Australian workers and unions should support basic income

The journey to a full universal Basic Income is essentially the search for the answer to just one question: "How do we best meet the income support needs of all who find they are without the capacity to provide for themselves?" This paper will try to answer that question

Do Mutual Obligation Breach Penalties Coerce Compliance with Government Expectations?

A Brisbane survey was conducted to examine some of the consequences of Centrelink breach penalties when applied to unemployment welfare recipients under the Howard Coalition Government’s ideology of Mutual Obligation. Fifty-six such recipients responded to the author’s survey by completing a questionnaire about their experiences after receiving one or more breach penalties. The consequences of being breached for those respondents are contrasted with the Coalition Government’s stated expectations for its Mutual Obligation driven breach penalty system. The background to the rise of Mutual Obligation as an ideology and the elevated incidence of breach penalties are briefly discussed, along with the report of the survey findings. Interestingly, two surprise findings are given specific focus as they offer new insight

Do Centrelink Activity Breach Penalties Coerce Outcomes from Unemployed Welfare Recipients in Line with Mutual Obligation Policy?

Some 386,946 breach penalties were applied to welfare recipients by Centrelink during the 2000-2001 year, representing a trebling of breach penalties issued over the past few years. Over its three terms, the Howard Coalition Government has sought to introduce practices under Mutual Obligation policy that increases surveillance, obligations and breach penalties which are brought to bear on unemployed people who are in receipt of income support payments. More recently, Government discussion papers have been released indicating the intent that other welfare recipients, including Disability Support Pensioners and Sole Parents, are to be included under these onerous Mutual Obligation processes. With a view to foreshadowing some likely future outcomes for these latter groups, this paper compares the Howard Government’s stated expectations for its Mutual Obligation policies and practices with the lived experience of a survey sample of 56 unemployed welfare beneficiaries. The 56 individuals had been breached by Centrelink in the Brisbane area, and voluntarily completed a questionnaire form provided by this researcher, on the footpath outside Centrelink offices at Mitchelton, Chermside and Nundah

Do the lived experiences of people who have been breached by Centrelink match the expectation and intent of the Howard Government?

In the past three years, the number of breach penalties applied by Centrelink to welfare recipients have more than trebled, with some 349,000 incidences reported for the 2000-2001 year. This Masters Degree research study examines the lived experience of some individuals who have been breached by Centrelink, to ascertain whether their lived experiences accord with the stated policy expectations and intent of the Howard Government. Government policy statements are identified from the literature, as are a range of alternative viewpoints and critiques offered by commentators. A qualitative research survey instrument was developed. Survey data was collected from people passing on the footpath outside three Brisbane Centrelink offices. Fifty-six individuals who stated they had been breached at least once responded. The results of primary and secondary analysis of the collected data is presented in the findings, followed by discussion as to how the lived experiences of the unemployed respondents matched Government expectation and inten

Mediating Welfare Ethics:Selectivity Or Universalism?

This paper explores some of the underpinning ideologies that drive Australia’s selective income support system, by examining the ethical justifications used to support targeted welfare systems such as Mutual Obligation. Such justifications for selectivity will be compared with the ethical justifications that are used to promote the concept of Universalism for income support, a concept that has been attracting increasing attention in social science circles internationally.\ud At an ideological level, Universalism in welfare also has compelling arguments for implementation, particularly in the form known as the Universal Basic Income Guarantee or Basic Income for short. The underpinning ideologies for each income support system are explored so that their ethical justifications may be examined in a compare and contrast format. Such a format facilitates a beginning mediation between some of the competing ethical claims used, so as to clarify positions and develop greater understanding about income support system implementation debates