Media coverage - The Punch: Have you even met an Aboriginal person?

When my parents arrived in the 1950s as ’10 pound Poms’, Australia was a brave new world. Their street in Melbourne’s Glen Waverley bustled with fellow European migrants eager to create a life for their families.

But while our neighbourhood was a snapshot of multicultural Europe there wasn’t a lot of mixing. My parents socialised with others from the old country while their Italian and Greek neighbours went to their own churches and started their own small businesses.

The ‘poms’ and ‘wogs’ in the street lived together quite happily, but separately.

The walls only started to come down when their kids – my generation – began attending school with the children of other migrant families.

Or when parents like mine began venturing into the local restaurants run by their Southern European neighbours.

During National Reconciliation Week, I’ve been thinking about the parallels between their experiences and the way Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians relate to each other.

It seems to me that the vast bulk of non-Aboriginal Australians are living quite happily, but separately, from the first Australians – much the same way as the different European groups did in suburban Melbourne all those years ago.

It leads me to ask, why are the majority of Australians not engaging with Aboriginal people? Is it disinterest? Is it apprehension or fear? Is it lack of opportunity? Is it all the above?

If it’s disinterest, would knowing that Aboriginals lag behind non-Aboriginal Australians across almost every important social indicator – health, housing, employment, imprisonment, education – motivate us?

If apprehension or fear, does this reflect our own insecurities or guilt? That we don’t know what to say and are afraid of causing offence?

And as for lack of opportunity?

I’ve heard it said that more than 80% of non-Aboriginal Australians have never even met an Aboriginal person.

If that’s true it would suggest an almost insurmountable gulf in terms of opportunities for genuine reconciliation between the two groups.

How can we expect reconciliation to take place if our experiences and beliefs are formed from media reports and hearsay from others, rather than a genuine engagement?

The numbers don’t lie.

Alarmingly, more than half of Australians believe the relationship between the two communities is poor.

Close to 75 per cent of Aboriginal Australians believe they hold high levels of prejudice toward non-Aboriginals Australians. It’s a little over 70 per cent going the other way.

What a depressing situation.

In my view the path to genuine reconciliation runs through Australia’s workplaces.

Aboriginal employment not only means greater prosperity for individuals and communities but an opportunity for both non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal alike to really see each other, face-to-face, and the potential for prejudice and misunderstanding to be overcome.

But getting more Aboriginal Australians into work requires a concerted commitment from government, businesses and the community service sector.

For Australia’s business that means the purchasing – where possible – of products and services from Aboriginal suppliers; providing opportunities for Aboriginal trainees and apprentices; and hiring Aboriginal employees.

For governments and community organisations, that means making sure that Aboriginal Australians have the skills they need to take advantage of the opportunities provided.

There’s no doubt people are making an effort.

We’ve recently seen Andrew Forrest’s Aboriginal Employment Covenant bear some fruit but so far the obstacles to progress have proven hard to overcome.

But dare I say Australian business could do more.

This week Mission Australia hosted a dinner for more than 250 leaders from Victoria’s business and Aboriginal communities to discuss practical measures to address poverty and disadvantage among Aboriginals.

It’s early days but I’m hopeful we’ll see some real progress from the discussions that took place.

Virtually all Australians can think of an Aboriginal person who sets an example for others in sport; half can nominate an example in the arts, politics and government and community service.

However, less than 5% can think of an Aboriginal person who sets an example in business.

I dream of a time when that figure – and those revealing the deep levels of mistrust and prejudice that still exist between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians – can be reversed.

And we can all make a contribution to that process – not just in National Reconciliation Week – but throughout the year.

Even if it’s just starting a conversation about it with your friends and family and refusing to let the issue be forgotten or marginalised.

And faced with the chasm of understanding that exists between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians your participation is needed now more than ever.

Paul Bird is Mission Australia's State Director for Victoria. This article was published in The Punch on 31 May 2011

Further reading:

• MA Aboriginal resources page
• Previous MA news - Reconciliation

Opinion: Here's something Victoria can't boast about

Victorians are arguably Australia's most parochial lot.

