of Australians living in poverty can hope for is a Labor government in need of Green support raising benefits a little, and softening some of the most oppressive features of the current system.</p>
<p>But the point of an election is to debate and decide on the future direction of the country. By putting forward this bold initiative, the Greens are providing us the chance to have such a debate. </p>
<p>Other Greens proposals, like phasing out the use of coal, once seen as outside the realm of possibility, are now widely accepted. Similarly, the liveable income guarantee may make its way on to the policy agenda for the future.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/179573/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Quiggin has undertaken research on the design of a Liveable Income Guarantee, but has not received external funding for this work. He is not a member of any political party.</span></em></p>The plan to increase all income support payments to a minimum of $88 a day is the first major economic proposal of the federal election campaign.John Quiggin, Professor, School of Economics, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1601552021-07-23T12:12:41Z2021-07-23T12:12:41ZThe Trump administration feuded with state and local leaders over pandemic response – now the Biden administration is trying to turn back a page in history<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/412521/original/file-20210721-19-1bo2ds5.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C5%2C3681%2C2445&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">President Biden and Vice President Harris met on Feb. 12, 2021, with governors and mayors to discuss supporting them in the fight against COVID-19. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/president-joe-biden-and-vice-president-kamala-harris-meet-news-photo/1301799167?adppopup=true">Pete Marovich-Pool/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As the U.S. recovers from the pandemic, the Biden administration is working to rebuild relationships across levels of government, from the top to the bottom, that were strained during the presidency of Donald Trump. </p>
<p>In November 2020, <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/527241-biden-pledges-to-work-with-mayors">Biden</a> offered urban leaders a seat at the table in coronavirus recovery efforts, promising to avoid partisanship. Addressing the National League of Cities in March 2021, <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/03/08/remarks-by-vice-president-harris-at-national-league-of-cities-conference/">Harris praised</a> urban leadership on COVID-19 – <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/05/04/seattles-leaders-let-scientists-take-the-lead-new-yorks-did-not">cities like Seattle</a> and <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2020/04/07/coronavirus-lessons-from-new-york-and-san-francisco/">New York</a> were among the first to respond to the pandemic, developing testing protocols, tracking new infections and supplying equipment for hospitals – and highlighted the administration’s plans to help pay for improvements to local infrastructure. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/09/why-states-and-the-federal-government-are-bidding-on-ppe.html">COVID-19 crisis highlighted</a> the importance of government leaders working together. </p>
<p><a href="https://wwnorton.com/college/polisci/american-government12/brief/ch/03/outline.aspx">The U.S. government system, called federalism</a>, shares power among the national, state and local governments. This system allows local control over most day-to-day government decisions. Local control means that policies can be tailored to the needs and limitations of each community. </p>
<p>But with the onset of COVID-19 in early 2020, tensions in this shared system <a href="https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.0549">boiled over</a>. Instead of collaborating, the federal government <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020942060">rebuffed state and local governments</a> desperate for critical information and lifesaving supplies. </p>
<p>States and cities competed over medical equipment, testing capacity and supplies and other needs. Densely populated cities, many feuding with the federal government, were hardest hit. </p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13243">Federalism seemed to fail</a>, slowing the response and leading to deaths. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/412555/original/file-20210722-15-15sk4ec.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/412555/original/file-20210722-15-15sk4ec.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/412555/original/file-20210722-15-15sk4ec.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=379&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/412555/original/file-20210722-15-15sk4ec.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=379&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/412555/original/file-20210722-15-15sk4ec.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=379&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/412555/original/file-20210722-15-15sk4ec.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/412555/original/file-20210722-15-15sk4ec.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/412555/original/file-20210722-15-15sk4ec.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser called successfully in 2016 for raising the district’s minimum wage to $15, stepping in where the federal government had failed to act.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/MayorDistrictofColumbia/03d2c2263ee44f9da7a342153771c682/photo?Query=Muriel%20AND%20Bowser&mediaType=photo&sortBy=&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=649&currentItemNo=5">AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Change in approach</h2>
<p>In contrast to the previous administration, the Biden administration is treating local governments as key partners in a variety of areas, including public health. </p>
<p>It has taken steps to give local policymakers more <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/white-house-shift-how-vaccines-are-allocated-states-biden-sets-n1266299">control over the allocation</a> and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/04/us/politics/biden-vaccination-strategy.html">distribution</a> of COVID-19 vaccinations, while <a href="https://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2021/05/05/biden-covid19-vaccine-patent-rights/">setting national policies</a> to hasten the availability of vaccines. </p>
<p>Reasserting closer relationships between the federal government and state and local partners may signal a shift toward more collaboration in general.</p>
<p>The federal government can use its power and position to drive change at the local level. A more collaborative relationship can help the federal government <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13257">understand communities’ needs</a>, leading to new policies and priorities. Close partnership may also increase awareness of federal resources that are available, helping state and local governments identify programs to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087414530545">better support their residents</a>. </p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.0549">But as our research</a> shows, federal dominance can also be counterproductive. </p>
<h2>How federalism does – and doesn’t – work</h2>
<p>Federal and state governments are responsible for national or regional priorities, such as defense, diplomacy and the raising and redistribution of tax revenues.</p>
<p>But local governments deliver the most-used public services, including schools, transportation, parks and public health. As a result, local governments are perhaps the most important in people’s daily lives. </p>
<p>Local governments both make and implement policy. In areas where the federal and state governments are silent or inactive, local governments often innovate to address community needs. That freedom to innovate helps local governments generate policies that can work their way up and across the federal system. </p>
<p>For example, despite backlash from state and national leaders, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjx026">various cities</a> – like Austin, Los Angeles, Virginia Beach and Washington, D.C. – have led the way on social and environmental policies, adopting and advocating for <a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/708940">higher minimum wages</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.06.012">fracking limitations</a>, <a href="https://www.acslaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/The-Rise-of-Second-Amendment-Sanctuaries.pdf">sanctuaries for Second Amendment rights</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-06-2012-0052">reducing law enforcement violence</a>. </p>
<p><a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0160323X0003200202">Scholars have noted changes</a> in the dynamics of these relationships throughout history. During some eras, the federal government has more power over policymaking. At other times, state and local governments exert greater influence. </p>
<p>For example, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society welfare programs – Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps – <a href="https://millercenter.org/president/lbjohnson/domestic-affairs">increased the federal government’s influence</a> on state and local governments. New federal requirements <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/07343469.2016.1263979">mandated spending</a> on social programs, often requiring matching funds from state and local governments. And new state and local agencies had to be established to implement federal priorities. </p>
<p>Federal dollars shared with local governments to fight poverty came with <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40638.pdf">strings attached</a>. Examples include requirements to meet environmental standards and adopt nondiscrimination policies. </p>
<p>With the advent of welfare reform in the mid-1990s, the <a href="http://webarchive.urban.org/publications/306620.html">federal government relaxed some of these requirements</a>. As a result, state and local governments were given more flexibility over policy and spending decisions.</p>
<p>Our recent research indicates the balance of power in the federal system <a href="https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.0549">affects government performance and the safety of Americans</a>. During the COVID-19 response, the federal government failed to partner with state and local governments. As a result, there were problems finding and delivering crucial supplies like masks and ventilators, leading to needless deaths. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/412539/original/file-20210721-17-5nvegn.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="President Lyndon Johnson, sitting at his desk in a suit, tie and white shirt." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/412539/original/file-20210721-17-5nvegn.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/412539/original/file-20210721-17-5nvegn.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/412539/original/file-20210721-17-5nvegn.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/412539/original/file-20210721-17-5nvegn.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/412539/original/file-20210721-17-5nvegn.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/412539/original/file-20210721-17-5nvegn.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/412539/original/file-20210721-17-5nvegn.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">President Lyndon Johnson, shown here, expanded the authority of the federal government with his Great Society programs.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/LyndonJohnson/5beacfeddec6446d871b5b0f747dfb6f/photo?Query=Lyndon%20AND%20Johnson&mediaType=photo&sortBy=&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=1984&currentItemNo=17">AP Photo</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Critical work</h2>
<p>Historically, presidents have taken a range of approaches to managing the federal system. </p>
<p><a href="https://millercenter.org/president/lbjohnson/domestic-affairs">Johnson’s Great Society programs</a> expanded the authority of the federal government. Federal agencies gained the power to create and manage the details of the effort to eradicate poverty, hunger and discrimination.</p>
<p>President Richard Nixon’s “<a href="https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1980.tb01181.x">new federalism</a>” sent money in so-called “<a href="http://webarchive.urban.org/publications/310991.html">block grants</a>” to state and local governments to carry out different federal initiatives. This allowed local governments some power over policy design and implementation.</p>
<p>President Ronald Reagan’s “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubjof.a037757">pragmatic federalism</a>” emphasized privatization – using private-sector organizations to deliver services – and <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0160323X0003200202">decentralization</a>. Reagan used markets to deliver government services through competitive contracts and grants. </p>
<p>In more recent years, scholars have accused Presidents <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjm014">George W. Bush</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjr020">Barack Obama</a> of returning to the more coercive federalism of Johnson’s Great Society. To encourage state and local governments to adopt federal priorities, federal funds under these presidents again included strings, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0160323X17741723">increasing tensions</a> between these levels of government.</p>
<p>[<em>Understand what’s going on in Washington.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/politics-weekly-74/?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=politics-most">Sign up for The Conversation’s Politics Weekly</a>.]</p>
<p>Under President Trump, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjaa021">these tensions reached an apex</a>. Cities clashed with the federal government over immigration policy, law enforcement violence and health care – and, ultimately, over how to handle the pandemic. </p>
<h2>Biden’s approach</h2>
<p>Much of Biden’s proposed sweeping infrastructure plan addresses problems of rural and urban areas, such as caregiving, clean energy and health care. Other parts confront regional issues, such as transportation, where states play an important role. </p>
<p>With the understanding that coordination among all levels of government helps address problems more effectively, one step Biden might take is to revive the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubjof.a029901">U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations</a>. This commission operated from 1959 to 1996, offering presidents and federal agencies guidance on issues that spanned the federal system’s layers. The <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02325.x">commission helped address abuses of power</a> in the federal system and strengthened partnerships between governments. </p>
<p>As scholars, we know that policy issues are rarely independent. Global climate change affects local transportation policies, while health care issues are often closely linked to education and agriculture. </p>
<p>Local governments are important players in the federal system. Over the next year, they will be critical in continued efforts to vaccinate the American public and prepare for disasters like hurricanes and wildfires. </p>
<p>Given the complexity of modern policy problems, renewed consideration of how all levels of government can approach such big issues could help solve them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/160155/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>People can die when the federal government doesn’t work well with state and local governments – the COVID-19 crisis showed that. But the Biden administration has signaled an openness to collaboration.Ana Maria Dimand, Assistant Professor of Public Policy and Administration, Boise State UniversityBenjamin M. Brunjes, Assistant Professor of Public Policy, University of WashingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1575372021-03-29T14:44:08Z2021-03-29T14:44:08ZLandmark study shows how child grants empower women in Brazil and South Africa<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391480/original/file-20210324-13-9o4x3q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=8%2C458%2C2955%2C1535&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Grants were found to help improve the health, including mental health, of women</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EFE-EPA/Aaron Ufumeli</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Since the mid-1990s, new approaches to poverty reduction have been introduced in countries across Africa, Asia and Latin America. Some have involved income transfer programmes that target poorer citizens based on various means tests. Most have targeted female caregivers, primarily mothers.</p>
<p>The most expansive child and family grants are in Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Argentina and South Africa, which has put in place the biggest social provision net in <a href="https://www.unicef.org/french/files/Social_Protection_for_Children_and_their_Families_-_A_Global_Overview.pdf">Africa</a>. </p>
<p>The focus of our study was on Brazil and South Africa, two of the countries that have the largest programmes globally. The programmes were all designed to enhance child welfare. But as academics who have studied social policy in these countries, we felt it was important to assess the impact of income transfer programmes that move beyond a focus on child well-being only. In particular, we set out to examine if such transfers also elevated women in their homes, societies and political systems.</p>
<p>We set <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1468018120981421">out to compare</a> South Africa’s <a href="https://www.sassa.gov.za/Pages/Child-Support-Grant.aspx">child support grant</a> and Brazil’s <a href="https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---ro-bangkok/---sro-new_delhi/documents/presentation/wcms_175274.pdf">Bolsa Família</a>. </p>
<p>Bolsa Família was launched in 2003 and is the largest cash transfer programme for children and families in the world, reaching more than <a href="https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/case-study/bolsa-familia-in-brazil">46 million people a year</a> in Brazil. The country has a population of <a href="https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/brazil-population/">212 million people</a>. </p>
<p>South Africa’s child support grant system was launched in 1998. It makes monthly disbursements to 12.8 million children of a total population of <a href="https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/south-africa-population/">59.6 million people</a>. </p>
<p>Though they have different population sizes, Brazil and South Africa have a great deal in common. They have similar economic profiles and demographic characteristics. For example, among other similarities, they have the highest <a href="https://data.worldbank.org/">levels of income inequality</a>. </p>
<p>We conducted fieldwork in Doornkop, <a href="https://www.sahistory.org.za/place/soweto">Soweto</a>, a large, densely populated black urban settlement which comprises one third of Johannesburg’s population. We also looked at three municipalities across two states of Northeast Brazil. </p>
<p>We <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1468018120981421">found</a> that regular income assistance boosted the self-esteem and agency of women recipients in both countries. Our findings also underscored the added benefits of Brazil’s cash transfer programme because it is embedded in a stronger public health and social service network than is the case in South Africa. </p>
<p>The broader lesson we took from our findings was that income transfer programmes must operate in deliberate coordination with ancillary social service institutions to deliver the maximum benefits for women’s empowerment.</p>
<h2>Three dimensions of empowerment</h2>
<p>Our analysis centred on the impact of child and family cash transfers on three dimensions of empowerment. </p>
<p>First, whether adult women beneficiaries experienced heightened independence in financial decision making; second, whether they experienced enhanced control over their bodies; and, finally, whether they experienced psycho-social growth. </p>
<p>This was a departure from the way in which empowerment is usually conceptualised in academic research where the focus tends to be on how and whether gendered norms are changing. Instead, inspired by economist and philosopher <a href="http://heterodoxnews.com/ajes/readings/Sen1999-intro.pdf">Amartya Sen</a>, we viewed empowerment as the expansion of assets and capabilities that give women more control over their lives, enhancing agency to eliminate inequities and to unleash greater freedoms.</p>
<p>We listened closely to the voices of women recipients, in focus groups, individual conversations and surveys. </p>
<p>In the case of Bolsa Família, we also set out to understand the broader context in which the child support grant system connected with other social services. Brazil attaches conditions to its child support grants. These include children having to attend school regularly, children under five receiving standard immunisations and prenatal care for pregnant women. </p>
<p>To cover all these bases we interviewed teachers and principals, social workers and primary health care officials. </p>
<p>In South Africa, grant receipt is largely unconditional, except that a child should attend school. We assessed the impact of the child support grant on a range of social and economic indicators such as school attendance, access to health and other services, food security, income and livelihoods and women’s empowerment. </p>
<h2>Enhancing women’s status</h2>
<p>Our findings suggest the social grants triggered positive dynamics for women’s empowerment in both countries, even though the programmes were not intended for this purpose. </p>
<p>For example, the cash transfers contributed to advancing the standing of women beneficiaries. We found that:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>women were more able to meet basic needs, which reduced stress because they were better able to cope with the precariousness of living in poverty;</p></li>
<li><p>most women recipients experienced heightened financial control and decision making vis-à-vis their partners. They withdrew the money themselves and exercised control over spending decisions; </p></li>
<li><p>the grants helped boost self esteem and agency. Beneficiaries in both countries reported an increased sense of status in their communities.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>In both countries the grants helped reduce poverty levels, particularly among the lower quintile of earners. Both systems helped reduce the depth of poverty among female versus male-headed households.</p>
<p>But it was also clear that Bolsa Família went further than the child support grant in some key areas. For example, it induced beneficiaries to get basic identity documents, which <a href="https://www.unicef.org/southafrica/media/1226/file/ZAF-removing-barriers-to-accessing-child-grants-2016.pdf">improved access to a wider system of health and social work services</a>. Having documents also meant that women could better navigate bureaucracies and gave them a sense of social recognition and hope. </p>
<h2>Next steps</h2>
<p>The findings suggest that social grants can unleash positive dynamics for women’s empowerment even though the programmes were not intended for this purpose. Cash transfers don’t in and of themselves transform gender roles. Nevertheless, they help improve the standing of women beneficiaries in important ways. These include increasing social recognition, reducing levels of poverty and increasing financial control, decision making and agency. </p>
<p>But there are areas in which both Brazil and South Africa could improve. Cash transfers need to be combined with active labour market policies that boost job creation, livelihoods support and social services to enhance the economic inclusion of women. </p>
<p>There need to be skills and training programmes, as well as the provision of childcare and transportation.</p>
<p>Finally, our findings point to the need for South Africa to emulate Brazil by getting other government ministries and agencies on board to coordinate the delivery of other social services alongside the grants to boost results.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/157537/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Leila Patel receives funding from the Department of Science and Technology and the National Research Foundation for her Chair in Welfare and Social Development.
