Myths of welfare reform

In Australian welfare reform debate, a range of approaches and policies has been advocated. Regardless of their diversity, I argue that the debate has an unnecessarily narrow framework resulting from the widespread acceptance of at least three welfare reform myths. First, is the idea that the current system is anachronistic and in disrepair. lnstead of this narrowfocus on welfare policy, I argue that the welfare reform debate must be widened to include other domains of public policy to involve a 'joined up' approach to addressing poverty and disadvantage. The second myth is that welfare recipients need to be the focus of policy attention. Policy reforms focus on changing the behaviour of recipients and their communities. Because structural changes underlie increased benefit receipt, such reforms will only have minimal consequences. The third welfare reform myth is the false notion that the current welfare system lacks obligation

The moderating influence of property legislation on planning policy and urban form

This paper investigates the role that property titling legislation has had on the form of high-density residential development. A conceptual framework is developed for theorising the role of property legislation in moderating the impact of urban land use policy. It is argued that the impact of legislation on urban form is much more significant and direct than is often implied or suggested in reviews of planning policy. It is argued that property legislation has a greater role than simply supporting the implementation of urban planning policy. Property legislation has a moderating influence on policy and provides a barrier to the implementation of urban policy. To support this argument, the paper considers the development and implications of Western Australia’s strata titling legislation for the form of high-density development in that state’s capital city