Scratch any Victorian and they'll tell you their state leads the country in most pursuits. And Melbourne? Well Melbourne is the centre of the universe - both known and unknown.

Australia's sporting and business capital? Melbourne.

Best events, best entertainment, best food? Melbourne, Melbourne and Melbourne.

And in my line of work - providing support for disadvantaged Australians - Victorians pride themselves on being the most progressive and providing the most innovative social programs to assist people in need.

"Things are different down here," Victorians will tell you. "Don't try telling us how to do things," words more often than not aimed at people from NSW, "…we're already way beyond anything you can bring to the table."

Arrogant? A little.

True? You'll forgive me if, as a Victorian, I answer mostly in the affirmative.

But as I travel around the country - and as the head of a national community service organisation I need to travel quite a bit - I'm beginning to boast less and reach for excuses more.

Excuses for the fact Victoria has the highest youth unemployment rate in the country.

Excuses for the fact Melbourne is the least affordable capital city for housing.

Across a host of social indicators things are looking bleak in 'Bleak City' and we need to act quickly and work more smartly if we're to address them.

Not since the rust belt years of the early 90s has Victoria seen youth unemployment rates of the kind we're witnessing now.

In the Central Highlands -Wimmera youth unemployment has reached 50 per cent.

In north-west Melbourne it's 51.6 per cent.

Nearly 20 per cent of Victorians aged 18 to 24 are neither in full-time employment nor study.

These figures are scandalous and yet we seem inured to them and the squandering of youthful potential they suggest.

Victoria needs a youth employment strategy.

The new state government needs to recognise that assisting organisations like Mission Australia tackle youth unemployment isn't just a federal responsibility.

The state government is well-placed to support programs that are complementary to federal efforts at driving youth unemployment down.

For example, we know from our experience that there is a growing disconnect between labour supply and demand in many of Melbourne's disadvantaged communities. 

Businesses need job-ready applicants and many young jobseekers don't have the employability skills required.

Greater funding for locally-focussed, employer-first initiatives that identify job needs  and focus on assisting young people so they can fill available vacancies is what's needed.

The jobs are there; we need to make sure that young people have the capacity to take them.

At the same time, for those kids in danger of dropping out of school early and disengaging from training or employment, Victoria needs to offer more flexible learning, opportunities for casual work experience and pathways to traineeships and other employment.

The Coalition Victorian Government could and should take a lead on this. Their predecessors largely deferred to their federal colleagues in this area - that must change.

As for its affordable housing problem, Victoria needs to develop a detailed housing plan that incorporates where affordable housing can be built, how it can be financed and how individuals can afford to continue living with their families in the communities in which they were raised.

Part of this will require a review of planning laws to balance the needs of today with tomorrow.

On top of that a strategy to fix, replenish and manage Victoria's ageing public housing will need to be addressed sooner rather than later.

There are currently 40,000 Victorians sitting on the public housing waiting list and there's no evidence that the previous government's efforts at generating affordable housing growth is having any impact.

Victoria can't continue to rest on its laurels in terms of its approach to social and employment challenges.

Look around: South Australia leads the country in terms of offering flexible schooling in non-traditional environments to keep young people from dropping out of school.

Perhaps more than any other state in recent years, NSW has thrown its resources - and better coordinated the assistance coming from the Australian Government - into the development of affordable housing…often at its political cost.

And again NSW has embarked upon a pilot of using social impact bonds - an innovative method of raising funds from non-government investors to pay for the provision of services - while Victoria stands idly by.

I'm sure Victoria's new Premier, Ted Baillieu, is receiving mountains of unsolicited advice at present, but if I might add to the pile:

"Mr Premier, in the area of social services and support for disadvantaged people, Victoria is in danger of falling behind the rest of the country. We need to act now to arrest the slide."

Let's hope he hears the message.

---

Toby Hall is the Chief Executive Officer of Mission Australia.

This piece was published in the National Times today.  Read more of Toby's articles at this link

---

Future looks bright despite body shape - MA CEO on national youth survey findings

There's no doubt young Australians get a bad rap today. Countless commentators - and some parents too I suspect - complain about their lack of values, their slavish devotion to the latest fad or gadget and their inability to commit.