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Natasha Borges Sugiyama and Wendy Hunter do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Findings show that income transfer programmes must operate in deliberate coordination with ancillary social service institutions to deliver the maximum benefits for women’s empowerment.Leila Patel, Professor of Social Development Studies, University of JohannesburgNatasha Borges Sugiyama, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeWendy Hunter, Professor of Government, The University of Texas at AustinLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1415352020-07-01T20:09:05Z2020-07-01T20:09:05ZForget JobSeeker. In our post-COVID economy, Australia needs a ‘liveable income guarantee’ instead<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/344933/original/file-20200701-54135-1rvdxyr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=37%2C82%2C4944%2C2965&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Kelly Barnes/ AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>There are now less than three months to go before the expanded JobSeeker payment is <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/hammer-drop-2-3-million-people-facing-virus-welfare-cut-in-september-20200612-p551vz.html">due to end</a>.</p>
<p>As a result, there is a growing <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jun/28/coalition-plays-down-reports-of-permanent-75-rise-in-jobseeker-payment">political debate</a> about what should happen to the unemployment payment that was roughly doubled in April. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-improve-jobkeeper-hint-it-would-help-not-to-pay-businesses-late-140435">How to improve JobKeeper (hint: it would help not to pay businesses late)</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>While the government is <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/jobkeeper-and-seeker-revamps-planned-as-jobless-rate-hits-18-year-high-20200618-p553zs.html">reportedly considering</a> a revamp of both the JobSeeker and JobKeeper payments, we believe a much broader rethink is needed of the way we provide income support to people without a market income. </p>
<p>Instead of an unemployment payment - or the dole - we need a liveable income guarantee. </p>
<h2>‘Snapback’ is not going to happen</h2>
<p>It’s increasingly clear a “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/apr/02/morrison-insists-nothing-lasts-forever-especially-the-coronavirus-spending-spree">snapback</a>” to the pre-pandemic way of doing things is not realistic. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/344960/original/file-20200701-54135-13ida8t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/344960/original/file-20200701-54135-13ida8t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/344960/original/file-20200701-54135-13ida8t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/344960/original/file-20200701-54135-13ida8t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/344960/original/file-20200701-54135-13ida8t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/344960/original/file-20200701-54135-13ida8t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/344960/original/file-20200701-54135-13ida8t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Unemployment has jumped under coronavirus.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Stefan Postles/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The recent upsurge in coronavirus cases reminds us the new normal will see all sorts of economic and social activity constrained and subject to <a href="https://theconversation.com/these-10-postcodes-are-back-in-stage-3-coronavirus-lockdown-heres-what-that-means-141705">sudden lockdowns</a>. </p>
<p>As a June <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/recovery-book/">Grattan Institute report</a> has also shown, we need more fiscal stimulus, not a return to pre-pandemic fixations on debt and deficits. </p>
<p>On top of this, we have also seen grim announcements of <a href="https://theconversation.com/qantas-cutbacks-signal-hard-years-before-airlines-recover-141522">job cuts at Qantas</a>, the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/26/virgin-australia-administrators-agree-to-sell-airline-to-american-private-equity-firm-bain-capital">sale of Virgin</a> and <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/swimwear-brand-seafolly-collapses-due-to-crippling-covid-19-crisis-20200629-p557c9.html">other well-known brands collapsing</a>. Many smaller businesses will follow their lead. </p>
<p>Thousands of hardworking Australians, many of whom have never been unemployed before, will be thrown out of work - some of them for a long time. </p>
<h2>We need a new unemployment system for a new reality</h2>
<p>The system of unemployment benefits that was in place before COVID-19 worked on the assumption there were plenty of jobs for anyone capable of filling them. </p>
<p>Unemployment was therefore seen as reflecting personal defects - either unwillingness to work or, more charitably, a lack of particular skills needed for “job readiness”. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/no-big-bounce-2020-21-economic-survey-points-to-a-weak-recovery-getting-weaker-amid-declining-living-standards-141184">No big bounce: 2020-21 economic survey points to a weak recovery getting weaker, amid declining living standards</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This assumption was clearly untrue, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/oct/16/anglicare-finds-five-jobseekers-applying-for-every-entry-level-position">even before the pandemic</a>. As the long history of booms, busts and economic crises have shown us, all workers are vulnerable to losing their job through no fault of their own. </p>
<h2>There aren’t jobs for everyone</h2>
<p>The failure of labour markets to provide full employment is also seen in the increasing levels of underemployment, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2018/aug/09/underemployment-has-risen-and-its-young-people-paying-the-price">particularly among young people</a>. </p>
<p>Underemployed workers are, by definition, willing and able to work, and ineligible for unemployment benefits. But they are nonetheless unable to secure a full-time job. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/344967/original/file-20200701-54171-traphd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/344967/original/file-20200701-54171-traphd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/344967/original/file-20200701-54171-traphd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/344967/original/file-20200701-54171-traphd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/344967/original/file-20200701-54171-traphd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/344967/original/file-20200701-54171-traphd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/344967/original/file-20200701-54171-traphd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Young people are increasingly underemployed.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For an unacceptably high proportion of young people, the experience of the labour market has been one of stringing together part-time gigs, while trying unsuccessfully to start a career. <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/6202.0Main+Features1May%202020?OpenDocument">Official measures</a> of youth unemployment hit 16% in May. A further 25.8% of young Australians between 15 and 24 years old were underemployed. </p>
<h2>We need to do something different</h2>
<p>Even before coronavirus, there was a pressing need to reform the way we support unemployed people. </p>
<p>JobSeeker (or its predecessor, Newstart), had not been increased in real terms since 1994. Business, community groups and researchers were among the loud chorus pushing for an increase to the payment which, on average, is <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/morrison-government-to-prioritise-pensioners-over-newstart-recipients-20190724-p52afs.html">about A$45.50 a day</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/when-the-coronavirus-supplement-stops-jobseeker-needs-to-increase-by-185-a-week-138417">When the Coronavirus Supplement stops, JobSeeker needs to increase by $185 a week</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But to respond to the post-pandemic era, we need to make more comprehensive changes to the way we support unemployed and underemployed Australians, that acknowledge the scarcity of jobs. </p>
<h2>A liveable income guarantee</h2>
<p>Moving forward, we should adopt the concept of a liveable income guarantee or living wage. The living wage is closely linked to the idea of participation - starting from the principle everyone has a right to a liveable income and a responsibility to contribute to society.</p>
<p>Ideas of this kind, under names including “universal basic income”, “guaranteed minimum income” and “participation income” have been discussed since the 1960s. </p>
<p>They have attracted more attention in recent years as the failure of the current economic system to deliver full employment and broad improvements in living standards has become more apparent.</p>
<h2>How would a liveable income guarantee work?</h2>
<p>Many people already productively contribute to society in different ways, <a href="https://www.pwc.com.au/australia-in-transition/publications/understanding-the-unpaid-economy-mar17.pdf">such as caring</a>, but their work is largely obscured by the narrow measure of formal employment. </p>
<p>The social security system only partially supports those unable to work due to age, disability, unemployment, or caring needs. And support for all of these categories has been cut back and subjected to <a href="https://vcoss.org.au/analysis/when-welfare-isnt-fair/">conditionality</a> under successive governments, operating on the ideology of market liberalism.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-covid-19-recession-is-different-and-we-need-more-stimulus-to-deal-with-it-141037">Vital Signs: COVID-19 recession is different – and we need more stimulus to deal with it.</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There are many possibilities of what contributions could be included and “paid for” under a liveable income guarantee. Most of them have some precedent, but have not been considered as part of a comprehensive program of social participation. The options include:</p>
<ul>
<li>volunteering in support of organisations and causes</li>
<li>work on grant-funded community projects</li>
<li>support for beginning small businesses</li>
<li>ecological care projects </li>
<li>artistic and creative activity</li>
<li>full-time study.</li>
</ul>
<p>All of these productive activities should be given the same terms, income and assets test as the pension.</p>
<p>Including supplements, a single pensioner currently receives up to $944.30 per fortnight. This is paid to the aged, people with disability and carers. </p>
<p>Without the <a href="https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/individuals/services/centrelink/coronavirus-supplement">Coronavirus Supplement</a>, a single person on the JobSeeker Payment receives $574.50 a fortnight (including the Energy Supplement). </p>
<h2>How to pay for a living wage</h2>
<p>We estimate the annual cost of a policy along the lines suggested above would be less than $30 billion. About $10 billion a year would be needed to set all benefits equal to the age pension. The cost of expanded eligibility for the liveable income guarantee is harder to estimate, but unlikely to be more than $20 billion a year.</p>
<p>Most of this could be financed simply by <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/10/coalitions-income-tax-plan-will-gift-highest-earners-33bn">forgoing the tax cuts</a> for high income earners legislated by the Morrison government after it won the 2019 election. </p>
<h2>The welfare system should be more like the tax system</h2>
<p>When it comes to government checks on people’s participation in their chosen community activities, we need to look to the tax system. </p>
<p>Currently the welfare system imposes strict compliance rules to prevent cheating at the outset. By contrast, the tax system is operated on the basis of self-assessment. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Ind/Self-assessment-and-the-taxpayer/">Taxpayer declarations are assumed to be true in the first instance</a>, but subject to auditing. The liveable income guarantee should operate like this, where people submit their own participation declaration, as we do with our tax returns.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/344970/original/file-20200701-54146-145onj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/344970/original/file-20200701-54146-145onj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/344970/original/file-20200701-54146-145onj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/344970/original/file-20200701-54146-145onj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/344970/original/file-20200701-54146-145onj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/344970/original/file-20200701-54146-145onj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/344970/original/file-20200701-54146-145onj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The welfare system could operate more like the tax system when it comes to self-reporting.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">James Gourley/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Looking ahead, we need to focus on cooperation rather than competition. </p>
<p>This means giving everyone the opportunity to contribute to society, whether or not they generate a market income. A liveable income guarantee will be a crucial step towards this goal.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article was the product of discussion among a group that also included author Tim Dunlop, Western Sydney University emeritus professor <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jane-goodall-18327">Jane Goodall</a> and QUT senior lecturer Dr Jenni Mays.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/141535/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Elise Klein is a board member of the Institute of Postcolonial Studies</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Troy Henderson has received funding for consulting work for The Centre for Future Work at the Australia Institute. This work was not focused on Basic Income.
Troy Henderson is a member of the Basic Income Earth Network, the peak academic body for Basic Income scholarship. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Quiggin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As debate grows over what should happen to JobSeeker Payment, a ‘liveable income guarantee’ turns the idea of an unemployment benefit on its head.John Quiggin, Professor, School of Economics, The University of QueenslandElise Klein, Senior Lecturer, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National UniversityTroy Henderson, Lecturer in Political Economy, University of Sydney, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1168952019-05-14T04:49:54Z2019-05-14T04:49:54ZWhy New Zealand’s government cannot ignore major welfare reform report<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/274214/original/file-20190513-99027-6gv2tk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=30%2C336%2C6775%2C4203&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">One of the recommendations by a welfare advisory group was to raise benefit levels by up top 47%, but the government has rejected it, for now. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Ardern coalition government’s immediate response to a comprehensive welfare <a href="http://www.weag.govt.nz/weag-report/">report</a>, released last week, has been widely panned as disappointing, even <a href="https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/388427/government-response-to-welfare-expert-advisory-group-more-rhetoric-than-action-poverty-group">pathetic</a>. </p>
<p>Labour promised to overhaul the welfare system and last year appointed an 11-member welfare experts advisory group, of which I was the independent special advisor. The group’s report made 42 main recommendations, one of which was to raise benefit levels by up to 47%. </p>
<p>But the minister of social development Carmel Sepuloni made only <a href="https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/03-05-2019/big-changes-to-the-welfare-system-announced-today/">three small</a> <a href="https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/supporting-people-work-and-income-security-%E2%80%93-priorities-welfare-reforms">pre-budget announcements</a> and indicated further work would be part of a three- to five-year work programme. Regarding the call to raise benefit levels, the minister appeared to rule this out for this term and <a href="https://www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/q-and-a/clips/q-a-with-carmel-sepuloni">told the Q+A programme</a> that “there is a whole lot of recommendations that will be considered as part of phase two”.</p>
<p>Despite this underwhelming response, there are still reasons to be optimistic that the government will make more substantial moves on welfare reform. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-can-learn-from-the-limitations-of-new-zealands-welfare-reforms-63103">Australia can learn from the limitations of New Zealand's welfare reforms</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Current benefits simply not enough</h2>
<p>The first of these is that the report itself cannot easily be ignored. While it is nothing new to beneficiaries, the report sets out clearly just how inadequate current benefits are. </p>
<p>One of the strongest parts of the report is the work the group and its secretariat did to <a href="http://www.weag.govt.nz/weag-report/background-papers/">assess just what a minimum adequate level of income would be</a> for different family types living in different parts of the country. This model-families budget analysis drew on the best available data from various sources – including the University of Otago’s <a href="https://www.otago.ac.nz/humannutrition/research/food-cost-survey/otago057919.html">survey</a> of minimum food costs, lower quartile rental costs, and cheapest transport costs – and defined minimum costs for each family. </p>
<p>The budgets were deliberately very tight and were split into the bare-minimum “core” costs and a small “participation” costs component, intended to allow family members to take part in their communities. The draft budgets were also cross-checked by budget advisors at <a href="https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/">Work and Income</a>. </p>
<p>These calculations showed just how large the shortfall is between costs and benefit incomes, even assuming the family is receiving every benefit assistance it is entitled to, which many do not. The deficits for different family types living alone ranged from NZ$92 per week for a single person living in public housing to NZ$356 per week for a couple with two children in a private rental. Even the best scenario in the analysis – a sole parent with one child who shares accommodation with others – was a deficit of NZ$66 per week below the “participation” level of costs. </p>
<h2>Welfare system failure</h2>
<p>Two factors underlie the inadequacy of current benefit levels. First, the system is not properly indexed so it has fallen further and further behind each year. Some payments are adjusted annually for general price increases, others are not. None are linked to growth in average incomes in the same way that New Zealand superannuation is. </p>
<p>The second problem is the long-running approach to welfare of trying to minimise costs to government by layering tiers of assistance on top of each other so no-one gets more than they absolutely need. At the bottom of this is an insufficient core benefit. For most beneficiaries this is topped up with an accommodation supplement to assist with housing costs and, for some, other payments such as a disability allowance or childcare subsidies. Then there is Temporary Additional Support, intended to cover short-term needs but increasingly used long term when the maximum accommodation supplement is not enough, and a range of one-off grants and loans. </p>
<p>Each layer is more complex, harder to qualify for and more time consuming to administer than the one below it. Indeed, the additional staffing the minister announced is due largely to the extra time required to process growing numbers of supplementary assistance applications. </p>
<p>As the welfare experts advisory group report makes clear, whether you look at this approach in terms of fairness and equity, respect and dignity towards people, or plain administrative efficiency, it has fundamentally failed. </p>
<h2>Tackling child poverty</h2>
<p>A further reason why we may see a bigger response in the future is the government’s <a href="https://dpmc.govt.nz/our-programmes/reducing-child-poverty/child-poverty-reduction-and-wellbeing-legislation">commitment to reduce child poverty</a>. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2018/0057/18.0/LMS8294.html">Child Poverty Reduction Act</a> and the government’s targets are goals to be proud of. There is <a href="http://www.occ.org.nz/publications/expert-advisory-group/eag-working-paper-no-2-lifecourse-effects-on-childhood-poverty/">strong evidence of the long-term harm</a> caused by experiencing poverty, especially prolonged poverty during childhood. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/new-zealands-dismal-record-on-child-poverty-and-the-governments-challenge-to-turn-it-around-115366">New Zealand's dismal record on child poverty and the government's challenge to turn it around</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It is not clear from the minister’s public statements that the government realises quite how urgently it must act if it wants to achieve the prime minister’s short-term targets by June 2021. The surveys that the official measures are derived from will be carried out from July 2020, asking people about their circumstances over the 12 months prior. This means the government’s progress will be judged against data from a two-year window between July this year and June 2021. </p>
<p>That in turn means new initiatives intended to help meet poverty-reduction targets need to be in people’s pockets (or reducing their costs) very soon. For example, the impact of a change that doesn’t come into effect until July 1 next year will be discounted by half as far as the targets are concerned because half of the survey respondents will already have been interviewed by then.</p>
<p>It is correct that the large 2018 <a href="https://www.labour.org.nz/familiespackage">families package</a> can be expected to have a sizeable impact on child poverty rates, but it will not go far enough. </p>
<p>The most difficult goal will be to bring the relative poverty measure down. New policies aimed at achieving the target must disproportionately benefit those at the bottom compared to those in the middle. Realistically, only a substantial increase in benefit rates or another big change to the <a href="https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/products/a-z-benefits/working-for-families.html">Working for Families tax</a> credits could achieve that. </p>
<p>The announcements made so far in response to the welfare report – additional staff, ending the penalty for solo mothers who refuse to name a child’s father and allowing beneficiaries to keep a few dollars extra per week in earnings – will come nowhere near it. Perhaps there will be some welfare surprises in the upcoming budget. After all, child poverty is one of the five priority areas for New Zealand’s first well-being budget.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/116895/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Fletcher was the independent special advisor to the Welfare Experts Advisory Group.</span></em></p>Ardern’s coalition government promised to overhaul New Zealand’s welfare system, but its response to a comprehensive report by an expert advisory group has been disappointing at best.Michael Fletcher, Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of WellingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1143252019-04-02T12:39:07Z2019-04-02T12:39:07ZFood banks are becoming institutionalised in the UK<p>I was one of 58 academics, activists and food writers who published <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/mar/24/food-banks-are-no-solution-to-poverty">a stark open letter</a> warning against food banks becoming institutionalised in the UK. We believe the country is now reaching a point where “left behind people” and retailers’ “leftover food” share a symbiotic relationship. Food banks are becoming embedded within welfare provision, fuelled by corporate involvement and ultimately creating an industry of poverty.</p>
<p>We advocate challenging this link between food waste and food poverty. The UK has a welfare system that should be there for people in their time of need. But instead food banks – of which <a href="http://www.foodaidnetwork.org.uk/mapping">there are at least 2,000</a> across the country – are in receipt of <a href="https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/waste-not-want-not/food-waste-government-commits-15m-to-subsidise-redistribution/572198.article">government subsidies supporting redistribution</a>, and fresh food is being introduced through <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/25/big-business-food-banks-subsidise-reputation">publicly funded corporate philanthropy</a>. </p>
<p>While people are certainly being helped by food banks in their moments of need, we cannot accept that they solve long-term poverty. In the US and Canada, academic Andy Fisher has highlighted that food bank institutionalisation has been politically and corporately encouraged over the last 35 years, but this has <a href="https://12150r2wpmcf42rvin2agp7n-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/HungerCount_2018-1.pdf">done nothing to alleviate food poverty</a>. It has, in fact, only served corporate interest and <a href="https://www.bighunger.org/">entrenched food poverty further</a>. </p>
<h2>How has this happened?</h2>
<p>For my PhD research I <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-does-the-growth-of-food-banks-matter-58000">looked into the rise of food banks</a> and critically examined their role as a new and emerging provider of aid for people struggling with welfare reform. My work also assessed the structural causes of food poverty associated with the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/5/contents/enacted">Welfare Reform Act 2012</a>, and the changing language of social security. </p>
<p>Austerity policies <a href="https://theconversation.com/food-bank-use-is-on-the-rise-with-austerity-the-clear-culprit-40598">provided the initial fertile ground</a> which led to many more people needing to access food banks. Under welfare reform, access to welfare became subject to heavy conditions. People came under heightened sanctions if they <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/jobseekers-allowance-sanctions-leaflet/jobseekers-allowance-sanctions-how-to-keep-your-benefit-payment">failed to follow their claimant commitment</a>, while the so-called <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/27/the-bedroom-tax-explained">bedroom tax</a> saw some losing housing benefit entitlement if they had a spare bedroom in their council or housing association-owned property. </p>
<p>This paved the way for food banks to fill the void left behind by retrenched welfare. Now food banks are <a href="http://www.foodaidnetwork.org.uk/asda-response">increasingly accepting large donations</a> and working with big retailers and food redistribution organisations, as they become an accepted part of UK life.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OHNg8_H5whM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>For food banks to become part of an institutionalised provision, leading food poverty expert <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-9515.00309">Graham Riches argues</a> that there is a three-stage process. First, there needs to be a national food bank provider, for example Feeding America in the US, and Food Banks Canada. These organisations coordinate and support linked food pantries under their banner. Within the UK, the Trussell Trust, with a strong network of 427 foodbanks (plus associated distribution centres), has a similar role.</p>
<p>Second, this national provider must create partnership alliances with food companies and food redistribution organisations. For the last seven years, the Trussell Trust has worked with <a href="https://www.trusselltrust.org/get-involved/partner-with-us/tesco/">UK food retailer Tesco</a>. Recently, it has also <a href="https://www.trusselltrust.org/get-involved/partner-with-us/asda/">collaborated with Fareshare and Asda</a> to increase <a href="https://www.trusselltrust.org/get-involved/partner-with-us/">redistribution to its food banks</a>. </p>
<p>Contacted by The Conversation for this article, the Trussell Trust insists it is “campaigning to create a future without food banks”. Emma Revie, chief executive, highlighted its role in campaigning for changes to the benefits system to properly support people who need help. She added there was no desire for food banks to “become the new normal”.</p>
<p>But the engagement of retail giants serves to embed food banks, as it combines two socially distinct problems – <a href="https://foodresearch.org.uk/publications/is-it-appropriate-to-use-surplus-food-to-feed-people-in-hunger/">food surplus and food poverty</a> – while doing nothing to solve the <a href="https://www.trusselltrust.org/news-and-blog/latest-stats/mid-year-stats/">structural issues of poverty</a>. It serves the retailer well too, by improving their corporate social responsibility (large retailers are seen to be acting for the social good of their community), not to mention the increase in sales through their tills. Shoppers are purchasing their donations from these retailers and putting them in store donation bins to be taken to the food banks.</p>
<p>The third stage is an increasing influence and relationship with national government. A national food bank provider can then emerge as an accepted response to declining welfare. This has happened in the US and Canada, although UK food banks at present are still in a campaigning position.</p>
<h2>Not the new normal</h2>
<p>However, I think that food banks also need to complete two more stages for there to be complete institutionalisation. Through their partnership with larger organisations, food banks recognise the need to invest in facilities and transport to deal with redistributed food, especially if it includes fresh food. They also begin to invest in time and energy from dedicated volunteers who make food banks warm and welcoming places. This is common now in North America and has <a href="https://research.bangor.ac.uk/portal/files/22198649/2018_Beck_D_PhD.pdf">also already begun in the UK</a>, potentially creating an air of permanence about them.</p>
<p>Fifth and finally, when food banks are truly institutionalised we will see them accepted by society as being an adequate substitute for welfare, especially for “less deserving” people. This recognition was evidenced when Asda <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/17/asda-removes-food-bank-donation-points-from-uk-stores">removed all unmanned food bank collection baskets</a> in February 2016, signalling the end of customers’ donations. Following a social media uproar, and a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/26/asda-backs-down-over-food-bank-ban">challenge put forward by the charities affected</a>, Asda reinstated the baskets. </p>
<p>Food bank collection baskets in supermarkets are now commonplace. Their removal and subsequent disquiet shows how there is social acceptance of food banks. People realise the value of them for those in need, fuelling the process of embedding food banks, not just within society, but within our social conscience. </p>
<p>But we need to remember that food poverty has no place within our society. We should be campaigning for change, not acceptance of a new normal. As the US and Canada have seen, once food banks become embedded, they do not go away. Food banks may be vital in times of crisis, but they are not a substitute for proper support. </p>
<p><em>Editor’s note: This article was updated to amend the number of food banks in the UK from 3,000 to “at least 2,000”</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114325/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dave Beck does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Food banks should not be “normal” and yet they are rapidly becoming an accepted substitute for welfare in the UK.Dave Beck, Postdoctoral Teaching Fellow in Sociology, Bangor UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1040602018-10-31T04:48:35Z2018-10-31T04:48:35ZTraditional culture may help Indigenous households manage money better<p>Few areas of public policy are as hotly debated as how to close the income gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. There are some uncontroversial goals, such as improving job opportunities and reducing the high rate of Indigenous unemployment. But other ideas to better target welfare are bitterly divisive.</p>
<p>The cashless credit card, for example, has been described as a <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-cashless-debit-card-trial-is-working-and-it-is-vital-heres-why-76951">vital response to the problem of welfare policies</a> that systemically enable illicit drug use, alcohol abuse and gambling. It has also been called the epitome of <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-costs-mount-the-government-should-abandon-the-cashless-debit-card-88770">neocolonial and punitive policy</a> implemented for some imagined political gain at the expense of vulnerable people.</p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/FOXYK/2/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="402"></iframe>
<hr>
<p>Both assessments may be valid, given the context. One of the problems with Indigenous welfare policy is an oversupply of assumptions and a lack of detailed information about the realities of lived experience.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-get-a-better-bang-for-the-taxpayers-buck-in-all-sectors-not-only-indigenous-programs-64296">How to get a better bang for the taxpayers' buck in all sectors, not only Indigenous programs</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It is generally assumed, for example, that the patterns of why people in Australia are poor, and how they manage the money they have, are largely the same for Indigenous and non-Indigenous. But this might be incorrect.</p>
<p>We decided to dig into the statistics and compare the experience of financial stress in Indigenous and non-Indigenous households. </p>
<p>Our findings surprised us. </p>
<p>While financial stress is much more common in Indigenous households, we found evidence of substantial capacity to manage scarce resources. Indigenous households in remote areas seem to manage better than those in urban areas. Large Indigenous households do better than non-Indigenous ones.</p>
<p>We are hesitant to draw any grand policy conclusions, except to underline a clear truth: those in the field of Indigenous policy need to base their decisions on accurate information, lest they undermine the capabilities and strengths that people already possess.</p>
<h2>Defining financial stress</h2>
<p>Financial stress is a relative experience. It’s not just about income level, but how individuals or households cope. The degree of stress can be different for two people on the exact same income, depending on the choices they make. </p>
<p>The Australian Bureau of Statistics defines a range of indicators to determine financial stress. Spending more than your income is one. Being unable to pay power and phone bills is another. Going without meals and not having money to heat your home are two others.</p>
<p>We split financial stress into “cashflow” (inability to pay housing costs or utilities or borrowing from friends) and “hardship” (missing meals, pawning something, not being able to pay to heat the home or applying for welfare) problems. These two types of problems are fundamentally different. Hardship problems are rarer and more likely to be associated with severe disadvantage.</p>
<p>We then devised a method to better compare the experience of these two forms of financial stress in Indigenous and non-Indigenous households. For this we use two large surveys covering more than 12,000 households: the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) and the 2014-15 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey (NATSISS). </p>
<h2>Cashflow stress</h2>
<p>Indigenous households experience more cashflow problems than comparable non-Indigenous households, even when we control for income and other household characteristics. </p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/memUw/2/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="459"></iframe>
<hr>
<p>That is, an Indigenous household with the same income as an average non-Indigenous household is more likely to experience cashflow problems – in some cases substantially so. </p>
<p>There is evidence this financial stress is exacerbated by the widespread demand-sharing custom known as “humbugging”. An Indigenous person is more likely, for example, to let someone else use their ATM card. </p>
<h2>Hardship</h2>
<p>Yet when it comes to the more extreme form of financial stress, Indigenous households are at least as effective as non-Indigenous households at avoiding hardship. </p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Kbryg/3/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="459"></iframe>
<hr>
<p>That is, while Indigenous households experience more financial stress – because they have, on average, much lower incomes – our model indicates an Indigenous household with the same income as the average non-indigenous household has the same or smaller probability of experiencing financial hardship. </p>
<h2>Remote households</h2>
<p>Our modelling also shows Indigenous households in remote and very remote areas appear to do better at avoiding financial stress than counterparts in non-remote areas. </p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/243121/original/file-20181030-76416-17mb1n6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/243121/original/file-20181030-76416-17mb1n6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=564&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/243121/original/file-20181030-76416-17mb1n6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=564&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/243121/original/file-20181030-76416-17mb1n6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=564&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/243121/original/file-20181030-76416-17mb1n6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=709&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/243121/original/file-20181030-76416-17mb1n6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=709&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/243121/original/file-20181030-76416-17mb1n6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=709&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The ABS uses five classes of remoteness based on relative access to services.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/home/remoteness+structure">ABS</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>Again, while remote households have, on average, much lower incomes – and therefore more financial stress – our method is able to show that a remote household is less likely to experience financial stress than a non-remote household with the same income. </p>
<p>This suggests there is value in traditional practices for Indigenous households. </p>
<h2>Large households</h2>
<p>Finally, large Indigenous households seem to manage better than large non-Indigenous households. As household size grows, Indigenous households need less extra income to have the same probability of experiencing financial stress. </p>
<p>This is significant because it suggests policies that encourage better sharing of resources among large extended family groups could be a highly efficient social insurance mechanism.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the presence of multiple families in a household has no significant effect on the probability of experiencing financial stress. This contradicts the policy assumption that multiple families in a house makes things worse. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-is-30-billion-spent-every-year-on-500-000-indigenous-people-in-australia-64658">FactCheck Q&A: is $30 billion spent every year on 500,000 Indigenous people in Australia?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Overall our research suggests Indigenous people, particularly those in remote areas, have substantial capacity to manage scarce financial resources. Policy makers need to leverage these capabilities through implementing policies that support and enhance them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/104060/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>We decided to dig into the statistics and compare the experience of financial stress in Indigenous and non-Indigenous households.
