Australia’s Welfare Wars
3RD EDITION
PHILIP MENDES is an associate professor and the director of the Social Inclusion andSocial Policy Research Unit in the Department of Social Work, Faculty of Medicine,Monash University, Melbourne. He has been a social work and social policypractitioner and educator for 30 years, with particular experience in the fields ofincome security, young people leaving out-of-home care, social workers and policypractice, and illicit drugs. He has authored more than 100 publications in local andinternational peer-reviewed journals and is the author or co-author of ten books,including the first two editions of Australia’s welfare wars (2003, 2008), Harmminimisation: zero tolerance and beyond; the politics of illicit drugs in Australia(2004), Inside the welfare lobby: a history of the Australian Council of Social Service(2006),Young people leaving state out-of-home care: Australian policy and practice(2011) andYoung people transitioning from out-of-home care: international research,olicy and practice (2016)
Australia’s welfare wars: The players, thepolitics and the ideologiesPhilip Mendes (3rd ed.) 2017UNSW Press, Sydney, NSWISBN 978-174223-4786, pp. 416, paperback, NZD64.99
The second half of the title providessome very transparent clues to theways in which Mendes goes abouthis work of reviewing developments andchanges in Australia’s welfare state overthe last three decades; decades whichhave seen the strengthening of neoliberaland managerial frameworks throughoutAustralia and much of the developed (andindeed developing) world. The back coverand pp. vii–viii provide six core questionswhich are the basis of the book. Paraphrased,these questions are about: the failure ofgovernment policies to address structuralissues of poverty and unemployment; theimpact of economic globalisation on welfarestate thinking; the convergence of politicalviews among the major political parties (withthe exception of the Greens); the influencesof lobbying and interest groups; the reasonsfor the rise of poverty and inequality and thelack of concern about this issue on the partof politicians; and why do governments failto consult with users and communities onwelfare issues.The brief for this extended review was touse the review to reflect on experiencesin Aotearoa New Zealand in the light ofMendes’ discussion about Australia. I willdo that shortly, but the review needs tobegin with a brief outline of the book’scoverage. I make no claims to being anexpert on the details of the development ofAustralia’s welfare state over the time periodhere. Suffice to say, Mendes chronicles keyaspects of this clearly and concisely, withappropriate attention to the details aroundthe specific changes. The three sections ofthe book cover the context of the Australianwelfare state (including discussions onneoliberalism and on globalisation andtheir impact on welfare state changes), theAustralian political parties and the welfarestate and interest groups (including ACOSS,various contributors to the debate and a briefdiscussion on the role of faith communities).Throughout the book, there is a thoroughand thoughtful mixture of analysis,commentary and reflection, drawing onboth evidence and data from a diverse rangeof sources and on a solid understanding ofthe literature and research on the politicsof welfare change. The writing style islucid and the flow of the discussion anddebate is clear and easy to follow. In short,the book is an interesting, informative andthought-provoking read. The author’s socialdemocratic and participatory approach isclear throughout (and quite explicit) but doesnot “get in the road” in the discussion.What a pity there is no comparable volumefor this country because my intuitive senseis that the analysis would follow similarlines, with one notable difference, whichI will return to below. On many, manyoccasions I found myself reading a sentenceor paragraph and substituting the relevantAotearoa New Zealand institution andreflecting that the sentence or paragraphwould hold equally well for this country.The four examples below will illustrate;it would have been possible to provide anumber of others.• Australian government policies arebased on motivating and discipliningwelfare recipients and reintegrating
Page 2