Wrong. All wrong.

Mission Australia's latest national youth survey - at more than 50,000 participants, including many from the Hunter, the biggest annual stocktake of young people in the country - is evidence that our youth are well-adjusted, have a strong set of values and place enormous importance on family relationships.

And apart from shouldering a range of serious concerns - both personal and for the nation - young Australians are overwhelmingly positive about the future.

Our survey flies in the face of popular stereotypes of Generation Y as shallow and materialistic. But it's not all good news. This year's survey has also uncovered some serious issues we, as a community, need to address.

Once again, body image is the leading personal concern for young people - in the Hunter and around the country - while at the same time they're wrestling with stress and school/study worries at far greater levels than in recent years.

When asked to rank their personal concerns from 15 issues, body image was ranked most frequently in the top three by one-in-three respondents.

It was the leading issue of concern for groups aged 11 to 14, and 15 to 19, and for females. Almost half of those aged 20 to 24 considered it a major concern. And it's not just "a female thing"- for young males body image was the second highest concern behind alcohol.

Meanwhile, young people's concern about stress jumped close to 10 per cent from last year's survey - a worrying trend.

So while young Australians are well-balanced, there's a serious and rising vein of discomfort about themselves and some of the influences around them.

In terms of body image, the results tell us that despite governments, welfare groups and youth agencies moving to tackle the issue more earnestly, there's still a lot of work to do - particularly among young adults.

Recent developments such as the Voluntary Industry Code of Conduct on Body Image also seem to have failed to convince media and the fashion industry to be more responsible.

One thing we need to do is develop young people's "media literacy", so that when they look at a magazine and see models with unachievable body perfection, they know the image has been altered.

As for stress, the level of concern picked up in our survey suggests the merit in a broader discussion about the nature and sources of stress among young people and how we can alleviate it.

Many young people indicated they wanted to better manage their competing demands, noting the potential negative consequences of not doing so, including a range of mental health issues.

We need to better equip young people, including in early adolescence, with the practical strategies to help them deal with stress.

Because we know young people go to their friends, parents and other family members first when under pressure, we must invest in supports that assist these groups so they have the skills to help. This includes peer-to-peer education and programs targeted at family members.

One constant since beginning our survey in 2002 has been young people worrying about bullying. While other issues tend to jump around, bullying has remained steady with a quarter of young people considering it a leading concern.

Young people don't make a distinction between physical bullying or cyber-bullying via online or SMS - any bullying is an issue to them and their peers because they see the consequences of it in terms of self-harm, depression and poor mental health.

Anti-bullying strategies need to stay ahead of the game in terms of technological developments that can be used and adapted to intimidate and attack others.

They also need to target the bully and the bullied-both sides reflecting a need for support and guidance.

But let me end as I began, on a positive note. For the first time this year we asked participants how they felt about the future. The answer was resoundingly optimistic.

Two-thirds were either positive or very positive about the future; only about 9 per cent were negative.

Despite the challenges, our future is in good hands - in the Hunter and around the country.

Latest news about youth survey findings...

• Tory Maguire, The Punch: 'Which comes first, a problem or its definition' 
• MA VIC State Director Paul Bird, The Punch:
  'Fear of violence is killing Victorian culture'.
• Mia Freedman, MammaMia:
  'The #1 concern for young people is body image. And stress'. 
• ABC TV, News: View at this link. 
• ABC Radio, The World Today: 'Young Australians feeling more stressed'
• Mission Australia news: Read on at this link

---

Toby Hall is the Chief Executive Officer of Mission Australia.

This piece was published in the Newcastle Herald on 19th November 2010

---

Opinion: Wrong sort of record to set on young jobless

Victoria has the highest youth unemployment in the country. Why?

Melbourne's north-west achieved a dubious distinction in the latest unemployment data - it has the worst youth unemployment rate in Victoria.

In the region - bounded by the suburbs of Brunswick, Sunbury and Kalkallo - 55 per cent of 15 to 19-year-olds are not in full-time work or education. Even more concerning, Victoria now has the worst youth unemployment rate in the country at 28 per cent.

And yet the irony is the state continues to deliver some of the best jobs growth in the country.

