Paid Parental Leave: Robin Hood or piggy bank?

Image source: fahcsia.gov.au

While there are numerous differences between the Labor and Coalition policies on parental leave pay, the most controversial is the rate of payment. While the current Government scheme is paid at the National Minimum Wage ($606.50 per week), the Coalition proposal is for parents to be paid at their full salary capped at an income level of $150,000.

The difference between the two approaches highlights the complicated relationship present in both schemes between the idea of Parental Leave Pay as a workplace entitlement and a payment made through the social security system.

Can means testing of welfare really save the budget?

Image: Robin shoots with Sir Guy (Louis Rhead, 1912),
 Wikimedia Commons

One suggestion for addressing Australia's budget deficit has been to make cuts to 'middle class welfare'are'—that is, welfare payments made to households other than those with low incomes.

The problem with such suggestions is that they are frequently light on details about precisely which welfare payments are the source of the 'problem' and what 'middle class' means. Nor do they tend to address the unintended consequences of making changes to eligibility for payments though tightening of means tests.

Why the Pensioner Concession Card is so valuable

Image source: NSW DPI

The Minister for Human Services, Senator Kim Carr, has ordered Centrelink to apologise to tens of thousands of single parents who were mistakenly told that they were no longer eligible for a Pensioner Concession Card (PCC) after being moved from Parenting Payment Single (PPS) to Newstart Allowance on 1 January 2013. The letter to parents affected by changes to PPS eligibility arising from the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Fair Incentives to Work) Act 2012 advised them to destroy their concession cards even though most would still be eligible for a PCC. The PCC is a valuable supplementary benefit which provides access to a wide range of discounts and subsidies. The following explains who is eligible for the card and why the possibility of losing it would create distress.

New Place Based Income Management to commence 1 July

Image: Bankstown Railway Station (Wikimedia Commons)

A new form of income management being introduced next week will extend welfare quarantining to selected disadvantaged areas across Australia, targeting people involved in child protection matters and deemed vulnerable to financial hardship.

From 1 July, the Government will introduce a new form of income management to communities in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia.
 
So, how will the new Place Based Income Management operate and how does it differ from existing forms? Why base it in particular areas? What do we know about whether or not it is likely to be successful?

Income management: some answers to key questions

Image: BasicsCard kiosk, (Centrelink)

From 1 July 2012, income management will be extended to five new disadvantaged communities across Australia: Bankstown (New South Wales), Logan (Queensland), Rockhampton (Queensland), Playford (South Australia) and Greater Shepparton (Victoria).

While the policy of income management of welfare payments has been highly controversial, the specific details of its various forms are not generally well understood.

The Parliamentary Library has released a Background Note seeking to address this lack of understanding. It provides a brief overview of the history of income management and responses to a number of key questions about the policy.

Is income management working?




Image: BasicsCard kiosk (Centrelink)

  Much of the debate surrounding income management of welfare payments has related to the question of evidence. That is, is there evidence to justify the policy? Alternatively, is there evidence of policy failure or harmful consequences arising from income management? In other words, is income management working?

Income management (also known as ‘welfare quarantining’) refers to a policy under which a percentage of the welfare payments of certain people are set aside to be spent only on ‘priority goods and services’ such as food, housing, clothing, education and health care. Introduced by the Howard Government in 2007, income management has been criticised by some as paternalist and stigmatising.

Carbon Pricing Mechanism—Assistance to welfare recipients

(Image: Clean Energy Future website)

The Government has announced a package of measures aimed at providing assistance to households to compensate for the cost of living impact of the carbon price. Assistance will be delivered through permanent increases to welfare payments and tax cuts. The Parliamentary Library has published a short brief outlining the assistance provided to welfare recipients.

The brief notes that, according to the Government’s modelling, welfare recipients will be overcompensated for the expected cost of living impact of the carbon price. Indeed, it appears that welfare recipients will also effectively be compensated more than once when normal processes of payment indexation are taken into account. The brief also notes that pensioners receive more assistance than other welfare recipients (such as jobseekers) and that this essentially reflects the fact the current differences in rates of payment between different categories of welfare recipient.

Child health checks and welfare conditionality: a check-up

The Government recently added child health checks to its welfare reform agenda by announcing that it would require parents of four year olds to provide evidence that their child has had a basic health assessment in order to receive the Family Tax Benefit Part A Supplement.

However, the Rudd-Gillard Government's experience to date with child health checks has been the subject of criticism by some medical experts and health sector commentators, raising questions about the likely effectiveness of the policy.

Coalition 'tough love' welfare reform proposals

The Federal Opposition has proposed a number of substantial changes to the welfare system, which it says are designed to encourage more people into work. Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, announced the proposed changes in a speech to the Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry on 31 March. Mr Abbott's proposals have been subject to criticism from some commentators primarily on the grounds that they will do little to get people into work. On the other hand, some of Mr Abbott's proposed measures have gained support on the grounds that tougher measures might be required to increase workforce participation.

When Garnaut met Henry: the carbon price and welfare reform

Professor Ross Garnaut’s recent update paper no. 6 to the Garnaut Climate Change Review, released on 17 March 2011, found that ‘protecting the most vulnerable is critical to the success of the carbon price’. Professor Garnaut found that while reforms to income taxation would, for most taxpayers, assist in mitigating the effects of a rise in the price of consumer goods resulting from the introduction of a carbon price, those on little or no income could face hardship unless reforms are also made to the social security system.

Is there too much middle class welfare in Australia?

'Middle class welfare' has recently reemerged as an issue in Australian politics, primarily as a result of debates about how the Australian Government should fund infrastructure reconstruction following the floods in Queensland and Victoria. Criticisms of middle class welfare are often premised on the idea that it is a particular problem in Australia. But what is the extent of middle class welfare in Australia and should access by people on middle incomes to welfare benefits and services necessarily be seen as a matter for concern?

The major parties and ‘corrosive’ welfare

Where do the major parties stand on welfare policy? In what direction can we expect welfare policy to be taken throughout the course of the next parliament? One thing clear from the election policy announcements of the major parties is that there is likely to be a further strong emphasis on addressing what each describes as the ‘corrosive’ effects of welfare.