Our findings surprised us.Robert Breunig, Professor of Economics and Director, Tax and Transfer Policy Institute, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National UniversityBoyd Hunter, Senior fellow, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/939612018-04-03T19:50:59Z2018-04-03T19:50:59ZWhy prosecutions for welfare fraud have declined in Australia<p>Between 2009-10 and 2016-17, the number of social security fraud prosecutions in Australia fell by 80% as a proportion of Centrelink’s customer base. This is remarkable considering national dialogue continues to focus on punitive approaches to welfare fraud. The Department of Human Services, which absorbed Centrelink in 2011, <a href="https://www.humanservices.gov.au/sites/default/files/12637-1607en.pdf">has even reiterated</a> its “zero-tolerance” approach to the issue.</p>
<p>My research suggests this swift and dramatic decline in the welfare fraud prosecution rate is tied to fundamental shifts in the department’s approach to prosecutions. This has led to a less punitive culture among its Serious Non-Compliance staff.</p>
<p><iframe id="qCn9w" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/qCn9w/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Legal and policy changes</h2>
<p>Several legal and policy changes have contributed to the declining prosecution rate. This includes the impact of two High Court cases – one from <a href="https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/43.html">2011</a> and another in <a href="https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2013/20.html?context=1;query=keating;mask_path=au/cases/cth/HCA">2013</a> – on so-called “omission cases”. These are cases where the allegation of fraud relates to a customer’s failure to inform the department of a change in circumstances (an omission), rather than any deliberate misrepresentation or dishonesty on the recipient’s part.</p>
<p>In the 2011 case, the court ruled that because there was no legal obligation for Centrelink customers to inform the department of changed circumstances, failing to fulfil this duty could not constitute fraud – or, more specifically, the offence of “obtaining financial advantage” under the <a href="https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cca1995115/">Criminal Code</a>. </p>
<p>The government sought to preempt this decision by swiftly passing a law creating such <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/s838_aspassed/toc_pdf/1112220.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">an obligation</a>, making it retrospective to the year 2000. But, the retrospectivity of this law was successfully challenged in the 2013 High Court case.</p>
<p>These cases’ combined effect was to prevent the department from prosecuting “omission cases”, where the relevant omission had occurred prior to August 4, 2011 – the date on which <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/s838_aspassed/toc_pdf/1112220.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">the law</a> requiring welfare recipients to inform the department of changes in their circumstances was passed.</p>
<p>After this date, such omissions constituted fraud and so could be prosecuted. But these two High Court decisions effectively reduced the potential pool of cases that could be prosecuted – at least in the short term.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-can-learn-from-the-limitations-of-new-zealands-welfare-reforms-63103">Australia can learn from the limitations of New Zealand's welfare reforms</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>At around the same time, a new requirement was introduced making the department responsible for preparing full briefs of evidence, including witness statements, for each welfare fraud case it wished to refer for prosecution.</p>
<p>Previously, the department only needed to prepare a short-form brief of evidence, which amounted to little more than a statement of facts. <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/sj.2014.36">According to the department</a>, this change:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… impacted the (prosecution) referral numbers as significantly as the High Court decisions.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Together, these changes impacted on the number and types of cases the department could pursue. But they only tell part of the story.</p>
<p>I conducted in-depth research on welfare fraud, including interviews with Serious Non-Compliance staff at the department during 2014 and 2015. Other factors emerged that were far more influential in reducing welfare fraud prosecutions over the long term.</p>
<h2>From prosecuting everything to targeting serious fraud</h2>
<p>Until 2011, Centrelink compliance functions, including prosecutions, were subject to quantitative targets. For example, in 2000-01, Centrelink <a href="https://www.humanservices.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/1998-1999-centrelink-annual-review.docx">was required</a> to refer 4,000 cases for prosecution and generate A$708.8 million in savings by recovering welfare overpayments.</p>
<p>To meet these organisation-wide targets, Centrelink developed targets for individual investigators. For example, <a href="https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/centrelink-fraud-investigations">in 2008-09</a>, some investigators were required to complete 96 investigations and refer at least six cases of suspected fraud.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/note-to-centrelink-australian-workers-lives-have-changed-70946">Note to Centrelink: Australian workers' lives have changed</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>According to compliance staff I interviewed, these requirements led to a focus on achieving targets rather than selecting the most appropriate cases for prosecution. </p>
<p>Janice, an investigator who had been with the department (and its predecessors) for more than 17 years, described the approach: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>… we used to just prosecute, prosecute, prosecute. Quite frankly, it used to be about a number, it used to be about a benchmark.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In 2011, these targets were scrapped, reducing the pressure on staff to make up prosecution numbers. Since then, a more strategic approach to prosecutions has emerged – one focused on serious and unambiguous cases of fraud. As Henry, a member of the Serious Non-Compliance team, explained:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The directors (in the DHS) at least do know that it’s not a numbers game. It’s finding people that legitimately need to answer for their actions in front of the court rather than getting a referral to the court for the sake of achieving a number.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>My research suggests this new approach has also underpinned the emergence of a less punitive culture among compliance staff, where staff consider the appropriateness and impacts of prosecution in each case. </p>
<p>One investigator explained the shift as: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>… more about prevention and intervention than it is about the end result. We’re more conscious of what we’re doing, and the impacts as well. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Similarly, as Bruce explained:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I don’t believe in a heavy-handed approach. If someone is defrauding the Commonwealth, until we actually determine that, they’re customers. They’re not crooks … The culture has changed.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>The wider reform debate</h2>
<p>The general approach to welfare compliance in Australia continues to be punitive and underpinned by a suspicion of people who use welfare. The <a href="https://www.9news.com.au/national/2018/03/21/11/21/welfare-reform-package-passes-upper-house">recent passage</a> of a bill that will introduce a punitive demerit system for non-compliance is testament to this. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, the approach to social security prosecutions has undergone significant change. The removal of quantitative targets, combined with a more strategic approach to prosecutions, has contributed to a sustained reduction in the welfare fraud prosecutions rate.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/after-the-robo-debt-debacle-heres-how-centrelink-can-win-back-australians-trust-74256">After the robo-debt debacle, here's how Centrelink can win back Australians' trust</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This has occurred despite, rather than because, of changes in federal government policy. It serves as a small reminder that punitive welfare measures can be effectively contested and sensibly reformed, even as the government continues to campaign to “get tough” on welfare non-compliance.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/93961/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Scarlet Wilcock is a member of the Board of Directors of the Welfare Rights Centre, Sydney. This is a volunteer position.
This research was funded by an Australian Government Australian Postgraduate Award and the University of New South Wales.
The views and opinions expressed by individual staff members of the Department of Human Services (DHS) interviewed for this research in 2014 and 2015, and which are quoted or otherwise relied on in this article, do not necessarily reflect the views or current practice of the DHS. The analysis and conclusions drawn in this research are those of the author alone. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or opinion of the DHS.</span></em></p>Despite a public focus on punitive approaches to welfare fraud, the number of social security fraud prosecutions has fallen in recent years.Scarlet Wilcock, Lecturer, School of Law, University of WollongongLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/914882018-03-06T19:34:08Z2018-03-06T19:34:08ZFor Australians to have the choice of growing old at home, here is what needs to change<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208346/original/file-20180228-36706-spb358.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">When an ageing person is forced to move out of their family home, that can trigger a host of problems that policy is doing little to prevent.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Diego Cervo/Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><blockquote>
<p>Ooh, a storm is threatening my very life today / If I don’t get some shelter / Oh yeah, I’m gonna fade away…</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Mick Jagger won’t ever need to be concerned about having somewhere to live, but older people have worried about where they will spend their final years since long before the Rolling Stones sang to a generation’s insecurities in 1969. Many wish to stay in their homes, but current policy doesn’t support age-friendly housing. It also makes it difficult for ageing people to manage their finances. </p>
<p>The population of people aged 65 and over in Australia is <a href="https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/older-people/older-australia-at-a-glance/contents/demographics-of-older-australians/australia-s-changing-age-and-gender-profile">projected to grow</a> from 3.7 million to 8.7 million by 2056. Cities, towns and housing need to be designed to help people stay at home as they age. Financial policy should be updated to enable them to better manage their assets.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/ageing-activism-why-we-need-to-give-voice-to-the-new-third-age-50305">Ageing activism: why we need to give voice to the new third age</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Gwen’s story</h2>
<p>Five years before her death, Gwen (not her real name) and her family faced a dilemma. Like many Australians, Gwen had juggled a succession of jobs, eventually owning her modest home. Following a fall, hospitalisation and rehab, her prognosis was not good. </p>
<p>Gwen wanted to die at home, or with her family. Should members of the family move into her house? Should she move into one of her adult children’s houses? What about their children? </p>
<p>Should they rent out the family properties, so Gwen and volunteering family members could cohabit in a more suitable rented property? Could they afford a house with the flexibility to handle two adults, one elderly person, possibly kids and pets? </p>
<p>For families like Gwen’s, there are few viable, let alone affordable, housing options. Gwen’s housing shuffle proved stressful for everyone. She was ultimately placed, against her wishes, in a nursing home. Aged 82, deprived of any sovereignty in her decision-making, Gwen passed away, but the family arguments and blame continued. </p>
<h2>What is stopping people ‘ageing in place’?</h2>
<p>Gwen’s deck of dominoes could not be reconfigured because of the housing, tax and financial barriers imposed by the same governments that are trying to implement “ageing in place”. </p>
<p>Ageing in place isn’t just about ageing at home. It’s about keeping older people connected to their neighbourhood and community as part of a broader framework of “active ageing”, with the aim of improving their quality of life and giving them more control over their circumstances.</p>
<p>Since the World Health Organization (WHO) released its <a href="http://www.who.int/ageing/publications/active_ageing/en/">Active Ageing</a> policy framework in 2002, federal governments have endorsed this approach. The 2013 <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00170">Living Longer Living Better</a> reforms and last year’s <a href="https://agedcare.health.gov.au/reform/aged-care-legislated-review">Legislated Review of Aged Care</a> promote emotional and mental preparation for old age, which is important for active ageing. </p>
<p>However, many aspects of policy in Australia undermine successful ageing in place. </p>
<h2>A lack of suitable housing</h2>
<p>First, ageing Australians have a limited choice of suitable housing, as the Productivity Commission <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/research/completed/housing-decisions-older-australians/housing-decisions-older-australians.pdf">has highlighted</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/lack-of-housing-choice-frustrates-would-be-downsizers-60512">Lack of housing choice frustrates would-be downsizers</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><a href="http://www.livablehousingaustralia.org.au/">Livable Housing Australia’s</a> guidelines recommend installing nonslip floors and grab rails and retrofitting rooms to help keep them at a comfortable temperature. This improves home liveability and reduces risks of harm for occupants. Incremental measures like these also have beneficial ripple effects by making housing suitable for all ages. However, such guidelines are not yet widely implemented. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-can-we-best-design-housing-for-australias-ageing-population-50304">How can we best design housing for Australia's ageing population?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The ability to influence what is built, and where, can greatly enhance or inhibit well-being. Denmark and Canada are already running with the <a href="https://www.880cities.org/">8 80 Cities concept</a>, which aims to transform cities so they meet the needs of people of all ages. It’s a good example for Australian planners. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206920/original/file-20180219-75984-lyzel.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206920/original/file-20180219-75984-lyzel.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206920/original/file-20180219-75984-lyzel.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206920/original/file-20180219-75984-lyzel.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206920/original/file-20180219-75984-lyzel.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206920/original/file-20180219-75984-lyzel.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/206920/original/file-20180219-75984-lyzel.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Greater Sydney Commission Chief Commissioner Lucy Turnbull inspects transport construction work in Sydney.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Danny Casey/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Local governments need to embrace redevelopment models that provide better ageing-in-place options for communities. The Greater Sydney Commission recently took a step in the right direction with its <a href="https://www.greater.sydney/news/plans-address-housing-choice-and-affordability">plans to increase housing supply and affordability</a>. Its investigation into improving transport options and amenities could also enhance liveability. </p>
<p>The City of Melbourne’s <a href="http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/building-and-development/urban-planning/city-wide-strategies-research/Pages/places-for-people.aspx">Places for People</a> strategy and the <a href="https://www.seniorsonline.vic.gov.au/get-involved/age-friendly-victoria">Age-Friendly Victoria</a> initiative commit to housing that meets the WHO’s essential age-friendly city features. These programs recognise that placemaking is strongly linked with successful ageing in place.</p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Read more:</strong> <a href="https://theconversation.com/eight-simple-changes-to-our-neighbourhoods-can-help-us-age-well-83962">Eight simple changes to our neighbourhoods can help us age well</a></em></p>
<p><em><strong>Read more:</strong> <a href="https://theconversation.com/contested-spaces-we-need-to-see-public-space-through-older-eyes-too-72261">We need to see public space through older eyes too</a></em></p>
<hr>
<h2>Financial penalties for moving</h2>
<p>Most Australians lack the financial means to customise their homes as they age. Safety concerns will eventually collide with their desire for independent living, forcing a devil’s choice. The decision to enter aged care can be very difficult for people and their families. Taxation and pension rules that prevent them managing their assets without losses worsen the situation. </p>
<p>If governments want to promote active ageing, then older people must be given more flexibility in managing their assets. This means allowing them to sell the family home, take the tax-free asset value, downsize to a suitable smaller property, and put the leftover money into their super without penalties in the form of stamp duty, tax or loss of benefits.</p>
<p>Many people <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3082757">don’t want to give up home ownership</a>, especially as a family home doubles as a tax shelter. Ideally, a compact property would be preferable, designed to accommodate any generation, and with better access to the amenities and services needed later in life. Then, should they eventually need high-level care, the home could be rented out, providing an income stream to help cover medical and care expenses.</p>
<p>Future-proofed properties like this mostly do not exist in Australia. They don’t exist because, thanks to current policy, the elderly are reluctant to monetise their tax-free asset (the family home) to buy such properties and thus generate a demand to be met by developers. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/downsizing-cost-trap-awaits-retirees-five-reasons-to-be-wary-80895">Downsizing cost trap awaits retirees – five reasons to be wary</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Where do you want to die?</h2>
<p>Baby boomers are living longer and are more mindful of their health and lifestyle. However, a recent <a href="https://nationalseniors.com.au/be-informed/news-articles/older-people-fail-plan-longer-lifespans">survey</a> found that only a small percentage were planning their financial future so they could live independently for as long as possible. And a growing number of seniors lack the income to cover the unforeseen costs that arise later in life. </p>
<p>Governments need to step up public information campaigns to encourage people to prepare for their old age. Without it, the confronting question “Where do you want to die?” cannot be feasibly answered.</p>
<p>Governments and the private sector can also take action to:</p>
<ul>
<li>acknowledge the tax shelter status of private homes alongside the tax shelter status of superannuation</li>
<li>reduce transaction costs such as stamp duty that discourage moving before it becomes essential, as it often does for the over-80s</li>
<li>remove disincentives to releasing equity in the family home (for example, the pension means tests on proceeds in interaction with the pension and superannuation systems)</li>
<li>with the <a href="https://theconversation.com/interest-in-tiny-houses-is-growing-so-who-wants-them-and-why-83872">growth of the tiny house movement</a>, ensure a wider variety of <a href="https://architectureau.com/articles/tiny-terrace-houses-on-smallest-freehold-lots-underway/">housing stock, styles</a> and locations to support ageing in place</li>
<li>encourage emerging home ownership models, such as <a href="https://www.choice.com.au/money/property/buying/articles/reverse-mortgages-and-home-reversion-schemes">home equity release</a>, reverse mortgages, <a href="https://domacom.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/DomaCom-Corporate-Update-DCL-28-July-2017.pdf">fractional property investment</a> and <a href="http://www.lifestyletransitionservices.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Ebook-Final-26.10.15-_-Housing-Options.pdf">co-operative housing</a> – to name a few.</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/co-housing-works-well-for-older-people-once-they-get-past-the-image-problem-79907">Co-housing works well for older people, once they get past the image problem</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>These initiatives would allow people to find and create homes that offer shelter from the ageing “perfect storm” already under way in Australia.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91488/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Juliette Brodsky has been affiliated with an organisation that seeks to develop housing for elderly people.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Francis Grey is affiliated with an organisation that has developed fractional investment opportunities for investors, and another organisation that has sought to develop housing for elderly people.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sarah Sinclair receives funding from Longevity Group Australia as a member of the School of Economics, Finance and Marketing Placemaking economics Group. </span></em></p>Millions of older Australians live in houses that don’t safely meet their needs, but they’re not ready for a nursing home. Lack of suitable housing and the moving costs leave them with nowhere to go.Juliette Brodsky, Researcher, College of Business, RMIT UniversityFrancis Grey, Economist and Sessional Academic, RMIT UniversitySarah Sinclair, Lecturer in Economics, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/900172018-01-18T03:16:18Z2018-01-18T03:16:18ZHunger in the lucky country – charities step in where government fails<p>The non-profit organisation Foodbank released its report <a href="https://www.foodbank.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Foodbank-Hunger-Report-2017.pdf">Fighting Hunger in Australia</a> this month. </p>
<p>Like <a href="http://lyceum.anu.edu.au/wp-content/blogs/3/uploads/Food%20Security_Poll.pdf">earlier research</a> it reported that around 15% of Australians experienced food insecurity – an extraordinary figure given up to <a href="https://www.rabodirect.com.au/-/media/rabodirect-australia/files/fhb/rabodirect_foodandfarming_report_web_oct_2017.pdf?la=en">40%</a> of edible, but <a href="https://link-springer-com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/article/10.1007/s10551-016-3181-z">cosmetically imperfect</a>, food is discarded before it reaches the market. </p>
<p>The survey revealed that 3.6 million Australians have experienced food insecurity at least once in the last 12 months. Three in five of those people experience food insecurity at least once a month. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4671e/y4671e06.htm">UN Food and Agriculture Organisation</a> defines food security as: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>a condition where all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary preferences for an active and healthy life.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Despite reasonable <a href="http://www.palgrave.com/br/book/9781137298713">expectations</a> that economic growth in advanced capitalist societies will ensure food security, this is not universal across so-called “wealthy nations”.</p>
<h2>Not-so-lucky country for some</h2>
<p>The problem lies with <a href="https://eprints.qut.edu.au/68201/">Australia’s neoliberal political economy</a>, where <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/ruth-messinger/food-a-commodity-or-a-hum_b_387581.html">food is a commodity rather than a right</a>. Under these conditions, it is the market, rather than government, that determines access to food.</p>
<p>People who are economically marginalised find themselves increasingly distanced from <a href="http://daa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/58-3-review-paper.pdf">access to nutritious food</a>. With a shortfall in government responses, the non-profit sector has stepped in, patching together a food security safety net. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/successful-failures-the-problem-with-food-banks-86546">'Successful failures' – the problem with food banks</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0743016715300462">Our research</a> examined institutional approaches to poverty and food security, considering entitlements to food in economically advanced countries. In nations where people mainly buy their food rather produce it themselves, purchasing power becomes central to understanding hunger. </p>
<p>Low growth in <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/comment/low-wages-growth-is-the-real-reason-you-are-feeling-the-costofliving-pinch-20171127-gzu2iy.html">wages</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/dec/18/myefo-morrison-unveils-cuts-to-welfare-universities-and-family-payments">cuts to welfare payments</a> mean hunger touches many, including <a href="http://www.agrifutures.com.au/wp-content/uploads/publications/16-053.pdf">Indigenous people, unemployed or under-employed families, and welfare recipients</a>. Food is one of the few flexible items in a household budget.</p>
<p>Consistent with the observations of Nobel Prize-winning economist <a href="https://www.prismaweb.org/nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Poverty-and-famines%E2%94%82Amartya-Sen%E2%94%821981.pdf">Amartya Sen</a>, food insecurity is more a symptom of poverty than a lack of availability of food. </p>
<h2>The ‘liberal, Anglo-Saxon model’ of welfare</h2>