So what's going on? Why are so many young Victorians out of work - or not in touch with education and training - and why is the situation getting worse?

As politicians and media focus on Australia's ability or luck in avoiding the ravages of the global financial meltdown - and the potential for a new economic boom - it's worth reflecting on how we've allowed a situation like this to develop and what we can do about it.

Historically, young Australians bear a disproportionate burden during economic crises. They also have the least resources to fall back on and are the last to benefit when things pick up.

That's because during a downturn it's the casual, part-time and lower skilled jobs in the labour market - the type of jobs young people rely on - that are first to go and the last to return.

We also know through our research and experience in Melbourne's disadvantaged communities that there is a growing disconnect between labour supply and demand.

Businesses need job-ready applicants with minimal fuss. The steadily rising tide of young job seekers don't have the employability skills required.

Beset by a range of challenges in their families and communities - domestic violence, family conflict and truancy - it's no wonder that youth unemployment is growing and perpetuating a cycle of disadvantage as these young men and women grow up and have children of their own.

How can we start turning things around? A local area-based, employer-first, co-ordinated approach is required that identifies job needs, builds trust with businesses and focuses on transitions to work for young people so they can fill available vacancies.

The jobs are there; we need to make sure that young people have the capacity to take them. The tough news is that building up this sort of approach takes time, perseverance, innovation and resources. The key is integrated programs that offer structured work experience, support to overcome non-vocational barriers, and appropriate training that fill the requirements of local industries.

These young people are not going to be perfect employees immediately. They need to be given an environment to make mistakes, appreciate the value of a wage and receive support from mentors and a new peer group.

Programs that provide all these things, and also link business, training, employment and community service organisations, are not easy, fast or traditional.

One example where it's working is with Jayco, which, along with other Dandenong businesses, has been partnering with Mission Australia to move unemployed young Sudanese men into local jobs - an initiative supported by the Victorian government and two progressive philanthropic trusts, the Felton Bequest and the Bennelong Foundation.

It has been a challenging process but the efforts are starting to bear fruit, as these young job seekers take up positions with Jayco and other local employers and begin their careers.

There's no silver bullet - this particular initiative has taken two years of hard work to put together - but that's the sort of commitment required if we are serious about breaking the back of this problem.

Another approach is the use of social enterprises: projects that combine a commercial business with personal support and training. They are notoriously difficult to get up and running, but over the past three years Mission Australia's Urban Renewal landscaping and construction business has enabled more than 100 early school leavers to enter careers in trades by giving them experience.

Another idea being trialled in Britain is private investors investing in ''social impact bonds''. Such bonds are about attracting non-government investment for community programs that otherwise would not get off the ground for lack of government funding.

Returns for investors come via a proportion of the government funds that are saved from not having to provide a range of other acute related support.

For example, by investing in bonds, businesses could benefit from accessing some of the funds government saves on income support because the young person is now in a job.

It is important to remember we all have a stake in this. Governments can provide the resources and policy settings but businesses, community agencies and individual families need to be prepared to put in the hard graft to arrive at a solution.

The bottom line is our businesses need workers and our young people need to work.

---

Paul Bird is Mission Australia's Victorian state director

This piece was published in The Age on 14th October 2010

---

Opinion: Time for fresh thoughts on welfare reform

Eleven years after the last major report into reforming Australia’s welfare system it’s clear we’re still stuck with an approach that doesn’t work – for the country or the individuals and families it’s meant to help.

Sure, the past decade has seen some positive reforms, but we still have too many jobless families, too many people on disability support, too many long-term unemployed people wasting away without fulfilling their full potential.

Through the McClure Report, published in 1999, Australia had the chance for root and branch reform of Australia’s income support system – but we squibbed it.

It’s now time to re-apply ourselves to the challenge.

But let’s not be satisfied with simply tinkering around the edges.

Why not recast a radically different income support system that works for people instead of undermining them?

There is no doubt that a fair Australia must have an adequate safety net that provides unemployed, sick, disabled and vulnerable people with the support they need.

But let’s not kid ourselves that too long a time spent on welfare – particularly for people who are physically and intellectually able to work – doesn’t have a dramatic impact on a person’s health and well-being.