146 VOLUME 29 • NUMBER 2 • 2017 AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND SOCIAL WORKEXTENDED REVIEWthem with mainstream social values andmorality (p. 9).• Neoliberal ideas of small government,free markets and limited socialexpenditure have provided theideological inspiration for cuts to thewelfare state (p. 17).• Work was assumed (by the socialsecurity review) to provide major health,social and economic benefits for both theindividual and the wider community.There was little reference to addressingthe financial needs of long-term incomesecurity recipients (pp. 42–43).• Probably the strongest factorcontributing to retrenchment is thedomination of individualistic values andbeliefs. Poverty and disadvantage areincreasingly constructed as matters ofprivate individual choice and behaviourrather than as collective moral and socialresponsibilities (p. 332).A central part of his thesis is that thewelfare state needs to be sustained, albeitwith some important differences from itshistorical form. It “represents a significantgain for poor and working class people inthe struggle for a fair distribution of wealthand income” (p. 5). The neoliberal revolutionis, he argues, a reversion to the 19th century.Neoliberal values have won the day becausethe rich and powerful have more resources,have engaged effectively with globalinterests and have used a set of strategiesand articulated ideas and proposals whichhave been taken up by the media whilemuch of the Left has been undecidedabout its approach to the welfare state.Importantly, the media have closeconnections with powerful economicinterests and, in some instances, are ownedby them. Does this not sound very likeAotearoa New Zealand ?:“Typically, they [think tanks] publishsimplistic but innovative and accessiblearguments in non-refereed pseudo-academicjournals which are then easily reshapedas opinion pieces in daily newspapersor repeated by sympathetic newspapercolumnists or talkback radio hosts” (p. 86).Turning to the local comparison, I notedabove that there is one important differencewhich an equivalent Aotearoa New Zealandstudy would need to attend to, namely thecontribution of Māori and the role of Te Tiritiin shaping various aspects of the reforms onthis side of the Tasman. In various placesMendes notes the significance of the changesfor Aboriginal and Torres Strait peoples (see,for example, pp. 236 et seq.). Those changesare clearly significant and, equally, it issignificant that Aboriginal and Torres Straitpeoples had no meaningful role in shapingor influencing those changes.A comparable review here would needto examine the role of a diverse rangeof tangata whenua interests in shapingvarious dimensions of the Aotearoa NewZealand changes, in some instances withsome important impacts and, in others,with little or no impact. Moreover, it wouldbe inappropriate to assume that there is asimple totality about those interests—thedifferent interests will be as important as thecommon interest. Any discussion of the roleof tangata whenua would need to exploreboth activist and academic contributionsto the changes and the challenges to thosechanges. Significantly, a review would notethat Māori have borne the brunt of the effectswith very high poverty and unemploymentrates and higher rates among the homeless,for example.A brief Aotearoa New Zealand storyWhile it is not possible in the context of thisreview to undertake a comparable analysisof the Aotearoa New Zealand experiences,it is possible to indicate some of the issueswhich such a review might explore and someof the information we currently have. Weknow, for example, that poverty (especiallychild poverty) and inequality have increasedsignificantly over the last three decades. Weknow too, that housing access, affordabilityand quality are much more difficult and thatpublic provision has declined significantly,particularly in relation to access to statehousing. We also know that there have been
Page 3
147VOLUME 29 • NUMBER 2 • 2017 AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND SOCIAL WORKEXTENDED REVIEWsignificant changes to social security (nowknown as income support). Rates have beencut (and never restored), there has been asignificant shift from rights to responsibilitiesand a fundamental change in the frameworkfor social security with paid work being thedominant motif. Moreover, the approach hasbecome more punitive, with recipients beingsubject to a range of requirements as to theirbehaviour and sanctions surrounding non-compliance with those requirements. In abroad sense, many of the directional changeswhich Mendes identifies in the directions ofAustralia’s welfare provision, coverage andaccess and the attendant neoliberal framingare echoed very loudly in this country.In the light of the current focus anddebate in this country, it is timely to noteMendes’ references in chapter four to theidea of social investment as a basis forreshaping and redeveloping the welfarestate. It is not, however, the neoliberal andconservative social investment as we knowthat term in this country, far from it. “Socialinvestment”, he notes, “refers to productivefuture-oriented forms of social spendingthat promote inclusion of all citizensin the social