<p>In 2016, an Australian Council of Social Service <a href="http://www.acoss.org.au/poverty/">report</a> estimated that 13% of all Australians live below the poverty line. Of those 3 million people, 730,000 are children. The poverty line is set at 50% of the median disposable income for all Australian households. </p>
<p>It is useful to look at the types of welfare in advanced capitalist nations and how these address poverty and access to food. </p>
<p>Danish sociologist <a href="https://press.princeton.edu/titles/4558.html">Esping-Andersen</a> describes Australia’s system as a “liberal, Anglo-Saxon model” of welfare. This model is associated with high levels of social stratification. Public obligation “kicks in” only when there is abject need, demonstrated through strict means testing. </p>
<p>This <a href="https://press.princeton.edu/titles/4558.html">differs</a> from the social-democratic model of welfare capitalism common to Scandinavian countries. There, stratification is lower and an individual has the right to thrive without intervention from family, church or charity. </p>
<p>Our <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0743016715300462">research</a> shows how social-democratic welfare policies lift the standard of living for all. This means citizens of countries such as Norway have rarely required charitable food relief despite high food prices.</p>
<p>In Australia, the federal welfare agency, Centrelink, offers limited relief for the food insecure, such as one-off crisis payments to recipients of benefits. However, increases in the cost of food, energy and housing prices have not been matched by corresponding increases in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2017/nov/02/cost-of-living-pressures-affect-people-on-welfare-more-than-anyone">welfare payments</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/powerful-supermarkets-push-the-cost-of-food-waste-onto-suppliers-charities-54654">Powerful supermarkets push the cost of food waste onto suppliers, charities</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Further, there is no other Australian government policy that deals with domestic food security, despite the nation’s increasing reliance on food charities. </p>
<p>The Australian welfare state does not explicitly guarantee freedom from hunger. Instead food relief is dependent on <a href="https://theconversation.com/powerful-supermarkets-push-the-cost-of-food-waste-onto-suppliers-charities-54654">business donations</a> distributed through the non-profit sector. </p>
<h2>What can be done to alleviate hunger?</h2>
<p>To alleviate hunger, poverty also needs to be alleviated. </p>
<p>There is no quick fix to this, but in the first instance the government needs to take responsibility for poverty and food security as a matter of urgency. No one could argue it is acceptable to have <a href="http://www.acoss.org.au/poverty/">730,000 children</a> living below the poverty line.</p>
<p>Earlier government deliberations on <a href="http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/FoodSecurity_web.pdf">food security</a> focused on agricultural production and export to enhance global food security. These have tended to look outward rather than inward. </p>
<p>The abandoned <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-draft-national-food-plan-putting-corporate-hunger-first-8342">National Food Plan</a> was to be the Government’s first food policy designed provide an integrated approach to Australia’s food system. However, this was orientated to a corporate-led food system that overlooked the needs of civil society. </p>
<p>Australia’s welfare system relies heavily on <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0743016715300462">charity and markets</a>, rather than the state, to respond to the needs of economically marginalised people. This is evident in the collaborations between food banks and supermarkets to redirect food waste to disadvantaged people. </p>
<p>Although responding to immediate need, <a href="http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/BFJ-01-2014-0037">food relief does not prevent food insecurity</a>. There is potential to alleviate poverty and prevent food insecurity through Australia’s current welfare model. Unlike the situation for domestic food security policy, income support architecture is already in place. </p>
<p>However, support urgently needs to come into line with the cost of living if we are to recognise food as a right and eliminate first world hunger.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Acknowledgements: Sincere thanks to research collaborators Unni Kjærnes and Jostein Vik who were co-authors on an earlier, related piece: Richards, C., Kjærnes, U. and Vik, J. (2016), Food security in welfare capitalism: Comparing social entitlements to food in Australia and Norway, Journal of Rural Studies, 43 (1), 61-70.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90017/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Carol Richards has received funding from the Norwegian Research Council and the Australian Research Council. She is the Co-Founder of the Brisbane Fair Food Alliance, and a member of the Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance and the Right to Food Coalition.</span></em></p>Despite Australia being considered the ‘lucky country’, 15% of us still experience food insecurity. Meanwhile, 40% of edible food is thrown away before it even reaches the market.Carol Richards, Senior Lecturer, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/897182018-01-17T12:49:43Z2018-01-17T12:49:43ZAs it celebrates its 25th birthday, how does the Clinton administration look today?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202146/original/file-20180116-53310-18wfl0u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/bill-clinton-42nd-president-gives-thumbs-107411675?src=RdGqj0jAHGp4HNxpPgn4nA-1-36">Joseph Sohm/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Bill Clinton is about to mark the 25th anniversary of his inauguration as the 42nd US president. Until the night of November 8 2016, millions of voters and experts assumed that he would be celebrating that milestone as the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/opinion/campaign-stops/bill-clinton-a-perfectly-imperfect-first-gentleman.html">First Gentleman</a> in a second Clinton administration, and that when he returned, he would be welcomed by the party and country both. </p>
<p>On both fronts, they were wrong. Instead, Clinton’s quarter-century anniversary on January 20, 2017 is also Donald Trump’s first – and while once beloved of his country, Clinton’s star has apparently started to fall.</p>
<p>For years, Clinton was a popular figure both nationally and within the Democratic Party. His <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaJD3EIXYdw">2012 speech to the Democratic convention</a>, backing Barack Obama’s reelection bid, was enthusiastically received both inside and outside the hall; <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2012/09/how-bill-clinton-does-it-080819">Politico</a> wrote that he “stated the case for the 44th president’s reelection in language that was crisper and more compelling than the case Obama so far has made for himself”.</p>
<p>But lately, Clinton’s scent seems to be turning fetid. For the first time since he left office in 2001, <a href="http://news.gallup.com/poll/224330/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating-new-low.aspx">more Americans view Clinton unfavourably than do favourably</a>. After peaking at 69% in 2013, Clinton’s favourability rating has slumped to 45%. This trend is unusual among retired presidents. Most can count on nostalgia to sanctify even the most benighted tenure; even the <a href="http://news.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ratings-george-bush.aspx">once heinously unpopular</a> George W. Bush <a href="http://news.gallup.com/poll/212633/george-bush-barack-obama-popular-retirement.aspx">enjoyed favourability ratings of 59%</a> as of late 2016.</p>
<p>Two major events kickstarted this unflattering reassessment. First came the 2016 presidential campaign, during which both the Democratic primary and the general election saw his legacy <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/21/hillary-clinton-bill-90s-nostalgia-reform-scandal">picked over without mercy</a>. The Hillary Clinton-Bernie Sanders duel put Bill Clinton’s policies on <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/time-to-revisit-bill-clintons-welfare-reform/2016/05/28/fe9ce506-2426-11e6-9e7f-57890b612299_story.html?utm_term=.f79b000ac1d8">welfare</a>, <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/glass-steagall/496856/">financial regulation</a>, and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36020717">criminal justice reform</a> under the microscope. Meanwhile, Donald Trump <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-come-out-swinging-over-nafta-228712">lambasted the North American Free Trade Agreement</a> (NAFTA), signed by Clinton in 1994, as the “worst trade deal ever made”.</p>
<p>More recently, the #MeToo movement has prompted a reassessment of Clinton’s personal history, particularly longstanding, unresolved and unproven <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/19/bill-clinton-sexual-misconduct-allegations-past">allegations</a> against him of <a href="https://www.vox.com/2016/1/6/10722580/bill-clinton-juanita-broaddrick">sexual harassment, sexual assault</a>, and <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/11/reckoning-with-bill-clintons-sex-crimes/545729/">even rape</a>. New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a onetime protégé of Hillary Clinton, recently <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/17/why-kirsten-gillibrands-bold-statement-that-bill-clinton-shouldve-resigned-is-a-big-deal/?utm_term=.e3526e67fbec">suggested</a> that it would have been “appropriate” for Clinton to have resigned the presidency over the Monica Lewinsky scandal.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BEx8J6sLMsA?wmode=transparent&start=5" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>These are the political and personal fissures that still cleave Clinton’s legacy 25 years after he took office, and they can seem impossible to close. Was he a pseudo-liberal who enacted watered-down Republicanism or the saviour who brought the Democrats out of the wilderness? A roguish lothario or a sexual predator? </p>
<h2>A different kind of president</h2>
<p>Clinton was an anomaly from the off. His election marked a transition between generations. He was the first Baby Boomer president and the first not to have served in World War II. He was also a profoundly unlikely president. </p>
<p>1992 was not supposed to be a Democratic year. The incumbent Republican president, George H.W. Bush, was still surfing a wave of popularity following the <a href="https://millercenter.org/president/bush/foreign-affairs">first Gulf War</a>. Better-known Democratic contenders <a href="https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2011/04/the-mario-effect-last-time-a-group-of-presidential-challengers-was-this-unimpressive-there-was-a-reason-067223">declined to run</a>, leaving an opening for an obscure Arkansas governor to <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-decisive-new-york-primary-for-the-clintons-again-57857">win the party’s presidential nomination</a>.</p>
<p>Clinton ran as a representative of the <a href="http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1992-10-22/news/9204050594_1_democratic-nominee-bill-clinton-democratic-party-democratic-governors">New Democrat</a> movement, a faction that emerged in response to the party’s continued political misfortunes. The Democratic candidate had lost in every presidential election since 1976, and the New Democrats blamed the party’s leftward shift, which they claimed alienated Middle Americans. They sought to move the party to the centre by embracing market solutions and limited government, rejecting “identity politics”, and avoiding the appearance of dovishness in foreign policy.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202272/original/file-20180117-53299-15053i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202272/original/file-20180117-53299-15053i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202272/original/file-20180117-53299-15053i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202272/original/file-20180117-53299-15053i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202272/original/file-20180117-53299-15053i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202272/original/file-20180117-53299-15053i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202272/original/file-20180117-53299-15053i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Passing the torch: Bill Clinton takes over from George Bush Senior.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3A1993_Clinton_and_Bush_Inauguration.jpg">Smithsonian via Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Clinton pursued a New Democrat agenda in the White House, out of both choice and necessity (he had to contend with a Republican-controlled Congress after the 1994 midterms). This makes his legislative legacy a curious hybrid of liberal and conservative measures. </p>
<p>In his first year, Clinton signed a major gun control law, mandating background checks on most firearm purchases, and pushed unsuccessfully to enact sweeping healthcare reform. He also oversaw the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the law that kept commercial and investment banking separate, and signed the Defence of Marriage Act, prohibiting the federal government from recognising same-sex marriages. </p>
<p>But the Clinton presidency will always be defined by its most dramatic confrontation: the impeachment trial that resulted from the revelation that Clinton had conducted an affair with a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky. Though the conflict was ferocious, Clinton not only survived, but emerged politically strengthened. His approval ratings <a href="http://news.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx">peaked at 73% in December 1998</a>, at the end of the impeachment trial. Though dismissed by many at the time as an irrelevant foible, Clinton’s relationship with Lewinsky, and the abuse of power that it entailed, are being reevaluated.</p>
<p>If Bill Clinton faces a personal reckoning, what about “Clintonism”? A comparison between Bill Clinton’s two presidential campaigns and that of Hillary Clinton in 2016 reveals a Democratic Party that has been moving leftwards since the 1990s, on both economic and social issues. Though still centrist in tone, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 platform was – to quote <a href="https://berniesanders.com/democrats-adopt-progressive-platform-party-history/">none other than Bernie Sanders himself</a> – the “most progressive platform in party history”.</p>
<p>At one time, it seemed Bill Clinton represented the future of centre-left politics; the “Third Way” philosophy he pioneered was taken up by other leaders, most notably <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1998/sep/22/labour.comment">Tony Blair and New Labour</a>. But now his first inauguration shares an anniversary not with his wife’s, but with Donald Trump’s – and even the party he once led seems to be turning away from his legacy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/89718/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Patrick Andelic does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Bill Clinton and Donald Trump share an awkward anniversary.Patrick Andelic, Lecturer in American History, Northumbria University, NewcastleLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/851902017-10-05T08:36:38Z2017-10-05T08:36:38ZWhat it’s like to transition on to Universal Credit<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/188767/original/file-20171004-6702-1rv1uz4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The government has rejected calls for the rollout of the one-stop benefit to be paused. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">via shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Originally designed with the intention of “making work pay” by smoothing out transitions between paid work and welfare, Universal Credit is now being widely criticised for failing to deliver on its promises. Despite calls by <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/29/universal-credit-rollout-should-be-paused-tory-mps">a group</a> of Conservative MPs for the next phase of the welfare benefit’s rollout to be paused, in early October the work and pensions secretary David Gauke <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/02/heidi-allen-tory-mp-theresa-may-universal-credit">said</a> it would go ahead as planned. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit">Universal Credit</a> replaces six means-tested welfare benefits (Jobseeker’s Allowance, Employment and Support Allowance, Income Support, Working Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit and Housing Benefit) with a single monthly benefit payment. This payment varies, dependent on an individual’s earnings the previous month. </p>
<p>Each Universal Credit recipient has to agree a “claimant commitment” with their adviser or job coach, which can include requirements to undertake up to 35 hours of job search and training per week. Benefit sanctions are applied for non-compliance. For the first time, Universal Credit has extended welfare conditionality to low-paid workers in receipt of in-work benefits such as tax credits and housing benefit. This means claimants have to attend mandatory appointments in order to keep receiving the benefit – even if they already work. </p>
<p>Although some supporters of Universal Credit argue that many of the current issues are indicative of a social security system undergoing a significant transition, our ongoing <a href="http://www.welfareconditionality.ac.uk/">research project</a> on welfare conditionality points to more systemic failings in how the new system is designed and implemented.</p>
<p>New claimants face a wait of up to six weeks before they receive an initial payment but some respondents in our study spoke of longer waits due to administrative errors and delays. While waiting, people are routinely left with little or no money for basic necessities like food and rent payments and consequently fall into debt.</p>
<p>According to the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/648831/universal-credit-payment-advances-statistical-ad-hoc.pdf">Department for Work and Pensions</a> about half of all claimants living in areas where Universal Credit has been fully rolled out receive an advance payment. While these are available to help tide people over during the waiting period, they are discretionary and only available as repayable loans deducted from any future payments. This leaves recipients in the difficult position of having to live on a reduced income moving forward, potentially worsening budgeting problems between monthly payments.</p>
<p><iframe id="uRZe1" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/uRZe1/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Changes to the system</h2>
<p>Rising debt problems have been further compounded by three further significant changes in how Universal Credit operates, compared to the benefits it replaces. First, many have struggled with the switch from fortnightly to monthly payments. During our interviews, one recipient in Scotland told us:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Hate this monthly pay. I don’t know how people survive on it. It was easier when you were getting paid fortnightly. At least you just had to get fortnight to fortnight. Getting it monthly, and then you’ve got all your bills coming out of it a month, and then you’re looking at £80-odd, or £100 for the month.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Scotland has just introduced <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-is-changing-the-way-universal-credit-is-paid-to-help-people-budget-85135">new regulations</a> allowing Universal Credit to be paid fortnightly. </p>
<p>Second, payment of the housing element of Universal Credit directly to the claimant, rather than the old system of directly to the landlord, has significantly increased rent arrears among vulnerable people. For those who are struggling to make ends meet or who have been sanctioned, the rent doesn’t get paid.</p>
<p>Third, many claimants are also struggling to get to grips with the variations in Universal Credit payment that occur each month. Because the benefit is paid in arrears, based on earnings for the previous month, the system assumes that moving forward any earnings from work will be at the same level the next month, with the amount adjusted up or down depending on previous monthly earnings. However, this is routinely not the case for a lot of people on flexible or zero-hours contracts. One in-work recipient of Universal Credit in Bath told us:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I’ve got rent arrears [£2,500] and just trying to sort of like survive, I can’t do it on my weekly payments… that’s when I’m working… I’m not sat on benefit waiting to get benefits… I’ve got no Universal Credit this month because apparently I earned too much.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Counter-productive consequences</h2>
<p>Beyond these significant debt-related issues, it is surely time for a more fundamental rethink about whether welfare conditionality should be applied to people who are working but receiving Universal Credit. Requiring those already in work to attend interviews with job coaches under pain of sanction is plainly counter-productive. It does not meet with the needs of employers who want people to be at work rather than discussing options in Jobcentres, and it is a nonsense for a policy that is supposed to encourage engagement with paid employment to be sanctioning people for not attending interviews because they are working. As one in-work Universal Credit recipient from Manchester told our researchers:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I rang them up to say that I couldn’t come in because I was working full-time. So they said that was all right. Then I got a letter saying I’d missed my interview and they’ve taken me off Universal Credit. So I thought, you know what, just stuff you. I can’t be bothered with them anymore… So, basically, mostly I’ve struggled because I just can’t be doing with them.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>For some recipients in our study, Universal Credit appeared to be working well. One man in Bath outlined how the mandatory training he had received helped him into work. He also said that for him, the monthly top-ups to his variable pay were helpful. That said, such voices were very much in the minority.</p>
<p>While we support the heightened calls for a pause in the rollout of Universal Credit, a more systematic rethink of the benefit is also required for it to be able to address the unintended outcomes and issues we’ve heard about in our research. Only then might Universal Credit start to deliver real social security in the future.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/85190/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Dwyer receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council for research on welfare conditionality. He is a member of the Labour Party's Social Security Commission. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sharon Wright receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council for research on welfare conditionality. </span></em></p>The rollout of the new benefit system will not be paused – but it is causing real hardship.Peter Dwyer, Professor of Social Policy, University of YorkSharon Wright, Senior Lecturer in Public Policy, University of GlasgowLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/851352017-10-04T11:42:46Z2017-10-04T11:42:46ZScotland is changing the way Universal Credit is paid to help people budget<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/188777/original/file-20171004-6757-9466x9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/seapigeon/6159902548/in/photolist-aok7qm-9Qjnx9-aohW6E-atMqSG-fv1U39-9Qjbvb-9QjkNL-aKwvPT-hsUA9M-aoirJz-arvJEk-2jPp9D-bj44WP-cddPuo-nNvgBh-Ack7VZ-btmLLS-bGhapc-arygKC-dujPkr-3b28Ju-arygC1-cdmB9J-bGnbPD-i1dWyW-arvEJZ-aohq3T-aryhMu-arymvG-aKwvs6-9ogzAN-hBnbms-bPzVkv-hBnDfL-68Ei9P-dm8GV7-pEnav-fAgHgE-9Qjjdq-VQdSCu-bDYxCD-73834G-cfVd6U-aozFvc-T1ibzf-StAnQt-aoCGL5-6fSrG4-8TC1CX-8TC4UK">Graeme/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When it was introduced in 2013, government ministers promised that their flagship new benefit <a href="https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit">Universal Credit</a> would help <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/iain-duncan-smith-welfare-reforms-realised">transform lives</a>, make work pay and support Britain’s most vulnerable households.</p>
<p>In fact, as a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/29/universal-credit-rollout-should-be-paused-tory-mps">letter</a> by 12 backbench Conservatives recently made clear, it increases poverty and hardship, with rent arrears, evictions and referrals to food banks spiking among households who have been moved on to the new benefit.</p>
<p>While the rebel MPs and many <a href="https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/Global/CitizensAdvice/welfare%20publications/Universal%20Credit%20updated%20briefing%20-%20September%202017%20%20.pdf">others</a> argue that Universal Credit’s continued roll-out should be paused, David Gauke, Secretary of State for the Department for Work and Pensions, used his <a href="http://www.ukpol.co.uk/david-gauke-2017-speech-at-conservative-party-conference/">speech</a> at the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester to pledge to push ahead as planned. </p>
<p>While the political disagreements and flaws with Universal Credit have been attracting considerable media attention, rather less notice has been paid to changes to the benefit being made in Scotland.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/188621/original/file-20171003-31723-1bs9kta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/188621/original/file-20171003-31723-1bs9kta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/188621/original/file-20171003-31723-1bs9kta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/188621/original/file-20171003-31723-1bs9kta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/188621/original/file-20171003-31723-1bs9kta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=523&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/188621/original/file-20171003-31723-1bs9kta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=523&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/188621/original/file-20171003-31723-1bs9kta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=523&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Budgeting difficulties mean that many people on benefits have to resort to food banks to feed their families.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.paimages.co.uk/image-details/2.24196000">PA</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Scottish flexibility</h2>