A report released last week by the Australasian Faculty of Occupational and Environmental Medicine stated that long-term joblessness significantly increases the risk of heart disease, lung cancer and suicide.

And that suicide among young men out of work for six months or more increases 40-fold.

An unproductive life destroys a person and can spread like a cancer through their family and community.

Witness the destruction and decay passive welfare has created in some Aboriginal communities and suburbs on our metro fringes.

We all know this – governments know it, community agencies know it, the public senses it…and yet it seems we’re determined to persist with the system as it stands.

Take the Disability Support Pension for example.

Between 1996 and 2007 the number of people receiving the Disability Support Pension (DSP) actually increased from 500,000 to more than 700,000.

Growth in the number of DSP recipients was greater than in any other pension category in the decade to 2007.

It’s estimated that 20 per cent of this total – 140,000 people – are thought to be capable of work.

We can’t let this situation go on.

Recently Mission Australia was asked to report on our experiences of job seekers complying with their obligations to look for work while receiving income support.

These obligations are known as a job seeker’s ‘activity test’.

Our frontline staff told us that a significant number of job seekers were using multiple occurrences of illness as a reason for not looking for work but failing to provide the required medical certificates to support their claims.

And if that wasn’t enough, in a large number of cases where we brought such behaviour to Centrelink’s attention for action the matter was overturned.

In the six months between July and December 2009, Mission Australia submitted more than 20,000 reports to Centrelink – known as Participation Reports – for issues of job seekers not living up to their obligations.

According to our figures, Centrelink overturned 45 per cent of these.

Now, on some occasions, having our reports overturned is to be expected.

But 45 per cent?

It is reasonable that unemployed people on income support should be required to follow a set of simple rules when seeking work.

But the rules must be applied – and at the moment it appears they’re not.

I was pleased to see during the election campaign Labor commit to a tightening of the compliance regime as well as the potential to suspend a jobseeker’s income support on their first failure to meet their obligations.

In essence a sharp message to say ‘This is a responsibility that needs to be taken seriously’.

The government should also consider moving all job seekers not exempt from the activity test into community service or work experience within three months of becoming unemployed – not 12 months as is currently the case.

This would help avoid the loss of productivity and engagement that comes from passive welfare. It’s as much about keeping an individual’s work skills up as it is about maintaining their self-esteem and avoiding isolation and depression.

Finally, we need to focus on income support obligations that bolster families and children. Despite the naysayers, I believe linking the receipt of benefits to basic things like school attendance or the payment of rent can make sense.

To this end I think Jenny Macklin’s efforts with income quarantining should be supported.

But we also need to make sure such measures are complemented by well-resourced intensive case management and access to incentives such as matched savings and financial counselling.

A fair and well-managed income support system offers hope for people in need.

An income support system that continues to let people capable of social, economic and community participation avoid such contact does them – and all of us – a grave disservice.

Welfare reform is undoubtedly one of the most difficult areas of policy to address – but address it we must – not for my sake, or the sake of taxpayers, but the sake of the individuals, families and communities at the mercy of a system that seems determined to let them down.

---

Toby Hall is the Chief Executive Officer of Mission Australia

This piece was published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 20th September 2010

---

Opinion: Too quiet on home front

The latest news on housing affordability makes depressing reading. It shows just how far we have to go to make sure there’s enough housing for all Australians – now and in the future.

Housing affordability plunged 18.4 per cent in the December quarter and was 22.3 per cent lower than 12 months earlier.

While 152,000 new homes are expected in 2010 that's still below the 190,000 required to keep pace with Australia's population growth.

NSW will have to build more than 40,000 houses a year if the state's population is to reach its forecast population level of 10.5 million by 2050.

Creating more affordable housing is more than just an issue for first home buyers – it’s a crucial plank in the fight against homelessness.

More affordable housing means less people on solid incomes ‘camping’ in the rental market as they try to save enough money to buy their own home.

More space in rental means more opportunities for people on low incomes and greater flexibility for homeless agencies in moving people from supported accommodation into independent living.

If we can’t boost affordable housing stock more Australians will be forced to live in substandard accommodation.