and economic mainstreamrather than merely repair the short-termdamage experienced by groups sufferingdisadvantage” (p. 119). That, he argues,has to be accompanied by a much moreparticipatory reformed welfare state “basedon a genuine partnership between the state,welfare consumers and the community”(p. 4). This is the very antithesis of thewelfare state changes in this country andof the approach adopted to social investmenthere. Mendes talks of the approach ofone of the right-wing critics to childprotection—social work practice should,the critic argues, “return to ... prompt andpermanent removal of abused and neglectedchildren from their parents” (p. 82). Does thisnot sound scarily like the vulnerable childrenapproach to social investment?One of the significant areas of focusin Australia’s Welfare Wars is Mendes’discussion of the role of right-wing thinktanks, right-wing political interests and keypersonnel in shaping the new directions andguiding the war effort. Here too, there arevery interesting and significant parallels inNew Zealand’s experiences. The work ofthe Business Roundtable (and its currentreincarnation in the New Zealand Initiative)and associated economic and politicalinterests, influences and related think tanksis an obvious starting point for examinationas they have pursued their agenda ofeconomic and political liberalisation. As inAustralia, there have been other voices suchas those concerned with child poverty, thetrade union movement, some social servicepractitioners and leaders and a small numberof academics (Jane Kelsey is a good example)whose work and activities have been basedaround (and produced challenges to) “thenew normal.” However, as in Mendes’examination of the Australian experiences,even a cursory review indicates that theAotearoa New Zealand changes have beendominated by neoliberal economic andpolitical interests, to the detriment of thepoor and powerless.In more recent times, the role of keyindividuals such as Paula Rebstock in boththe social security reforms and the changesto care and protection of children (throughthe Expert Panel) would provide a veryinteresting investigation, especially whenplaced alongside her background with theCommerce Commission and her currentrole as Chair of the Accident CompensationCorporation Board. As in the Australianstory, alternative views and directionshave been systematically ignored and/or sidelined. The work of the AlternativeWelfare Working Group and Child Youthand Family’s Workload and Caseworkreview provide good examples. The role ofother key figures (including, but not limitedto, ministers of the Crown) in the welfarechanges of the 1990s and subsequently andthe more recent raft of changes would be animportant part of the New Zealand story.In his examination of “contributors to thedebate” (ch. 9), Mendes has an interesting
Page 4
148 VOLUME 29 • NUMBER 2 • 2017 AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND SOCIAL WORKEXTENDED REVIEWdiscussion on the contribution of socialworkers and social work associations. Whilenoting the ethical basis of policy action as alegitimate core part of social work practice,Mendes goes on to observe that AASWseems: “to have had only minimal impact onpolicy debates” (p. 270). This he attributesto lack of adequate preparation in educationprogrammes for undertaking such action, therole of public sector employment in limitingopportunities for speaking out, the lack ofsocial work leadership profile in the mediaand in the wider public and uncertaintyamong AASW as to who it represents. Mightthese factors also be significant in Aotearoa?The two case studies he uses to discuss theinfluence of social work lead him to notethat: “narrower professional social workidentity and broader social justice advocacyconcerns can be reconciled and synthesisedto good effect in social action campaigns”(p. 275). This is an important rejoinder forsocial workers in Aotearoa as we engageand struggle with a range of changes inhealth and social services in areas such asthe care and protection of children, provisionof mental health services and services forpeople with disabilities—to name but threeexamples. The interesting question is howwe respond to that challenge—what kind ofsocial work/social worker will we be, andbecome?The ultimate question in any book review is:does this work warrant reading? The answerhere is an unreserved “yes”—and reflect onthe issues and questions for understandingwelfare changes in your country as you do so.
(PDF) Australia’s welfare wars: The players, the politics and the ideologies. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319203088_Australia's_welfare_wars_The_players_the_politics_and_the_ideologies [accessed Sep 08 2022].
No comments:
Post a Comment