<p>Now, as the next phase of the Universal Credit roll-out is implemented, new <a href="https://www.sfha.co.uk/news/news-category/sector-news/news-article/universal-credit-flexibilities-regulations-laid-in-scottish-parliament">regulations</a> come into force that will alter how the benefit is administered in Scotland. The flexibilities introduced will allow Scottish households to opt to receive Universal Credit fortnightly (rather than the current default of monthly), and to choose to have the rental component of their benefit paid directly to the landlord rather than to themselves, as is currently the case. </p>
<p>These regulations are the first use of the Scottish government’s <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36353498">new powers</a> on social security, as devolved by the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/11/contents/enacted">2016 Scotland Act</a>, which followed on from the 2014 Scottish independence referendum. The Act saw <a href="http://www.gov.scot/Topics/People/fairerscotland/Social-Security/Resources/FAQs#Question%202">11 social security benefits</a> devolved to Scotland, and makes it possible for the Scottish government to top up benefits in the future. </p>
<p>Universal Credit is not one of the benefits devolved to Scotland, and so there are limits as to the changes the Scottish government can make. Much of the furore and <a href="http://www.itv.com/news/2017-09-11/roll-out-of-universal-credit-benefits-reform-is-disaster-waiting-to-happen/">criticism</a> of Universal Credit in recent weeks focused on the six-week wait before the first benefit payment is made, and these new regulations will not change that. Nonetheless, they are significant, both in the differences they could make to affected claimants’ lives, and in the way they open up new divisions in how social security policy operates in different parts of the country. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/188622/original/file-20171003-14213-2pfvk7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/188622/original/file-20171003-14213-2pfvk7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=548&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/188622/original/file-20171003-14213-2pfvk7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=548&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/188622/original/file-20171003-14213-2pfvk7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=548&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/188622/original/file-20171003-14213-2pfvk7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=689&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/188622/original/file-20171003-14213-2pfvk7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=689&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/188622/original/file-20171003-14213-2pfvk7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=689&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Nicola Sturgeon’s government has ensured that Scottish households can opt for a fortnightly Universal Credit payment instead of a monthly one, as in England and Wales.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.paimages.co.uk/image-details/2.29748245">PA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The realities of poverty</h2>
<p>In <a href="https://policypress.co.uk/for-whose-benefit">research</a> with individuals directly affected by welfare reform in England, I interviewed single parents, young people on <a href="https://www.gov.uk/jobseekers-allowance">Jobseeker’s Allowance</a> and disabled people several times over five years. The single parents were affected by changes that meant their main benefit was paid fortnightly, instead of weekly, as had previously been the case. They described this making it much harder to budget very limited resources. As Karen put it:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>You could manage it easier [when it was weekly] … You got paid every week, you paid everything off every week.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>When told that they would be paid monthly when moved on to Universal Credit, individuals were often very nervous about how they would cope. Chloe anticipated her future under monthly payments: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We would definitely be out on the street, we wouldn’t be able to survive.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Participants were also concerned about having their rent paid direct to them (rather than to their landlord), as they feared this would make budgeting harder still. Both Rosie, a single parent, and James, a young jobseeker, felt that the change would lead to increases in rent arrears and evictions, something borne out by the emerging <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/16/universal-credit-rent-arrears-soar">evidence</a> on the impact of Universal Credit’s roll-out. Reflecting on the changes, Rosie asked: “Who’s come up with that stupid idea?”</p>
<p>The flexibilities the Scottish government is introducing to Universal Credit could prove significant in easing budgetary pressures like the ones that the individuals in my research feared. They will not help my research participants, however, who live in the north of England.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/188607/original/file-20171003-4693-1b68yht.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/188607/original/file-20171003-4693-1b68yht.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/188607/original/file-20171003-4693-1b68yht.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/188607/original/file-20171003-4693-1b68yht.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/188607/original/file-20171003-4693-1b68yht.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/188607/original/file-20171003-4693-1b68yht.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/188607/original/file-20171003-4693-1b68yht.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The government introduced Universal Credit in 2013 to streamline the benefits system, help vulnerable households and to make work pay.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/559278979?size=huge_jpg&src=lb-59856941&sort=newestFirst&offset=3">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In England and Wales, the default on Universal Credit remains for it to be paid monthly with the full payment (including the rental component) made directly to the claimant. While there are <a href="https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/benefits/universal-credit/on-universal-credit/universal-credit-debt-rent-arrears/">circumstances</a> in which claimants can have their benefit paid to the landlord and alter the payment frequency, it is not an option available to all.</p>
<p>In Northern Ireland, where Universal Credit is being introduced on a different timetable, the default will be for the benefit to be paid fortnightly, with payment direct to landlords also <a href="http://revenuebenefits.org.uk/universal-credit/guidance/who-can-claim-universal-credit/who-can-claim-northern-ireland/">possible</a> as in Scotland. </p>
<p>Experiences under Universal Credit will – at least partially – depend on where claimants live, with Scotland and Northern Ireland seeming to offer an approach most in line with the realities of what getting by in poverty involves.</p>
<p>By 2022, when the roll-out is complete, as many as <a href="https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/about-us/how-citizens-advice-works/media/press-releases/citizens-advice-calls-for-universal-credit-rollout-to-be-paused-as-research-reveals-people-left-facing-financial-difficulty1/">seven million households</a> will be in receipt of Universal Credit. As well as focusing on the big picture of the benefit – and its many problems – we need to better understand how devolution and social security intersect. Only then can will we be able to properly assess how it is affecting households across Britain.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/85135/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ruth Patrick received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council for this research. She is a member of the Fabian Society and Labour Party. </span></em></p>Designed to ease budgetry pressures, households in Scotland on Universal Credit can now opt for a fortnightly payment instead of being paid monthly.Ruth Patrick, Postdoctoral Researcher, University of LiverpoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/829032017-08-24T19:17:22Z2017-08-24T19:17:22ZNew budget standards show just how inadequate the Newstart Allowance has become<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183099/original/file-20170823-13285-hlywmr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">An increase in the Newstart Allowance of well in excess of $50 a week is urgently needed.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Joel Carrett</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s long been accepted that the level of Newstart Allowance for the unemployed is too low. The <a href="https://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/Content/Content.aspx?doc=html/home.htm">Henry Tax Review</a> proposed an increase of “about $50 a week” in the payment for single people to restore parity with the couple rate. Several community organisations, including the <a href="http://www.acoss.org.au/media_release/government_urged_to_make_a_new_start_in_2015/">Australian Council of Social Service</a>, have called for similar changes over time. </p>
<p>But if the couple rate is also too low, this would reduce – not remove – the underlying inadequacy.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/research/projects/a-new-healthy-living-minimum-income-standard-for-low-paid-and-unemployed-australians/">Our new research</a> allows these and other income inadequacies to be estimated using a budget standards approach – that is, by calculating how much income a family needs to achieve a certain standard of living.</p>
<p>New budgets have been derived for families with the main (male) breadwinner either in full-time work and receiving the minimum wage, or unemployed and receiving Newstart. They cover single people, couples with no, one and two children, and a sole parent with one child. The first child in each family is a six-year-old girl and the second child is a ten-year-old boy.</p>
<p>The budgets for low-paid families vary between A$597 per week (single person) and $1,173 per week for the couple with two children. The corresponding weekly budgets for unemployed families are $434 and $930.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/uOIwk/2/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="770"></iframe>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/D4RIM/2/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="800"></iframe>
<p>Comparing the new budget standards with the incomes provided by the social safety net for each family allows the adequacy of these provisions to be assessed.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/YXxzP/2/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="475"></iframe>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/0IZn4/1/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="475"></iframe>
<p>These comparisons show the minimum wage for a single person is $62 above the low-paid budget standard. However, the safety net incomes for couple families with or without children all fall short of the new standards by between $9 and $89 per week. </p>
<p>For unemployed families, the Newstart-based safety net incomes are well below the unemployed standards in all instances: $96 per week below for a single person, $107 for a couple, and $126 for a couple with two children.</p>
<h2>How reliable are these estimates?</h2>
<p>The budget standards approach involves deriving how much money a family needs to buy the basket of goods needed to achieve a particular standard of living.</p>
<p>The method has a long history in Australia. It dates back to when Justice Higgins used it as the basis for setting the living wage in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvester_case">Harvester judgment</a> in 1907.</p>
<p>The standard underpinning our new budget standards is the <a href="http://jech.bmj.com/content/54/12/885">Minimum Income for Healthy Living standard</a> developed in the UK. It is designed to allow each person to lead a fully healthy life in all of its dimensions, with implications for what people consume, own and do. It also means omitting items like tobacco products, too much “junk food”, and excessive consumption of alcohol, that are inconsistent with healthy living.</p>
<p>Any attempt to assess adequacy is fraught with difficulty. This reflects the elusive nature of adequacy itself, which is hard to give precise meaning to. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/05_2012/pensionreviewreport.pdf">Harmer Pension Review</a> emphasised that it should reflect “prevailing community standards”, but what these are and how they are identified is open to interpretation.</p>
<p>Rather than retreat in the face of this uncertainty, the budget standards approach has met the challenge head-on by identifying the items required to reach the Minimum Income for Healthy Living standard.</p>
<h2>What this means</h2>
<p>The new standards suggest that while the minimum wage may be adequate for some low-paid workers, this is clearly not the case for Newstart Allowance, which is woefully inadequate. </p>
<p>An increase well in excess of $50 per week is urgently needed, but so too is an independent mechanism for regular review and adjustment of its adequacy. Something similar to what the Fair Work Commission uses to set the minimum wage would be an obvious place to start, since that seems to work. </p>
<p>Improving and maintaining the adequacy of the incomes received by low-paid workers and the unemployed should be an integral part of any concerted effort to tackle overall economic inequality.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82903/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Saunders received funding from an Australian Research Council Linkage grant for the research described here. As part of this Linkage grant additional cash and in-kind support was provided by Catholic Social Services, Australia, United Voice (National Office) and ACOSS. </span></em></p>The minimum wage may be adequate for some low-paid workers – but this is clearly not the case for the woefully inadequate Newstart Allowance.Peter Saunders, Research Professor in Social Policy, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/813672017-08-01T00:17:35Z2017-08-01T00:17:35ZWelfare as we know it now: 6 questions answered<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179898/original/file-20170726-28585-6xhxyw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">When President Bill Cllinton officially ended welfare as we knew it, he was flanked by women who had received Aid to Families with Dependent Children.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://pictures.reuters.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&VBID=2C0BXZNAYW76Z&SMLS=1&RW=1195&RH=684&POPUPPN=36&POPUPIID=2C0408YJW9N">Reuters/Stephen Jaffee</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Editor’s note: President Donald Trump’s proposed budget would slice <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-budget-benefits-cuts/?utm_term=.6fe8a036bc8a">US$21.7 billion over a decade, or 13.1 percent</a>, from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) – what’s left of basic welfare for families facing economic hardship. To justify this cut and an across-the-board reduction in <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/budget.pdf">antipoverty spending</a>, he argued, “We must reform our welfare system so that it does not discourage able-bodied adults from working, which takes away scarce resources from those in real need.”</em> </p>
<p><em>But, as political scientist Laura Hussey explains, that’s already the case. Today’s welfare system is short-term and reserved mainly for children.</em></p>
<h2>1. What is TANF?</h2>
<p>TANF provides cash assistance and other services to children and their parents or guardians who can work and are extremely poor. States, sometimes through local governments, administer the program and help fund it.</p>
<p>It replaced the welfare program known first as Aid to Dependent Children and later renamed Aid to Families with Dependent Children. In 1996, President Bill Clinton and the Republican-led Congress <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/3734/text">overhauled the welfare system</a>, creating TANF. This modern welfare system’s main goals boil down to:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Help families in need care for their own children.</p></li>
<li><p>Get families off welfare quickly, especially through paid work.</p></li>
<li><p>Encourage marriage and two-parent families while discouraging unmarried and teen pregnancy.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Fulfilling Clinton’s campaign promise to “<a href="https://www.brookings.edu/book/ending-welfare-as-we-know-it/">end welfare as we know it</a>,” the law tied time limits and other, sometimes intrusive, mandates to cash grants. Among other changes, it converted the federal program into a block grant model, letting states use these dollars how they wanted. It converted this antipoverty program into aid contingent on efforts to <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pam.21880/full">enter or reenter the workforce</a> through new job requirements. In 2012, the most recent year for which comprehensive data are available, more than 42 percent of TANF families included <a href="https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/116161/FINAL%20Fourteenth%20Report%20-%20FINAL%209%2022%2015.pdf">an employed household member</a>.</p>
<h2>2. How many Americans get TANF benefits?</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.cbpp.org/research/family-income-support/tanf-reaching-few-poor-families">1.5 million American families</a> who obtained TANF benefits in a typical month in 2015 represent roughly 23 percent of those experiencing poverty. In contrast, AFDC, the precursor program, supported 4.7 million families in 1995 – 76 percent of the nation’s poor families. </p>
<p></p><hr><p></p>
<p><iframe id="GaCfi" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/GaCfi/5/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p></p><hr><p></p>
<p><iframe id="Yaoyj" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Yaoyj/6/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p></p><hr><p></p>
<h2>3. Who gets TANF benefits?</h2>
<p>More than three out of four of the people who get these benefits are children. For a <a href="http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/1504/">growing share</a> of TANF “families” – nearly half in 2015 – <a href="https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ofa/resource/characteristics-and-financial-circumstances-of-tanf-recipients-fiscal-year-2015">the only beneficiaries are minors</a>. </p>
<p></p><hr><p></p>
<p><iframe id="uEpzf" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/uEpzf/7/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p></p><hr><p></p>
<p>Most of these children who are the only people in a household getting benefits either reside with guardians or have parents who are aren’t eligible themselves. Ineligible parents who live in poverty might be immigrants, people who receive disability-related assistance or adults who would qualify if they hadn’t broken TANF rules, such as failing to fully comply with a work requirement or submit required paperwork.</p>
<p>In those cases, families keep receiving the children’s part of the grant. This reflects a reluctance by policymakers to punish kids for their parents’ status or behavior.</p>
<h2>4. How long do people get these benefits?</h2>
<p>Most TANF recipients get benefits for short periods of time. From 2008 to 2011, as the Great Recession ended, most of them were out of the program within four months or less. The vast majority of Americans who got TANF benefits from 1999 to 2008 received it for no more than <a href="https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/116161/FINAL%20Fourteenth%20Report%20-%20FINAL%209%2022%2015.pdf">two of those years</a>, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. </p>
<p></p><hr><p></p>
<p><iframe id="2rFyz" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/2rFyz/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p></p><hr><p></p>
<p>The federal government cuts off TANF benefits for families with an adult recipient after a total of 60 months. States may set their own ceiling below five years if they want or make an exception to this lifetime limit for up to 20 percent of their TANF cases, based on exceptional hardship. They can also use their own money to continue cash benefits for families that hit that five-year quota, which applies to adults but not children.</p>
<h2>5. How does the program vary across the country?</h2>
<p>TANF cash grants averaged $442 per family <a href="https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/2015_welfare_rules_databook_final_09_26_16_b508.pdf">as of July 2015</a>. The maximum monthly grant available to households with one adult and two children ranged from a low of $170 in Mississippi to a maximum of $923 in Alaska.</p>
<p></p><hr><p></p>
<p><iframe id="LmuQY" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/LmuQY/4/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p></p><hr><p></p>
<h2>6. What does TANF fund?</h2>
<p>After two decades under the block grant model that gives states discretion over how to spend TANF dollars, cash grants typically consume only a <a href="https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ofa/resource/tanf-financial-data-fy-2015">small share of this money</a>.</p>
<p>States may spend federal TANF funds on other activities serving its official purposes, as well as such things as foster care, juvenile justice and what the government calls “emergency assistance” – goods or services that help meet children’s basic needs amid short-term hardships. </p>
<p></p><hr><p></p>
<p><iframe id="5B1Lh" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/5B1Lh/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p></p><hr><p></p>
<p>States spent on average about a quarter of federal TANF funds on “basic assistance” – mostly as cash grants – in 2015 and 16 percent on child care. Another 10 percent funded “work, education and training activities,” including subsidies to employers that hire people enrolled in the program and services designed to help them get jobs. “Work supports,” benefits that cover expenses such as transportation to job interviews, uniforms and occupational licensing, averaged 2.5 percent of TANF funds. </p>
<p>The remaining fifth of federal TANF dollars funded an array of efforts to promote two-parent families, reduce domestic violence and topple what the government says are “barriers” to work and self-sufficiency, like substance abuse counseling. Not all of this money helps the poor. Michigan spends some of its federal welfare dollars, for example, on college scholarships for <a href="https://www.marketplace.org/2016/06/09/wealth-poverty/how-welfare-money-funds-college-scholarships">high-income families</a>.</p>
<p>Despite not covering most U.S. families living in poverty, the states ended the year with $1.4 billion in committed but unspent federal TANF funds, plus $2.3 billion more that they are saving for future years.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81367/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Laura Antkowiak does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Trump’s rationale for cutting the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program rests on a myth at odds with contemporary data.Laura Antkowiak, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Maryland, Baltimore CountyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/786092017-06-25T20:09:19Z2017-06-25T20:09:19ZFactCheck: was Christian Porter right about welfare spending and income tax?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/171592/original/file-20170531-25673-1c2ragd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Social Services Minister Christian Porter in Question Time.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><blockquote>
<p>Under Labor after the GFC, the welfare system was costing over 100% of all income tax raised. That’s clearly an unsustainable position that simply puts the burden of welfare payments on future generations through higher debt. Under the Coalition that has reduced to around 80%. <strong>– Social Services Minister Christian Porter, <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/treasury/the-15-hardstruggle-postcodes-where-welfare-in-exceeds-income-tax-out/news-story/afa22fffd0f2a4a15216d4040974c39e?login=1">quoted in The Australian</a>, May 22, 2017.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>In a <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/treasury/the-15-hardstruggle-postcodes-where-welfare-in-exceeds-income-tax-out/news-story/afa22fffd0f2a4a15216d4040974c39e?login=1">news report</a> outlining welfare payments made versus income tax paid in 35 Australian suburbs, Social Services Minister Christian Porter was quoted as saying that “under Labor after the [global financial crisis], the welfare system was costing over 100% of all income tax raised”, and that “under the Coalition that has reduced to around 80%”.</p>
<p>Porter made the same claim in a <a href="http://christianporter.dss.gov.au/node/1196">recent speech</a> to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, in which he discussed the sustainability of Australia’s welfare system and said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Under Labor in 2008-09, the yearly welfare bill climbed to be more than 100% of the personal income tax take. That figure is now 80%.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Is that right?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>Asked for sources to support his statement, a spokesperson for Christian Porter sent The Conversation two tables based on federal budget papers, which show welfare spending as a percentage of income tax receipts to be 101.8% in 2008-09 and 80.5% in 2016-17.</p>
<p>The spokesperson added:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The minister’s reference simply highlighted the fact that under Labor, after the global financial crisis, more money was being paid to individuals through the welfare system than was being collected via income tax. </p>
<p>The data reinforced a key point in the minister’s September 2016 <a href="http://christianporter.dss.gov.au/speeches/australian-priority-investment-approach-to-welfare">speech to the National Press Club</a> (and subsequently in other speeches/media release/media response) that such a position was unsustainable from a budget perspective.</p>