I don’t think there’s any question the Federal Government is committed to tackling the problem.

The Rudd Government is the first administration that’s shown the courage to tackle an issue that has remained untouched for decades.

There are even signs that state governments are rolling up their sleeves.

So what’s stopping things ramping up even further – enough to meet demand and put us squarely on track to meet the Federal Government’s homelessness targets of 2020?

From my perspective, one of the great roadblocks to getting things moving is local government.

Harry Triguboff – one of Australia’s best known housing developers – said recently:

“The development process has become too politicised. Councillors are convinced that if they approve developments they will lose votes."

It’s easy for Harry’s opponents to dismiss his comments as sour grapes – the complaints of a frustrated businessman who has had his plans for development stymied by community-minded councillors.

But there’s more than a ring of truth to his views.

Time and time again local councillors are blocking development or prolonging the approval process for new affordable and low income housing – particularly where it’s needed most in inner suburban areas – based on little more than a ‘not in my backyard’ attitude and with no accountability for their actions.

If facilitating the development of affordable housing isn’t in the backyard of local councillors then whose backyard is it?

Recently a Victorian affordable housing project in which Mission Australia was involved was approved subject to conditions by council town planning. It was then flatly overruled by councillors.

This was a project that had already received town-planning approval – and was in line with federal and state government objectives for affordable housing – and yet councillors did not have to provide any serious grounds for overturning the decision of their more qualified staff.

Experiences like this are common throughout Australia. Yes, in most cases there’s an alternative body to which an appeal can be made but many projects don’t survive the delays and costs involved.

Meanwhile our affordable housing crisis deepens.

We must find a way to convince communities to invite housing development into their areas and not reject it out of hand.

I’ve been impressed by a UK proposal to address this very issue. The suggestion is that government match the council rates – dollar for dollar – for any new home, for six years, with the money to be used exclusively for community programs in that area. For affordable housing dwellings, this figure is proposed to increase to 1.25 times the new home’s rates.

It’s smart, innovative thinking and serves as a model for how we might overcome the negativity and knee-jerk obstructionism which so often characterises the passage of affordable housing projects through council.

Local councils do not operate in a vacuum.

Their lack of cooperation will continue to force prices up and impede efforts to both ensure we have enough housing in this country and reach the target of halving the number of homeless people by 2020.

They have a responsibility to understand the bigger picture when it comes to affordable housing in Australia and be part of a solution.

Or if not, to get out of the way.

---

Toby Hall is the Chief Executive Officer of Mission Australia

This piece was published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 21st March

---

Media Release: State and Territory governments must set targets to reduce numbers of young people in detention

One of Australia’s leading providers of services to disadvantaged young people has called on state and territory governments to set targets to reduce the number of juveniles in custody and increase alternative justice or ‘diversionary’ programs to achieve their aims.

On the eve of the National Juvenile Justice Summit in Melbourne (Thurs-Fri, 25-26 February), Mission Australia said almost all state and territory governments currently had the wrong policy settings for effectively tackling juvenile offending.

Mission Australia’s spokesperson, Anne Hampshire, said research and experience had proven the best approach to reducing juvenile offending was not putting young people in custody but providing them with access to programs that addressed the issues at the heart of their behaviour, eg: family stress, poor literacy/numeracy, lack of skills, unemployment and substance abuse.

Such programs are not only more successful but significantly cheaper to run.

“There’s a real lack of consistency across states and territories when it comes to tackling the issue of juvenile justice,” said Ms Hampshire.

“Victoria leads the country and both the Tasmanian and NSW governments have recently engaged in reviews of their approaches, but elsewhere it appears governments seem happy to lock young people up in increasing numbers – despite all evidence showing it doesn’t work.

“There are around 630 young Australians locked up every day (2007/08 figures which exclude NSW). Both the numbers (up by 17%) and the rate (up from 1.7 to 2.0 per 1000) at which young people are placed in custody has increased.

“Putting young offenders in custody is not only expensive but ineffective – most of those released will re-offend. Detention also intensifies the need for greater levels of support post-release.

“And when you look at the population of juveniles in custody, almost half report some form of serious abuse in their past, including violence and neglect. Do we really think detaining a young person with that sort of background is an appropriate response to their problem?

