Showing posts with label national times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label national times. Show all posts

Thursday, March 31, 2011

Pretend welfare reform will do nothing for jobless

Welfare reform is back on the agenda in a big way – or so it seems.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard recently stared down colleagues who wanted her to water down tougher penalties for unemployed people who failed to meet their job-seeking obligations.

And yesterday Opposition Leader Tony Abbott raised a number of proposals including getting rid of unemployment benefits in areas where work is plentiful.

All interesting stuff – but is it real welfare reform? Not by a long shot.

What we’re seeing here is the pretence of welfare reform. Action at the margins aimed at addressing some of the challenges facing the country in terms of workforce participation but nothing that will make a serious and long-lasting difference.

Australia needs root-and-branch welfare reform – reform that tackles the complexity of the income support system including how it interacts with the tax system, that reconsiders and possibly reinvents the nation’s approach to supporting disabled people, that takes a balanced approach to assisting long-term unemployed people into the workforce and doesn’t fall into the trap of ‘‘all stick and no carrot’’.

The last attempt at wholesale reform – on the back of the McClure Report 11 years ago – was ultimately shelved by the Howard government.

The reforms recommended by Patrick McClure, which aimed to leave no income support recipient worse off, were rejected in favour of a piecemeal approach that favoured penalties over incentives.

Eleven years on, we’re still wrestling with the same old issues.

Too many jobless families, too many people on disability support, too many long-term unemployed people wasting away without fulfilling their potential.

If there’s one set of statistics that exposes the ongoing failure of Australia’s welfare system it’s the extraordinary growth in the numbers of people receiving the Disability Support Pension (DSP) in the past 20 years.

In 1991 there were a little more than 300,000 DSP recipients. Twenty years later that number is rapidly approaching 800,000.

During that time Australia’s population grew by more than 30 per cent while disability pension numbers rose by more than 130 per cent.

As a recent report by the Whitlam Institute makes clear: ‘‘Over 56 per cent of people moving on the DSP have moved to this benefit from another income support payment – over 35 per cent from an unemployment benefit. They have moved from a benefit where the search for work is expected to one where it is not.’’

The numbers of people on the DSP are growing without check. More of the same isn’t going to address this problem and nor are simplistic suggestions to withdraw income support in regions where jobs like fruit picking are available.

What nobody wants to admit is that real welfare reform is expensive – hideously so – but then even more financially debilitating is letting the current situation continue.

But if we’re not in a position to fund these changes now – when Australia’s economy leads the world and we stand on the cusp of an extraordinary commodities boom – then when?

Many DSP recipients want to work. The keys to reaching these hundreds of thousands of people are to make sure they receive the training they need to fill vacancies in industries starved of employees; that they’re not financially worse off as they make the move to employment; and that they get the support they need for non-vocational issues.

In other words, we need to provide DSP recipients who are capable of work with a pathway to employment.

Part of the solution could be found in the area of social procurement – governments and businesses providing a social outcome when they buy a good or service.

There is plenty of scope for government to show leadership and provide thousands of employment and work experience opportunities for people locked out of the labour market by procuring goods or staff that deliver a social dividend.

Then there is the vexing issue of effective marginal tax rates – the perversity of people on low incomes facing higher tax rates than wealthy individuals as they move into the workforce simply because of the way the tax and income support systems interact.

How can we expect people on benefits to pursue work when they are slugged financially for their efforts? Where’s the incentive?

It’s not my desire to be uncharitable. I’m glad that welfare reform is being discussed. It recognises at least that our leaders are aware that there is a problem.

Much of what the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader are talking about can be achieved through changes to the nation’s employment service system – that’s absolutely appropriate and sensible.

But let’s not pretend it’s real welfare reform.


Toby Hall is the Chief Executive Officer of Mission Australia


This piece was published in the National Times on 1 April 2011

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Opinion: Private capital can be key to social change

There are plenty of social services we should pay for out of basic human decency, despite the cost.

It’s what Australians like to call ‘giving people a fair go’.

What most of us fail to realise, is that many social services can also show a significant return on investment over time.

And in a surprise turn, it’s the much maligned NSW Government that has lead the country by announcing the trial of Australia’s first Social Impact Bond (SIB); a financial instrument designed to provide capital to successful social programs which show a return to investors.

The SIB trial will be modelled on a similar program in the UK and will require the cooperation of government, investors and the community sector.

The principle is fairly simple.

Governments fund social programs which save them money – they’re just not good at quantifying it, particularly when the returns will come years down the track.

In the juvenile justice area for example, there are inexpensive and successful diversionary programs aimed at reducing rates of recidivism.

Reducing recidivism saves the cost of incarceration, which in NSW is around $150,000 to keep one young person locked up for a year.

Our own research shows that by reducing reoffending and time spent in jail, you also reduce adverse health and welfare outcomes and increase the rate of employment, which not only saves money but increases revenue through income tax and GST.

Unfortunately the money available from governments to scale this kind of program is more often than not tied up in the aftermath of ‘tough on crime’ sentencing and providing detention.

But by issuing a SIB, it opens opportunities for private investment.

For example, the government sells the bond – linked to a juvenile justice program - to private investors.

If the program achieves an agreed reduction in recidivism, then the government pays a return to the investor on top of their original debt obligations.

The NSW Government is estimating savings of between $4 and $17 for every $1 it invests which suggest there’s plenty of potential upside to cover the costs and then some.

It’s a wide range, but it’s a new area and there’s still lots of hard work to be done.

For one, investors and government will need to build their capacity to run the ruler over social programs the way they do with potential commercial investments.

Which funds manager will advise a retiree to invest in a social bond if they have no idea if the ‘business’ behind it is sound?

There’s also a question about who carries the risk – is this really a social bond or are you buying equity so that if the program fails you do your dough?

We also need to be wary of the fact that these are people’s lives we’re talking about – we’re not investing in widgets. Any development of SIBs needs to be based on a sophisticated understanding of the issues involved and their impact on individuals, families and communities.

But we shouldn’t allow the prospect of hard work and the need for deeper examination to dissuade us from pursuing SIBs; there are some very attractive features of creating this kind of tradable instrument.

Capital will naturally flow to the most successful programs.

It should encourage innovation, because investors can choose to put money into interesting projects politicians could struggle to get through Treasury or justify to voters…however strong the case.

Community service providers will be pushed to demonstrate tangible outcomes rather than outputs – something we shouldn’t be afraid to do.

And it provides another product for the burgeoning ethical investment market, which will in turn help increase the pool of private capital available to fund successful social programs.

Most importantly, it will allow larger-scale investment with long-lead returns which the three or four year government cycle makes nigh on impossible.

SIBs won’t solve every problem, but you’d be surprised how much money could be saved by investing upfront in solving social ills rather than perpetuating them.

Homelessness, early interventions for children with disabilities and treating people with a mental illness are all areas where investing now can show great returns in the long run.

We use bonds to fund rail and road – so why not social infrastructure?


Toby Hall is the Chief Executive Officer of Mission Australia


This piece was published in the National Times on 14 January