<p>Such a situation, the minister argued, placed an undue burden on future generations through increased borrowings in order to meet the current cost of the Australian welfare system.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>You can read the spokesperson’s full response <a href="http://theconversation.com/full-response-from-a-spokesperson-for-christian-porter-78664">here</a>.</p>
<h2>What are the facts on welfare spending and income tax?</h2>
<p>So, what do we mean when we talk about Australia’s “welfare bill”?</p>
<p>The social security and welfare bill includes spending on aged care, family benefits and child care, payments to the unemployed and sick, as well as other welfare programs. In 2016-17 welfare <a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2016-17/content/bp1/html/bp1_bs5-01.htm">made up 35.2%</a> of all government spending.</p>
<p>Let’s look at what was in the social security and welfare bill in the financial years Porter and his spokesperson referred to: 2008-09 and 2016-17. Because the 2016-17 financial year doesn’t end until June 30 this year, the figures are still estimates (taken from this year’s federal budget).</p>
<p>In 2008-09 the social security and welfare bill <a href="http://budget.gov.au/2010-11/content/bp1/html/bp1_bst6-04.htm">totalled A$124.6 billion</a>; in 2016-17 it is <a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2016-17/content/bp1/html/bp1_bs5-01.htm">estimated to be</a> $158.6 billion.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/JQpAO/6/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="350"></iframe>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/YyYj9/6/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="330"></iframe>
<p>The “personal income tax take” is the <a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2016-17/content/bp1/html/bp1_bs4-05_online.htm">total amount of money</a> the federal government receives from taxing individuals’ incomes. In 2008-09 this was $122.4 billion; in 2016-17 it’s estimated to be about $197 billion.</p>
<p>It’s worth noting there’s not a special link between the funding of welfare programs and how much income tax is collected – that is, welfare spending isn’t necessarily funded by income tax receipts. But, for the purposes of this FactCheck, we can compare the two.</p>
<h2>How does the size of the welfare bill compare to the income tax take?</h2>
<p>We can track welfare spending and personal income tax receipts by looking at budget papers over time. Let’s look at the data since 2004-05.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Xq6oE/1/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/1JLnC/3/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="450"></iframe>
<p>As you can see in the two graphs above, welfare spending spiked in 2008-09 compared against income tax receipts. In that financial year, welfare spending was 101.8% of the personal income tax take, as noted by Porter’s spokesperson.</p>
<p>But does that mean that after the global financial crisis, Labor left the federal budget in an “unsustainable position”? The numbers tell a different story.</p>
<p>Under Labor governments from 2009-10 to 2013-14, welfare spending was, on average, 87% of income tax receipts, and was at 85.9% by the time of Labor’s final budget. Under Coalition governments from 2014-15 to 2016-17, it has averaged 82%, and is currently at an estimated 80.5%.</p>
<p>So, overall, with the exception of one year since 2008-09, welfare spending as a proportion of income tax has been falling back toward pre-global financial crisis levels under both Labor and Coalition governments.</p>
<h2>Why was there a spike in welfare spending in 2008-09?</h2>
<p>The financial year 2008-09 was <a href="http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2011/Economic-Roundup-Issue-2/Report/Part-1-Reasons-for-resilience">marked by a global financial crisis</a> that sent developed economies around the world into recession. </p>
<p>With fears Australia could also fall into recession, the then-Rudd government introduced a fiscal stimulus policy based largely on cash handouts to low and middle-income families, and pensioners. </p>
<p>These payments amounted to <a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2008-09/content/myefo/download/MYEFO_2008_09.pdf">$8.8 billion</a> in October 2008 and a further <a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2009-10/content/bp1/downloads/bp_1.pdf">$12.2 billion</a> in February 2009, at a total of $21 billion for the 2008-09 financial year.</p>
<p>The federal government’s total welfare and social security budget increased by $28.6 billion between 2007-08 and 2008-09. So that $21 billion increase in cash payments made up a large proportion of why welfare payments overtook income tax in that year.</p>
<h2>Other factors that contributed to the 2008-09 spike and helped the budget recover since</h2>
<p>There are other factors that affect the difference between welfare spending and income tax receipts, including employment rates, wages growth and <a href="http://bettertax.gov.au/our-tax-system/individuals-income-tax/bracket-creep/">tax bracket creep</a>.</p>
<p>For example, the unemployment rate jumped from 4.2% in July 2008 to 5.9% in July 2009, and was 5.2% at the end of the 2009-10 financial year. A higher unemployment rate means fewer income tax receipts and potentially higher welfare payments. </p>
<p>The ratio of welfare spending to personal income tax received is also affected by bracket creep – when people move into higher tax brackets and pay more income tax due to higher wages.</p>
<p>Since 2012-13, the federal government’s bottom line has benefited from bracket creep. Between November 2012 and November 2016, people’s total earnings <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/6302.0Main%20Features6Nov%202016?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=6302.0&issue=Nov%202016&num=&view=">increased, on average, by around 7%</a>, meaning we now have a larger share of income in higher tax brackets.</p>
<p>As tax receipts grow, the difference between the size of the welfare bill and the size of the income tax take gets smaller.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Christian Porter got his figures right when he said that “under Labor after the GFC, the welfare system was costing over 100% of all income tax raised”, and that the figure “has reduced to around 80%” now.</p>
<p>But Porter quoted those figures in the context of the sustainability of Australia’s welfare spending. In that context, his statement was misleading.</p>
<p>There was only one year in which welfare spending overtook income tax, largely due to a one-off response to the global financial crisis. With the exception of one year since 2008-09, welfare spending as a proportion of income tax has since been falling back towards pre-GFC levels. <strong>– Ben Phillips</strong></p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>This is a sound FactCheck. The data is correctly interpreted, and the minister’s remarks are put into context.</p>
<p>While personal income tax is the single largest source of income for the Commonwealth, and welfare and social security is the single largest expense title in the federal budget, personal income tax is not specifically collected to pay the welfare bill. </p>
<p>Most taxes are not collected in order to cover a specific expense – an exception is perhaps the Medicare levy. Suggesting such relationships can be detrimental and misleading.</p>
<p>Also, even if welfare spending were more than 100% of the personal income tax intake, this situation would not necessarily be “an unsustainable position that simply puts the burden of welfare payments on future generations through higher debt”, as Porter stated.</p>
<p>In the financial year 2008-09, total revenue from direct and indirect taxes was <a href="http://budget.gov.au/2010-11/content/bp1/download/bp1_bst5.pdf">$272.6 billion</a>; in 2016-17 it was <a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2017-18/content/bp1/download/bp1_bs5.pdf">$377.2 billion</a>. In both years, about half of Commonwealth tax revenue came from sources other than personal income tax.</p>
<p>So, dubbing the situation “unsustainable” and suggesting that welfare spending must be financed “through higher debt” is misleading. <strong>– Rodrigo Praino and Gerry Redmond</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit is the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78609/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gerry Redmond receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian government and UNICEF.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rodrigo Praino receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and UNICEF.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Phillips does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Christian Porter said Australia’s welfare system ‘was costing over 100% of all income tax raised’ under Labor after the GFC, and that it’s ‘around 80%’ under the Coalition. Is that true?Ben Phillips, Associate Professor, Centre for Social Research and Methods, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/789932017-06-11T20:31:12Z2017-06-11T20:31:12ZFactCheck Q&A: are rates of drug use 2.5 times higher among unemployed people than employed people?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172661/original/file-20170607-5704-1s46ltx.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Social Services Minister Christian Porter, speaking on Q&A.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Q&A</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>The Conversation fact-checks claims made on Q&A, broadcast Mondays on the ABC at 9.35pm. Thank you to everyone who sent us quotes for checking via <a href="http://www.twitter.com/conversationEDU">Twitter</a> using hashtags #FactCheck and #QandA, on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/conversationEDU">Facebook</a> or by <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">email</a>.</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4TQKKVIq7HM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Excerpt from Q&A, June 5, 2017. Quote begins at 4:04.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>… We absolutely know that rates of drug use amongst unemployed are 2.5 times higher than amongst employed people. <strong>– Social Services Minister Christian Porter, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4659222.htm">speaking on Q&A</a>, June 5, 2017.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The 2017-18 federal budget introduced a <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/05_2017/budget_2017_-_welfare_reform_-_fact_sheet_for_web_0.pdf">random drug testing trial</a> for recipients of the Newstart Allowance for job-seekers and Youth Allowance in three locations. During a discussion of the measure on Q&A, Social Services Minister Christian Porter said “rates of drug use amongst unemployed are 2.5 times higher than amongst employed people”.</p>
<p>Is that right?</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"871707254692732928"}"></div></p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>Asked for sources to support his statement, a spokesperson for Christian Porter confirmed the minister was referring to illicit drugs, and directed The Conversation to page 84 of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129549848">2013 National Drug Strategy Household Survey</a>.</p>
<p>The relevant finding reads:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Use of illicit drugs in the past 12 months was more prevalent among the unemployed, with people who were unemployed being 1.6 times more likely to use cannabis, 2.4 times more likely to use meth/amphetamine and 1.8 times more likely to use ecstasy than employed people.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Collecting data on employment status and drug use</h2>
<p>The <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/2016-national-drug-strategy-household-survey/">National Drug Strategy Household Survey</a> quoted by the minister’s spokesperson is a reliable and comprehensive dataset. </p>
<p>The federal government has conducted the survey every three years since 1998. It is currently conducted by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, a federal government agency. The survey collects data on drug use and drug-related issues in the Australian population.</p>
<p>The first findings of the <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/alcohol-and-other-drugs/data-sources/ndshs-2016/key-findings/">2016 survey</a> were <a href="https://theconversation.com/three-charts-on-australias-changing-drug-and-alcohol-habits-78597">released on June 1</a> this year, but those results didn’t include detailed employment data. The latest employment-level data <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129549642">is from 2013</a>, when the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare collected information from almost 24,000 people across Australia.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129549848">2013 survey</a> asked questions about people’s use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco.</p>
<p>The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare defines “illicit drugs” as “illegal drugs, drugs and volatile substances used illicitly, and pharmaceuticals used for non-medical purposes”. So that’s the definition used in this FactCheck. You can read the full list of drugs included <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/alcohol-and-other-drugs/data-sources/ndshs-2013/glossary/">here</a>.</p>
<h2>Recent drug use among employed and unemployed people</h2>
<p>The data below is based on the number of employed and unemployed people aged 14 and over who said they had used the drugs listed at least once in the 12 months prior to the 2013 survey.</p>
<p>Compared to employed people, unemployed people were 1.5 times more likely to have used an illicit drug. They were:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>1.4 times more likely to have used cocaine;</p></li>
<li><p>1.6 times more likely to have used pharmaceuticals for non-medical purposes;</p></li>
<li><p>1.6 times more likely to have used cannabis;</p></li>
<li><p>1.8 times more likely to have used ecstasy; and</p></li>
<li><p>2.4 times more likely to have used methamphetamine (for example, ice and speed).</p></li>
</ul>
<p>So, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data, Porter’s statement that drug use among unemployed people is 2.5 times higher than among employed people is a selective use of the data. It’s true for methamphetamine use, but not for other types of drugs, or illicit use of drugs overall.</p>
<p>The most commonly used illicit drug among unemployed people was cannabis, which had been used by 18.5% of that population in the previous 12 months. Methamphetamine had been used by 5.6% of the unemployed population in that period.</p>
<p>In the 12 months prior to the 2013 survey, 24.5% of unemployed people had used illicit drugs, compared to 16.8% of employed people. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/LOcXg/5/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="480"></iframe>
<h2>Other trends in illicit drug use</h2>
<p>According to the data, a larger proportion of unemployed people had <em>never</em> used illicit drugs (55.5%) compared to employed people (48.8%).</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/G0cDg/5/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="480"></iframe>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/D20CL/4/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="480"></iframe>
<p>While people who were unemployed were less likely to have ever used illicit drugs, those who did were 1.4 to 2.4 times more likely to have used them in the previous 12 months.</p>
<p>Overall, unemployed people were 1.5 times more likely than employed people to have taken an illicit drug in the the previous 12 months.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Christian Porter’s statement that “rates of drug use amongst unemployed are 2.5 times higher than amongst employed people” was incorrect. </p>
<p>Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data showed unemployed people were 1.5 times more likely than employed people to have used an illicit drug in the previous 12 months.</p>
<p>The figure Porter quoted relates to methamphetamine, which unemployed people were 2.4 times more likely than employed people to have used in the past 12 months. <strong>– Nicole Lee</strong></p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>I agree with this FactCheck. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has the most appropriate and up-to-date statistics on drug use by Australians with the most recent data on this particular issue being for 2013.</p>
<p>I have checked the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data. The data show the unemployed had been recent drug users at a higher rate than employed people in the year leading up to the 2013 survey. But overall this was at a rate a bit less than 1.5 times that of the employed, not 2.5 times as Christian Porter said on Q&A. <strong>– Peter Whiteford</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit is the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78993/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicole Lee works as a paid consultant in the public, private and not for profit health sector to support treatment and policy implementation. She has previously been awarded grants by the state and federal government, NHMRC and other public funding bodies for alcohol and other drug research.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Whiteford has received funding from the Australian Research Council and the Department of Social Services. He is affiliated with the Centre for Policy Development. </span></em></p>Social Services Minister Christian Porter told Q&A that ‘rates of drug use amongst unemployed are 2.5 times higher than amongst employed people’. Is that correct?Nicole Lee, Professor at the National Drug Research Institute, Curtin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/748442017-03-29T01:07:52Z2017-03-29T01:07:52ZCuts to sole parent benefits are human rights violations<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162561/original/image-20170327-18995-13maeh8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">40% of children in sole-parent households are living below the poverty line.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Sole parents in Australia are economically vulnerable and are experiencing ongoing cuts to their social security. Legislation limiting welfare benefits that was rushed through the Senate last week will make many of them poorer – but how is this a human rights issue?</p>
<p>Australia is party to many United Nations human rights treaties, including the <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx">International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights</a>. The covenant contains a right to social security, which countries owe to everyone. It requires countries to guarantee that the rights in the covenant are upheld without discrimination. </p>
<p>The UN <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CESCR/Pages/CESCRIndex.aspx">committee</a> responsible for this treaty has explained that social security must be:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… adequate in amount and duration in order that everyone may realise his or her rights to family protection and assistance, an adequate standard of living and adequate access to health care. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The committee has stressed the principle of “non-retrogression” applies under the covenant. This means that countries may not remove rights that have been developed over time and on which people have come to depend. </p>
<p>A country can only reduce social security benefits if it can justify doing so after consulting affected groups, considering alternatives and avoiding discrimination against particular groups, and harmful impacts on the realisation of the right to social security. </p>
<p>The government will breach the rights discussed here as a result of its cuts to benefits in the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s1064">Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill</a>. The bill arose because the government refused to introduce an improved childcare package without parliament <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2017/feb/08/coalition-releases-childcare-package-compromise-in-bid-to-clear-senate-politics-live">finding budget savings elsewhere</a>. It looked to welfare, the area of the budget supporting the poorest Australians, to fund the childcare measures.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fs1064_ems_dcc97d69-0fb8-4cec-a2a9-444db0feaef0%22">A$1.6 billion</a> that these cuts generate for government are being shaved off the already inadequate support for struggling families. The legislation follows various attempts by the Coalition government since 2014 to reduce the welfare budget by removing benefits from young people, parents and other groups already facing financial hardship.</p>
<p>These have met with significant opposition from the public and in parliament. The <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-23/senate-passes-smaller-savings-to-fund-childcare-forms/8378338">government insists</a> families will not be worse off.</p>
<p>The latest changes, while certainly less harsh than earlier legislative attempts, will still have negative impacts on students and other vulnerable groups, particularly low-income families. The Family Tax Benefit indexation freeze means that while the cost of living rises, family payments will fall further behind as families effectively become poorer. </p>
<p>The bill also denies parents income support for seven days by imposing a one-week wait before accessing parenting payments.</p>
<p>Lastly, it freezes indexation of income-free areas for parenting and unemployment payments. This means recipients who work will start losing their income support payments sooner. </p>
<p>Worryingly, the government has not indicated whether it will still proceed with some of the suspended cuts to supplements – such as Family Tax Benefit, education and energy supplements – that it previously attempted to legislate.</p>
<p>The measures will worsen <a href="http://www.acoss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Poverty-in-Australia-2016.pdf">child poverty</a>, which is already high in Australia. Forty percent of children in sole-parent households are living below the poverty line. </p>
<p>Since more than 90% of sole parents are women, the measures will have a discriminatory impact on this disadvantaged group and their children. Families with children in high school who do not benefit from childcare increases will be hundreds of dollars worse off in the next two years. </p>
<p>The Australian Council of Social Service, the St Vincent de Paul Society, the National Council for Single Mothers and their Children, and the author of this article have written to the experts mandated by the UN to deal with extreme poverty, and discrimination against women, to report on this violation of Australia’s human rights commitments. </p>
<p>The correspondence points to the retrogressive impact of the new laws and previous laws on the right to social security, coupled with violations of the right to non-discrimination. The social security benefits are already not adequate for the needs of sole parent families facing hardship in this wealthy country. </p>
<p>The current bill follows earlier budget savings measures <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2012A00144">introduced</a> by the Labor government in 2013. These moved thousands of sole parents off existing payments onto the lower Newstart, resulting in significant reductions to their benefits. Parliament’s <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Human_Rights/Scrutiny_reports/2013/2013/52013/index">Joint Committee on Human Rights</a> found the government had not demonstrated that the cuts were compatible with human rights. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.10storiesofsinglemothers.org.au/who-we-are/">Single mothers</a> affected by those cuts have pointed to a range of negative impacts. These include: rental stress; growing financial insecurity and hardship; stigmatisation of their children; inability to enrol their children in sport and community activities or to pay for school excursions; psychological stress impacting on their health and capacity to work and study; and shame at having to ask others for help. </p>
<p>A 2012 letter by the welfare groups listed above resulted in <a href="https://spdb.ohchr.org/hrdb/22nd/public_-_UA_Australie_19.10.12_(2.2012).pdf">UN experts calling</a> on the government to justify its apparent rights violations. The call went unheeded. </p>
<p>The new cuts are being brought to the attention of the international experts to put on record the government’s ongoing violations of Australia’s human rights commitments and to ask them to intervene on behalf of sole-parent families facing growing poverty and inequality.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74844/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Beth Goldblatt has worked in a voluntary capacity with the Australian Council of Social Service, the National Council for Single Mothers and their Children, and the St Vincent de Paul Society in writing joint submissions to the United Nations.</span></em></p>The latest welfare changes will hurt low-income families and breach Australia’s human rights obligations.Beth Goldblatt, Associate Professor in the Faculty of Law, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/730082017-02-16T12:22:18Z2017-02-16T12:22:18ZUniversal Credit: from benefits panacea to government blunder<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156967/original/image-20170215-27398-toutz7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Reforms to the benefits system have faced severe delays and left people struggling. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">via shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Only a fraction of the households in the UK originally intended to be receiving a new one-stop benefit payment in 2017 are currently doing so. As of January 12 2017, 960,000 claims have been made for Universal Credit and over 450,000 people were receiving the benefit, of whom 170,000 are in employment, according to <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/591091/universal-credit-29-apr-2013-to-12-jan-2017.pdf">new figures</a> published by the Department for Work and Pensions. This is a far cry from the 7m originally intended to be receiving Universal Credit by late 2017. Full implementation has now been delayed until March 2022. </p>
<p>When Universal Credit was announced in 2010 by Ian Duncan Smith, whose Centre for Social Justice <a href="http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/library/dynamic-benefits-towards-welfare-works">developed the proposal</a>, it garnered support for its ambition to simplify the benefit system, improve work incentives, increase “self-reliance”, and redistribute existing expenditure to benefit the poorest. </p>
<p>It replaces six means-tested benefits – many of which are claimed by low-paid families – with a single monthly household payment. It is paid in arrears and most new claimants are eligible for a payment six weeks after claiming. For the time being, it is only being used for new claimants, and some who experience a significant change in circumstances. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156966/original/image-20170215-27409-hvkl9e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156966/original/image-20170215-27409-hvkl9e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156966/original/image-20170215-27409-hvkl9e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156966/original/image-20170215-27409-hvkl9e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156966/original/image-20170215-27409-hvkl9e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156966/original/image-20170215-27409-hvkl9e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156966/original/image-20170215-27409-hvkl9e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156966/original/image-20170215-27409-hvkl9e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Successive revisions to the Universal Credit roll-out assumption.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/efo/economic-and-fiscal-outlook-november-2016/">Office for Budget Responsibility</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Nearly all adult Universal Credit claimants are expected to prepare for, take and increase employment, including those already in jobs but earning below threshold levels. Work incentives are underpinned by digital employment services: the “stick” of a strict sanctions system and the “carrot” of a graduated system of “work allowances” after which there is a 65% withdrawal rate of credit for each £1 of extra earnings. This will change to <a href="http://www.icaew.com/en/technical/tax/budget-and-finance-bills/autumn-statement-2016-report/tax-credits-and-state-benefits">63% in April 2017</a>. </p>
<p>When fully rolled out, the government suggests the “dynamic” effects of Universal Credit on the employment behaviour of those who claim it <a href="http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/work-and-pensions-committee/universal-credit-update/oral/46960.pdf">will benefit</a> the country by £7 billion a year.</p>
<h2>Problems piling up</h2>
<p>Critics, however, quickly <a href="http://www.learningandwork.org.uk/sites/niace_en/files/publications/Implementing%20Universal%20Credit.pdf?redirectedfrom=cesi">pointed</a> to design flaws and the erroneous assumptions made about the circumstances, employment capacity and budgeting skills of vulnerable individuals, poor families and low-paid workers. Incremental reforms have been made to administrative processes but mounting evidence, gathered by MPs on the <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/work-and-pensions-committee/news-parliament-2015/universal-credit-evidence2-16-17/">Work and Pensions Select Committee</a>, illustrates the problems experienced in the transition to the new system. </p>
<p>Local authorities, welfare agencies and landlords highlight slow and inaccurate payments, administrative complexity and poor communications, increased rent arrears and risks of eviction. Claimants have been subject to inappropriate job search requirements and sanctions. The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) acknowledges some problems but anticipates that most will be resolved through ameliorative measures, such as the provision of “money advice” and “alternative payment arrangements”. The select committee is unconvinced and, in February, <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/work-and-pensions-committee/news-parliament-2015/universal-credit-evidence2-16-17/">submitted</a> 20 detailed concerns and questions to the minister. And these problems have occurred before the DWP even starts to migrate millions of existing benefit households into the new system.</p>
<p>A series of reports from the Public Accounts Committee <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/universal-credit-progress-review-16-17/">have catalogued</a> problems that have beset the implementation of Universal Credit. These include over-optimistic and untested assumptions, weak management, ineffective project control and poor governance. In his <a href="http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/work-and-pensions-committee/universal-credit-update/oral/46960.html">valedictory evidence</a> to the Work and Pensions Committee in February, Lord Freud, who for five years was responsible for implementation of Universal Credit, acknowledged it had been “harder than anticipated”, blaming the high turnover of senior civil servants and the loss of in-house expertise to design the IT system. </p>
<p>The practical result was a major “reset” of the project in 2013 with the DWP utilising a “twin track” approach. This presently comprises the national expansion of a more limited live service, where Universal Credit claims are made online, with other transactions managed by phone and post. Over time, there will be a gradual roll out of the more complex, full digital service, which has now been developed in-house. Freud asserted that this will allow for a more considered implementation. He also claimed that reported problems currently experienced by Universal Credit claimants are exaggerated, not directly caused by the new system (as with some rent arrears), and will be offset as minor adjustments are made, people settle in the system and increase their earned income.</p>
<h2>More people will lose out</h2>
<p>Whatever the merits of the original Universal Credit design, its capacity to deliver the outcomes promised has been further compromised by a plethora of other welfare reforms eroding the living standards of claimants. Universal Credit payment rates have been frozen for four years, and the full roll out will now be associated with benefit cuts and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34631156">delayed</a> tax credit related reductions. New claimants on Universal Credit have already been hit by some of these reductions, which have been incorporated into the design of the new system. Existing benefit claimants – not yet on Universal Credit – enjoy some transitional protection but will lose this if their circumstances change.</p>
<iframe id="datawrapper-chart-hXCVH" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/hXCVH/1/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>The cumulative impact is that Universal Credit has become a tool for delivering welfare cuts rather than improving living standards. The new benefit <a href="https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8136">now creates</a> more losers than gainers and, when combined with the reduced value of work allowances, there are now fewer incentives for lone parents and second earners to work. Equally concerning, much of the increased employment secured by those who do gain will be in “mini-jobs” where families will combine work and welfare rather than move from welfare to work. </p>
<p>Early <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/481827/universal-credit-estimating-early-labour-market-impacts-dec-2015.pdf">findings show</a> that although, within nine months, the first wave of largely childless, single Universal Credit recipients worked 12 days more than comparable claimants, the primary change had simply been to make “it more worthwhile and easier for them to do small amounts of work”. </p>
<p>The political scientists Anthony King and Ivor Crewe <a href="https://oneworld-publications.com/the-blunders-of-our-governments.html">identified factors</a> that contribute to “blunders of government”, several of which concern the tax and benefit system, have wasted billions of pounds of public money and damaged the interests of the people they were supposedly trying to help. This includes ministerial activism, group think, an absence of parliamentary challenge, failure to consider alternatives, cultural disconnect, ICT failures, frequent overlapping legislative changes and weakened administrative capacity. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/73008/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dan Finn previously received funding from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation to undertake an early assessment of the likely impact of Universal Credit on service users.</span></em></p>Fewer than half a million people are currently receiving the new, simplified benefit according to newly released data.Dan Finn, Emeritus Professor of Social Inclusion, University of PortsmouthLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/723542017-02-14T00:06:51Z2017-02-14T00:06:51ZHousing affordability problems might not be all bad<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156120/original/image-20170209-17316-18oicly.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">To understand how households cope, we may need to look beneath broad patterns of affordability to the interplay of housing costs with other problems.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Markham-suburbs_aerial-edit2.jpg">IDuke/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>For all the talk of a <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-youre-serious-about-affordable-sydney-housing-premier-heres-a-must-do-list-71791">housing affordability</a> crisis <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-housing-affordability-crisis-in-regional-australia-yes-and-heres-why-71808">across Australia</a>, having <a href="https://theconversation.com/slippers-and-stickers-the-hidden-victims-of-rising-house-prices-42816">unaffordable housing</a> isn’t necessarily bad for people. This is perhaps a dangerous statement to make, but housing <a href="https://theconversation.com/two-million-aussies-are-experiencing-high-financial-stress-64367">cost stresses</a> and other problems – when experienced in isolation – may be tolerable. Difficulties usually emerge not from one problem but from an accumulation of problems.</p>
<p>Housing affordability alone may have limited impact on people if they are able to adjust the household budget or their rental or mortgage costs. But if a household has an accumulation of problems (for example, unaffordable housing, plus insecure tenure, plus unemployment), that greatly reduces their capacity to adjust or respond effectively.</p>
<p>Acknowledging the difference between separate problems and an accumulation of problems is more important than you’d think. If we don’t, we underplay the impact of multiple problems on people, incorrectly identify who most needs assistance and probably misdirect our attempts to help.</p>
<p>Generations of Australians have enjoyed very high housing standards compared to most other nations. For the last couple of decades, though, cracks have appeared (and are widening) in the Great Australian Dream.</p>
<p>Australia now has some of the <a href="http://demographia.com/dhi.pdf">most unaffordable housing</a> in the world. The problems of <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-100-years-without-slum-housing-in-australia-is-coming-to-an-end-64153">housing quality</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/dickensian-approach-to-residential-tenants-lingers-in-australian-law-65146">insecurity</a> in the private rental sector are <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-secure-and-affordable-housing-is-an-increasing-worry-for-age-pensioners-69350">increasing</a>. </p>
<p>And the <a href="https://theconversation.com/growing-up-poor-in-australia-what-has-happened-to-public-housing-9853">public housing safely net</a> is now so small it <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-policy-success-not-failure-has-driven-australias-housing-crisis-53751">cannot catch all</a> of the people who need it. </p>
<p>Researchers, governments and Australia as a society are concerned and heavily invested in understanding and responding to housing-related problems. But perhaps we are too “problem-focused”. </p>
<p>We often seek to understand and solve housing affordability, or rental insecurity, or homelessness, or even more broadly, employment or problems associated with disability. But we tend to look at each aspect separately. </p>
<p>In doing so, we overlook the fact that many housing-related problems are experienced in combination – usually by the same people. </p>
<h2>Teasing out patterns of problems</h2>
<p>What if we were to think of people with multiple problems, instead of the separate problems that multiple people have?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/155269/original/image-20170201-22560-14ebw5a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/155269/original/image-20170201-22560-14ebw5a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/155269/original/image-20170201-22560-14ebw5a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=391&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/155269/original/image-20170201-22560-14ebw5a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=391&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/155269/original/image-20170201-22560-14ebw5a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=391&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/155269/original/image-20170201-22560-14ebw5a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/155269/original/image-20170201-22560-14ebw5a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/155269/original/image-20170201-22560-14ebw5a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">What if we were to think of people with multiple problems, instead of the separate problems that multiple people have?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.10.001</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the current edition of <a href="http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0264275116301202/1-s2.0-S0264275116301202-main.pdf?_tid=ccb74ef4-9fe2-11e6-bd54-00000aab0f02&acdnat=1477970892_f65015c83d558a0588445b8df4df156e">Cities</a>, we model how people’s problems accumulate. Using data from the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) dataset, we look at more than 17,000 adult Australians in unaffordable housing. We define people as having unaffordable housing if they have low to moderate incomes and spend more than 30% of their household income on housing costs.</p>
<p>Our research set out to test the degree to which these people experience multiple housing and related problems. In this experiment we focus on six problems: affordability, locational advantage, security, welfare, employment and disability.</p>
<p>This simple analysis far from captures the full breadth of housing-related problems that individuals face. Even so, it reveals enough about people’s accumulation of housing problems in Australia to challenge our current thinking. </p>
<p>Our analysis shows us that only a relatively small proportion of people (around 10%) have an accumulation of these housing-related vulnerabilities. But simply identifying who has multiple problems doesn’t necessarily indicate the package of assistance they might need. </p>
<p>When we examine the collection of accumulated problems among the 10%, we see few clear patterns of shared problems. Even in this small analysis, there are 40 distinct combinations of problems. </p>
<p>The largest group sharing a pattern of problems represents only 12% of the 10%. Remember that we are only looking at a limited list of six problems here. It would almost certainly be much more complex in the real world. </p>
<p>The findings allow us to reflect on how assistance might shift if focused on people with an accumulation of problems. Using the example of housing affordability, we might seek to address it for every person in the whole population of 17,000 classified as having unaffordable housing. </p>
<p>However, this research shows that more than half of these people (60%) do not have any other problems. </p>
<h2>How does this affect policy?</h2>
<p>Perhaps our concern for housing affordability should be disproportionately focused on the small group who have an accumulation of multiple problems. </p>
<p>What this research leaves us with is a call for a different way to think about and respond to housing-related problems. It suggests we should look beyond separate problems – such as housing affordability – and focus more attention on the people with an accumulation of multiple problems. </p>
<p>The substantial variation in combinations of housing problems also suggests that “individualised” responses may be much more effective than generic packages of problem-focused assistance. </p>
<p>To some extent, the suggestion that we should be thinking about people’s accumulation of vulnerabilities and problems is not new. </p>
<p>Policy thinking appears to be heading in this direction anyway. Australia is well down the path of exploring individualised welfare, with approaches and packages like Consumer Directed Care and the NDIS (the intentions of which were well discussed in <a href="https://www.ahuri.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/5664/AHURI_Final_Report_No253_Individualised-and-market-based-housing-assistance-evidence-and-policy-options.pdf?utm_source=website&utm_medium=report.PDF&utm_campaign=https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/final-reports/253">recent work</a>). </p>
<p>Perhaps the way we think about housing affordability just needs to catch up.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Emma Baker is presenting research on housing children at the 10th <a href="http://ahrc2017.com.au/">Australasian Housing Researchers Conference</a> (AHRC) hosted by RMIT University’s Centre for Urban Research (CUR), with the University of Melbourne and Swinburne University, from February 15-17 at RMIT University in Melbourne.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72354/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Emma Baker receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI). </span></em></p>Housing affordability is often not the only problem households face. More often the compounding effects of multiple problems leave people unable to cope, which is why one solution won’t work for all.Emma Baker, Associate Professor, School of Architecture and Built Environment, University of AdelaideLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/726572017-02-09T01:50:50Z2017-02-09T01:50:50ZOmnibus welfare bill shows the always-tricky politics of budget savings<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156007/original/image-20170208-9124-f7sy9a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The government claims budget savings will more than offset its additional spending on child care.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Turnbull government has introduced a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-08/omnibus-budget-savings-bill-to-be-introduced-to-parliament/8249754">new omnibus savings bill</a> to parliament. It has combined and revised several previously blocked welfare measures into a single piece of legislation to try to achieve nearly A$4 billion in net savings over the next four years. </p>
<p>This bill builds on a range of measures introduced by the Abbott and Turnbull governments. Some go all the way back to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/looking-inside-the-sausage-machine-the-budget-is-still-unfair-42407">2014 budget</a>. But they have evolved since then, particularly with bills proposed by the Turnbull government in <a href="https://theconversation.com/family-tax-benefit-savings-trimmed-but-families-with-teenagers-hit-hardest-49496">October 2015</a>.</p>
<p>By far the most significant projected savings – A$4.7 billion over the next four years – in the bill are made by phasing out end-of-year supplements for family tax benefit recipients.</p>
<p>However, there are potential risks – either to the government’s budget strategy or to its political popularity over the next four years – should these payments be phased out, or Centrelink’s new computer systems not deliver as envisaged.</p>
<h2>What else is in the bill?</h2>
<p>The omnibus bill includes the government’s <a href="http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/responsible-budget-savings-to-fund-more-affordable-child-care-for-australia">proposed changes to child care</a>. This involves about A$1.7 billion in increased spending between 2016-17 and 2019-20, including some measures not requiring legislation. </p>
<p>The most notable sweetener in the revised package is an increase in rates of family tax benefit by about A$20 per child per fortnight. This will have a much larger overall cost, of close to $2.4 billion over four years. But the government claims budget savings will more than offset these additional expenditures.</p>
<p>The bill’s <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;page=0;query=BillId%3Ar5798%20Recstruct%3Abillhome">financial impact statement</a> shows more than A$900 million will be saved through closing the Energy Supplement to new welfare recipients. Changing the age of eligibility for a range of payments will save a further A$430 million.</p>
<p>The end-of-year Family Tax Benefit A supplement, which is currently around A$730 per year per child, will be progressively cut and phased out by July 2018. The Family Tax Benefit B supplement of A$350 per year per family will also be phased out.</p>
<p>Offsetting this is the increase in fortnightly rates. But this will still mean families with combined annual incomes below A$80,000 will lose around A$200 per year per child, plus an additional A$350 per year if they are a single-earner household.</p>
<h2>Where did these payments come from?</h2>
<p>The phasing out raises the question: why did we have these end-of-year lump-sum payments as part of the family tax benefit system in the first place?</p>
<p>The Howard government introduced these payments in the <a href="http://www.formerministers.dss.gov.au/6012/budget04_overall/">2004-05 budget</a>, initially as an increase in the rate of Family Tax Benefit A of A$600 per child. This was to be paid as a lump sum upon reconciliation of entitlement following the end of the financial year.</p>
<p>The annual lump sum was available, if required, to offset any overpayment of family tax benefits that may have occurred during a previous year. </p>
<p>Some saw this as middle-class welfare, or even vote-buying, before the 2004 election. But the lump sums tackled an overpayment and debt problem the Howard government created when it introduced reforms to family payments, to compensate for the introduction of the GST in July 2000. </p>
<p>Under the previous system of family payments for low-income working families, entitlement to these payments was based on a family’s incomes in the previous financial year. There were differing ways of adjusting for changes in incomes in the year in which the payment was actually made.</p>
<p>Under the new system, payments were significantly increased. And families were given the option of taking their payments in the form of reductions in income tax paid by their employer.</p>
<p>An annual reconciliation process was introduced to ensure families who took their payments through the tax system were treated in the same way as those who received cash benefits from Centrelink.</p>
<p>Before the beginning of each financial year families were asked to estimate what their income would be in the subsequent tax year. After they filed their tax returns there was an end-of-year reconciliation. This meant families received extra payments if they had overestimated their incomes, but incurred debts if they had underestimated their incomes and been overpaid. </p>
<p>This end-of-year reconciliation made the system more responsive to changes in income and allowed people who had been underpaid to receive top-ups. However, the system’s greater responsiveness led to a very large increase in debts. </p>
<p>Before the system’s introduction, just over 50,000 families had debts at the end of each year. But in the new system’s first year it is estimated around 670,000 families had been overpaid. </p>
<p>This led to <a href="https://www.jrf.org.uk/file/36835/download?token=wR_72oK9">considerable media and political controversy</a> throughout 2001 and 2002. In July 2001, just before an important byelection, the Howard government announced the waiver of the first A$1,000 of all overpayments. This reduced the number with debts to around 200,000 families.</p>
<p>There was further fine-tuning in 2002. And an Ombudsman’s report in 2003 concluded that, despite previous adjustments, the system would be likely to continue to result in significant numbers of unavoidable debts, and that the government should consider further policy changes.</p>
<h2>Potential perils ahead</h2>
<p>The controversy seems to have died down since the introduction of the end-of-year supplements in 2004. However, the Turnbull government’s proposal to phase out the payments implies that it considers the overpayment problem has been solved.</p>
<p>Here, the issue has some apparent parallels with the <a href="https://theconversation.com/note-to-centrelink-australian-workers-lives-have-changed-70946">Centrelink debt controversy</a> – which seems likely to be subjected to a <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/greens-and-labor-to-move-for-senate-inquiry-on-centrelink-automated-debt-systems-20170207-gu7h3s.html">Senate inquiry</a>. </p>
<p>There are important differences, however. Entitlement to income-support payments is primarily based on fortnightly income, whereas entitlement to family payments is based on annual income.</p>
<p>Why the government thinks the overpayments and the subsequent debt problem will be resolved so that the lump-sum payments can be phased out is not entirely clear. But it appears to reflect the <a href="https://www.itnews.com.au/news/cabinet-approves-1bn-centrelink-systems-upgrade-402586">2015 update of Centrelink’s computer systems</a>.</p>
<p>Complementing this are proposed changes in reporting systems to the Australian Tax Office (ATO), particularly the introduction of the <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/general/new-legislation/in-detail/other-topics/single-touch-payroll/">“Single Touch Payroll” system</a>. This will mean that when employers pay their staff, the employees’ salary and pay-as-you-go withholding amounts will be automatically reported to the ATO, which can then share this data with Centrelink.</p>
<p>So, what the government appears to be assuming is that computer and system updates will provide a “technological fix” to the problem of family tax benefit overpayments – and thus it will be able to save A$4.7 billion over the next four years. But this may not occur if the new computer systems <a href="http://www.canberratimes.com.au/money/tax/tax-time-in-danger-from-atos-tech-wreck-20170207-gu7a98">are not working</a> in the ways envisaged.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72657/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Whiteford has received funding from the Australian Research Council. He is affiliated with the Centre for Policy Development. </span></em></p>By far the most significant projected savings in the government’s omnibus bill is the phasing out of end-of-year supplements for family tax benefit recipients.Peter Whiteford, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/709462017-01-11T03:06:44Z2017-01-11T03:06:44ZNote to Centrelink: Australian workers’ lives have changed<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152220/original/image-20170110-17030-15j9wfh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Government ministers have defended Centrelink's debt recovery processes as 'working' following an ongoing controversy.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Julian Smith</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Centrelink’s new automated data-matching system is a source of <a href="https://twitter.com/not_my_debt">ongoing controversy</a>. It has resulted in a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-06/labor-calls-for-centrelink-debt-recovery-scheme-investigation/8165712">significant increase</a> in the number of current and former welfare recipients assessed as having been overpaid and required to repay debts.</p>
<p>The shadow human services minister, Linda Burney, has requested the auditor-general <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/labors-linda-burney-requests-auditorgeneral-investigate-centrelink-debt-clawback-20170105-gtmkqd.html">investigate Centrelink’s procedures</a>. And independent MP Andrew Wilkie asked the <a href="http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/calls-for-centrelink-debt-bungle-probe-claims-welfare-recipients-are-being-wrongly-hounded/news-story/23f7e122610ef7be4217f09ed6c882a3">Commonwealth Ombudsman</a> to step in after receiving more than 100 complaints to his electoral office about problems with the debt-recovery process. The Ombudsman subsequently <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-09/centrelink's-debt-recovery-scheme-under-investigation/8170848">launched an investigation</a>.</p>
<p>But debt problems do not really appear to be the fault of IT failure or the inappropriate use of big data. Rather, they appear to reflect an over-simplistic application of policy to the complexity of workers’ lives in a flexible labour market.</p>
<h2>How the issue reared its head</h2>
<p>Human Services Minister Alan Tudge <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-11/centrelink's-debt-recovery-system-to-remain-government-says/8174644">has claimed</a> that Centrelink’s system “is working”. </p>
<p>Earlier, Social Services Minister Christian Porter, who is not directly responsible for Centrelink, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jan/03/minister-defends-centrelink-over-welfare-debt-compliance-system">described the approach</a> as “about as reasonable a process as you could possibly derive”. He claimed the system was actually working <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-03/christian-porter-defends-centrelink-debt-recovery-system/8158286">“incredibly well”</a>, with a complaint rate running at 0.16% – or only 276 complaints from 169,000 letters.</p>
<p>Porter <a href="http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/costs/the-man-in-the-box-inaccurate-centrelink-debt-letter-sent-james-into-meltdown/news-story/21c762d55b36157449ed7f81f4c3272e">also said</a> that 20% of review letters were sent to people who did not owe anything. However, he claimed these were not debt letters, but simply asked for more information to explain a discrepancy between employment data held by Centrelink and the Australian Tax Office (ATO).</p>
<p>The former head of the government’s Digital Transformation Office, Paul Shetler, has described this error rate <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jan/06/centrelink-crisis-cataclysmic-turnbull-former-head-digital-transformation">as “cataclysmic”</a>.</p>
<p>Data-matching by Centrelink (or its predecessors) <a href="https://www.humanservices.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/co050-200710-1105en.pdf">started in 1991</a>. The automation of the system was <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/labor-flips-on-robodebt-system-shorten-plibersek-pioneered/news-story/0a2bb18f5a6ab279073f6bcd36f712d7">increased in 2011</a>.</p>
<p>The current controversy appears to arise from changes proposed by the Coalition during the 2016 election campaign, and related changes introduced in the <a href="http://sjm.ministers.treasury.gov.au/speech/016-2016/">2016 Omnibus Budget Bill</a>. </p>
<p>This bill, supported by Labor:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>introduced an interest charge on the debts of former recipients of social welfare payments who were unwilling to enter repayment arrangements;</p></li>
<li><p>brought in Departure Prohibition Orders for people who were not in repayment arrangements for their social welfare debts; and </p></li>
<li><p>removed the six-year limitation on debt recovery for all social welfare debt.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Centrelink’s procedures appear to have several problems that can give rise to incorrect debt assessments. One problem is the names of employers provided to the ATO and Centrelink do not always match, and some people are having the same income counted twice. This is because the assessment process appears to match names rather than Australian Business Numbers.</p>
<p>A more significant problem is that when individuals are asked to confirm their annual income reported to the ATO, the formula used by Centrelink can produce false estimates of debts by dividing by 26 the annual wages employers report paying. This approach will only work correctly if individuals receive exactly the same income each fortnight.</p>
<p>For students, this is very unlikely. The beginning and end of the academic year do not coincide with the tax year, so someone who combines part-time work and study, and then graduates and moves into full-time work, is likely to have six months at a much higher wage – and therefore potentially incur a debt.</p>
<p>Similarly, people who move between different jobs, or who have short interruptions to work and claim sickness benefits because they are casuals and not entitled to paid leave, are also potentially exposed to debts under Centrelink’s approach.</p>
<p>So, apart from those who are deliberately understating their earnings, it is people who move from welfare to work who are most exposed to having debts miscalculated.</p>
<h2>Systems don’t reflect the reality</h2>
<p>A large share of Australians experience income changes over the course of a year. This reflects family and demographic changes – in partnership status or numbers of children – and labour market changes, such as starting, changing or stopping jobs.</p>
<p>Data for Australia suggest high levels of labour market flows. The <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/PrimaryMainFeatures/6206.0">most recent data</a> show that in the 12 months to February 2011, more than 4 million people changed their work status. While the average number of unemployed people in each month of 2011 was around 600,000, overall 1.7 million people looked for work at some time during the year. But, of these, fewer than 150,000 (8%) spent the whole year looking for work.</p>
<p>The Australian Bureau of Statistics’ <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6209.0/">2013 Labour Mobility Survey</a> shows that in February 2013, there were 11.5 million people aged 15 years and above who were working. Of these, more than 2 million had worked for their employer for less than 12 months. </p>
<p>About half of these had changed their employer/business in the last 12 months. A further 1 million had not changed their employer because they either were not working 12 months earlier, or they had multiple jobs, or were temporary or seasonal workers.</p>
<p>The degree of mobility is related to the type of job people held. Those most likely to have been with their current employer/business for ten years or more were managers (38%), professionals (29%) and clerical and administrative workers (28%). </p>
<p>The occupation groups with the highest proportion of people who had worked with their current employer/business for less than 12 months were generally lower paid. They included sales workers, labourers and community and personal service workers (all 25%), and machinery operators and drivers (21%). </p>
<p>The industry with the highest proportion of people who had been with their current employer/business for less than 12 months – about one-third – was accommodation and food services. This is an area where young people and students are particularly likely to work.</p>
<p>Between 70% and 80% of the more than 1 million people who received Austudy, Newstart or various forms of Youth Allowance for study or apprenticeships in 2014-15 were <a href="https://data.gov.au/dataset/dss-payment-trends-and-profile-reports">not on any</a> income-support payments in the following year. </p>
<p>Around half of the 375,000 people receiving either Youth Allowance (other) for the unemployed or Parenting Payment Single also completely left the income-support system in that year. This is because they had made the transition from welfare to work. This has been one of social security policy’s main objectives for all sides of politics for many years.</p>
<p>The debt controversy has sometimes been blamed on “faulty IT” or the application of inappropriate “big data” approaches. Rather, it is the assumption of regular and unchanging income that is a major problem. This shows a lack of knowledge of the actual working and family patterns of a large share of Australians.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70946/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Whiteford has received funding from the Australian Research Council. He is affiliated with the Centre for Policy Development and with the Chifley Research Centre Commission on Inclusive Prosperity. </span></em></p>Centrelink’s debt recovery problems reflect an over-simplistic application of policy to the complexity of workers’ lives in a flexible labour market.Peter Whiteford, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/656282016-09-20T07:31:27Z2016-09-20T07:31:27ZThe $4.8 trillion dollar question: will an ‘investment approach’ to welfare help the most disadvantaged?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138212/original/image-20160919-11127-zko8ej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Christian Porter is championing a new approach to the way welfare is distributed in Australia.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Social Services Minister Christian Porter on Tuesday <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/09_2016/baseline_valuation_results_report_accessible_version_12_july_2016_2pwc._2.pdf">released a report</a> on the lifetime costs of the social security system for the Australian population, putting it at close to A$4.8 trillion.</p>
<p>The report was an initiative of the 2015-16 budget, when the government allocated A$33.7 million to establish an Australian Priority Investment Approach to Welfare based on actuarial analysis of social security data.</p>
<p>Groups identified by the approach will receive support from current programs and from new and innovative policy responses to be developed through the A$96.1 million Try, Test and Learn Fund, which was announced in the 2016-17 budget.</p>
<p>The development of an investment approach was one of the recommendations of the <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/review-of-australias-welfare-system">McClure review</a> of Australia’s welfare system. </p>
<p>The New Zealand government <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-should-think-twice-before-adopting-nz-welfare-model-38105">originally developed</a> the investment approach in response to a review on welfare dependency, which was specifically asked to look at the insurance industry for ideas on reform. The government has subsequently commissioned four <a href="https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/evaluation/investment-approach/index.html">actuarial valuations</a> – in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.</p>
<h2>How did we arrive at the figures?</h2>
<p>The report released by Porter, and the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/sep/20/coalition-to-reveal-plan-to-tackle-welfare-dependence-across-generations">media stories on this approach</a>, have highlighted the very large number of A$4.8 trillion. Understanding how this number is derived can help put it in context, however.</p>
<p>The report takes the population of Australia in 2015. Then, on the basis of past patterns of receipt of payments, it projects the amount of money the population will be paid over the rest of their lives and converts this into the present value of this lifetime spending, with a discount rate of 6% – reflecting the fact a dollar is worth more today than in the future given the capacity to earn interest.</p>
<p>The population modelled in the report includes:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>around 5.7 million people currently receiving various income support payments (of whom 2.5 million are age pensioners);</p></li>
<li><p>2.3 million people not receiving income support payments but who receive other payments (mainly families receiving the Family Tax Benefit); </p></li>
<li><p>around 3.9 million who were previously receiving payments; and </p></li>
<li><p>just under 12 million people who are not receiving any payments currently or have not in the past.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>The lifetime valuation is about 44 times the total amount of payments in 2014-15 (A$109 billion). But it also includes people’s future age pension entitlements. Given the average age of the total population is 39 and that on average Australians can expect to live into their 80s, it is not surprising the estimated lifetime cost is more than 40 times the current level of spending on cash benefits.</p>
<p>In fact, more than half the total estimated lifetime spending will be on age pensions. The average lifetime cost per current client is made up of A$150,000 in age pensions and A$115,000 in all other benefits. </p>
<p>For previous clients, the corresponding figures are A$114,000 in age pensions and A$60,000 in other payments. For the balance of the Australian population it is A$88,000 in age pensions and A$77,000 in all other benefits. </p>
<p>However, for people of working age who are currently receiving benefits it is these other payments that figure larger than age pensions. This is particularly the case for people receiving parenting payments, where the age pension is only around one-quarter of their total lifetime costs.</p>
<p>New Zealand’s actuarial model does not include family payments. And nor does it include national superannuation – their equivalent to the age pension – as it is provided free of any income test to people aged 65 and over.</p>
<p>By including both age pensions and family payments, the Australian report produces significantly higher lifetime costs relative to the size of the economy.</p>
<p>The report also highlights three groups of people who are expected to have very-high average lifetime costs and poor lifetime outcomes:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>for 11,000 young carers, it is expected, on average, they will access income support in 43 years over their future lifetime;</p></li>
<li><p>for 4,370 young parents it is expected, on average, they will access income support in 45 years over their future lifetime; and</p></li>
<li><p>for 6,600 young students it is expected, on average, they will access income support in 37 years over their future lifetime.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>These projected future histories will involve lifetime costs for these three groups of between A$2 billion and A$4 billion. In all of these cases, however, a substantial part of their estimated costs relates to years to be spent on the age pension.</p>
<p>Also, while some of these groups are very disadvantaged, they make up roughly 22,000 people out of a current group of 3.2 million people receiving working age payments. This is well under 1% of these recipients.</p>
<h2>Will it help?</h2>
<p>Porter <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/sep/20/coalition-to-reveal-plan-to-tackle-welfare-dependence-across-generations">has argued</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The future foundation measure of success must be whether we can improve individual prospects for a better life, made meaningful by employment, community contribution and self-reliance.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In this context the key to creating better policy will be the Try, Test and Learn Fund. This will enable organisations to compete for a chance to try a policy that proposes to create a path out of the welfare system. The fund will be open by the end of the year for not-for-profit organisations, governments, social policy experts and industry to pitch their ideas.</p>
<p>The government also appears to have learned from some of the issues raised in New Zealand – both by looking at policies that improve lifetime outcomes and not just reduce welfare costs, and by constructing the model in such a way that it is less sensitive to changes in economic parameters.</p>
<p>The government appears to be committed to rigorous evaluations of these policy experiments. This is very welcome. The commitment to early intervention is also welcome, but the proof of whether this approach actually does improve outcomes for the disadvantaged is still some years down the track.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Editor’s note: This piece was amended post-publication to correct the “discount rate” to 6%.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65628/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Whiteford has received funding from the Australian Research Council.He is affiliated with the Centre for Policy Development and with the Chifley Research Centre Commission on Inclusive Prosperity. He is an independent member of the Sustainability Committee of the Board of the National disability Insurance Agency.</span></em></p>The proof of whether an investment approach to welfare actually does improve outcomes for the disadvantaged is still some years down the track.Peter Whiteford, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/648222016-09-07T20:12:28Z2016-09-07T20:12:28ZRedressing, not exacerbating, inequality is the real moral challenge for this government<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136526/original/image-20160905-31623-gvdncp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The government is keen to push its omnibus savings bill through parliament.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A purported priority for this 45th parliament is to tackle the deficit, last encountered in the budget items just before the federal election campaign. </p>
<p>Would it be affected by the close result and odd voting patterns? No, the government claims – its win was the mandate it sought.</p>
<p>Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull claimed that the passing of the budget repair bills was more than just political gain. He doubled down on his economic message ahead of parliament’s return, describing budget repair as a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-29/malcolm-turnbull-pushes-labor-to-support-budget-savings/7796390%5D(http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-29/malcolm-turnbull-pushes-labor-to-support-budget-savings/7796390">“fundamental moral challenge”</a>. He demanded the opposition support the <a href="http://sjm.ministers.treasury.gov.au/media-release/074-2016/">omnibus bill</a> in its entirety, as Labor “assumed passage of it in its election costings document”.</p>
<p>This sets an odd tone for a “moral” claim, as the target of most of the bill’s proposed 24 cuts are the poor and vulnerable. This is in stark contrast to another bill for <a href="http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/federal-budget/the-big-problem-with-the-80k-tax-cut/news-story/107528e698dc528a6fb29e464c84cb73">tax cuts for those earning A$80,000 plus</a>.</p>
<p>These claimed priority items make it clear the government’s budget “repairs” will increase overall income inequities, and if supported by Labor, could further exacerbate the distrust of the “elites”. </p>
<p>The priorities in Turnbull’s speech seemed to focus on punishing the least powerful by cutting their payments. While picking on welfare recipients has been around for a long time, its current use is dicey, given that <a href="http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseStateFirstPrefsByParty-20499-NAT.htm">24% of formal voters indicate</a> increasing distrust of major parties.</p>
<p>Both here and overseas, there are disturbing signs of the damage of inequalities. The rising proportion of outlier candidates in the recent election match worldwide evidence that populism is rising in response to the increased inequities in the developed world – for example, the rise of Donald Trump. </p>
<p>The Brexit polls and data produced by the IMF suggest that the focus on market models may damage both <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/neoliberalism-is-increasing-inequality-and-stunting-economic-growth-the-imf-says-a7052416.html">economic growth and democratic legitimacy</a>. And the current ABC Boyer Lectures, delivered by Michael Marmot, question whether inequalities undermine <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/boyer-lectures-michael-marmot-social-determinants-ill-health/7636982">health and national well-being outcomes</a>. </p>
<p>These all suggest that any government that fails to tackle emerging political and economic inequities may create more problems.</p>
<h2>Who will be affected?</h2>
<p>Buried in the governor-general’s <a href="http://australianpolitics.com/2016/08/30/cosgrove-speech-opening-45th-parliament.html">speech opening this parliament</a> is a brief mention of the cashless welfare card. </p>
<p>This is a further sign again of increased contempt for those who are not in paid work – and that is not just the unemployed. <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/6224.0.55.001">New data from the ABS</a> family work status survey show there were around 329,200 “jobless” families with dependants in June 2015. In those families, there were 662,100 dependants aged less than 25 years, 85% of whom were children under 15. </p>
<p>In recent years, the proportion of jobless families with dependants has remained stable at around 11%. These cover carers, people with disabilities, the sick, students and parents with young or multiple children.</p>
<p>The omnibus bill – to which the government attached its hyperbolic demand for not leaving debts to our grandchildren – includes 24 items. Most of these, in <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/comment/24-shades-of-nasty-the-devil-in-the-detail-of-treasurer-scott-morrisons-6-billion-omnibus-savings-bill-20160901-gr6ddm.html">a neat summary article</a>, are described by Jessica Irvine as “24 shades of nasty”. Some are particularly toxic.</p>
<p>I have further summarised 13 of the meaner items below, with their proposed savings, which would add only just over half of the $6 billion or so expected to be saved over the four-year forward estimates. This is hardly serious deficit-cutting, but will cause real pain to those who rely on them.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>cuts in support for students and earlier FEE-HELP repayment ($3.3 million);</p></li>
<li><p>abolish bonus for those getting off Newstart and holding a job for 12 months ($242.1 million);</p></li>
<li><p>no overlap period for those moving from Newstart to paid work ($61.5 million);</p></li>
<li><p>cuts to dental services ($52.4 million);</p></li>
<li><p>two-year wait for immigrants to claim welfare payments ($312.5 million);</p></li>
<li><p>cuts to paid parental leave ($133.7 million);</p></li>
<li><p>cuts to fringe benefits valuing for other payments ($132.1 million);</p></li>
<li><p>no backdating of Carers Allowance ($108.6 million);</p></li>
<li><p>cuts to family payments and other parental leave ($330.9 million);</p></li>
<li><p>cuts to income support for mentally ill people confined by serious criminal offence ($37.8 million);</p></li>
<li><p>cuts to energy supplement for recipients of disability support pension, carer and Newstart payments ($1.29 billion);</p></li>
<li><p>tighter subsidies for high-need aged-care residents ($80.5 million); and</p></li>
<li><p>tougher repayments of debts of welfare recipients ($157.8 million).</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Apart from the Newstart savings, the forward estimates are not impressive. And the situation of those on Newstart is already grim, without further cuts. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace-relations/caught-in-an-unemployment-netherworld-too-young-to-retire-too-old-to-get-a-job-20160823-gqyv2w.html">An article in the SMH</a> on research from the Brotherhood of St Laurence has found that 40% of recipients of employment services last year were mature-age Australians who spent more than a year on income support. </p>
<p>It pointed out that more than one-third of Newstart payments go to people who are not even expected to look for work as they are sick, caring for others, in training, or cannot look for work.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/malcolm-turnbulls-dole-cuts-will-hit-older-australians-the-hardest-20160903-gr817b.html">Another article</a> shows increasing numbers of older people on Newstart (10,000 extra since 2012, with more than half staying on the payment for at least two years). All these data suggest that what was once seen as a short-term payment has now become long term for those who meet prejudice and lack opportunities in finding paid work.</p>
<h2>Ignoring the fairness question at their peril</h2>
<p>So why is the government making these cuts their “moral” demand for support? And why has Labor not offered clear opposition? </p>
<p>Despite the clear public and political responses to the basic unfairness of these and similar cuts in the 2014 budget, the government is pressing ahead with these measures by way of its wafer-thin majority. Have neither of the major parties has learned anything from the election? </p>
<p>Both major parties would be wise to listen to the messages coming from a grumpy electorate that has indicated it wants serious leadership, not just political game-playing and increased unfairness.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Eva Cox will be online for an Author Q&A between 11am and noon AEST on Friday, 9 September, 2016. Post any questions you have in the comments below.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/64822/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eva Cox does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>We need to ask on what basis the government is making its budget savings a ‘moral’ issue, and how the opposition can possibly support it.Eva Cox, Professorial Fellow, Jumbunna IHL, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.