“These are hardly good outcomes, particularly when you consider it can cost in excess of $150,000 to keep a young person in custody for 12 months.

“From Mission Australia’s own experience, programs to divert young people away from detention can cost as little as $3200 per individual. In one of our NSW juvenile justice initiatives, 65% of participants had not re-offended a year after leaving the program.

“In a similar Victorian program we run, only six of the 188 young participants received further summons or charges after exiting.

“If governments were genuine about tackling this problem they would commit themselves to reducing the number of young people – particularly minority groups – in detention and setting targets that can be monitored,” said Ms Hampshire.

Media contact: Paul Andrews (02) 9219 2080 or 0409 665 495

Opinion: Welfare reform 10 years on - from our CEO, Toby Hall

A significant milestone in our recent political history passed without fanfare this week. It’s been 10 years since the Howard Government launched Australia on the path of welfare reform.

A decade down the track we might consider whether it’s an anniversary worth celebrating.

The independent committee charged by the government to make recommendations for change – a series of proposals known as the McClure Report – came back with three objectives for welfare reform: significant reductions in the number of jobless families and households; significant reductions in the proportion of the working age population on income support; and stronger communities with improved social and economic participation.

Perhaps uniquely for a major report on such a contentious issue it was greeted positively, not only by both sides of politics, but also by the business and community sectors.

It offered government a comprehensive road map for reform – a systematic approach to what is a highly complex problem. At the time there was real optimism for change.

But the Howard Government’s failure to embrace the McClure Report as a whole – including some of its toughest reforms – has left many of its targets either unmet or compromised.

In terms of jobless families, there’s no doubt the number has fallen since the late 90s. Increasing employment and welfare to work measures have had an impact but numbers are still too high.

Australia has the second-highest percentage of children living in jobless families in the developed world.

There are an estimated 543,000 Australian children currently in this position.

Around one in seven Australian children lives in a jobless family – one in two for single parent households – with all the associated implications that carries for future social and economic development.

These are hardly significant reductions.

And remember these numbers have remained stubbornly high through some of the best economic times Australia has experienced.

It’s further evidence that the problems of jobless families and job poor communities won’t be overcome by economic growth alone.
In terms of working age people heavily reliant on income support – again, while numbers have declined overall – there remain major challenges in supporting key groups into work.

Between 1996 and 2007 the number of people receiving the Disability Support Pension actually increased from 500,000 to more than 700,000 – greater growth than in any other pension category.

It’s estimated that 20 per cent of this total – 140,000 people – are thought to be capable of work, but we’ve failed to reach them.

And as for those vulnerable communities that stood to benefit most from the roll-out of the McClure Report’s recommendations, it’s Mission Australia’s experience that we’re a still a long way off from achieving its lofty goals of social and economic transformation.

Despite a strong start, the previous government’s approach to welfare reform was unbalanced and lacked coordination and integration. Ten years on we’ve failed to reap its full benefits and in some cases have gone backwards.

The current administration has the opportunity – particularly through its social inclusion agenda and the Henry Tax Review – to finish the job.

Among other things, that means simplifying the overly complex benefits system and introducing a single income support payment with a needs-based ‘add on’ bonus according to individual or family circumstances.

It also means removing remaining barriers to participation – such as the disincentives that exist in the current tax system for welfare recipients seeking to return to work.

We must tackle effective marginal tax rates so when an individual moves from welfare to employment they don’t suffer the double hit of income tax and a dramatic reduction in benefits.

As the majority of disadvantaged Australians are moving from income support to low paying jobs, the combination of income tax and a reduction in benefits is crippling.

And we need the Rudd Government to deliver its disability employment strategy.

While completing these reforms will be challenging and costly they will ultimately benefit us all via greater economic and social participation.

But if we don’t find the political will to see them through the gap between the job rich and job poor will become ever wider, condemning our most vulnerable communities to sclerotic levels of disadvantage.

Toby Hall, CEO, Mission Australia

Four Corners' Last Chance Motel - A timely reminder of the reality of Homelessness

Mission Australia welcomed Sarah Ferguson's report on Monday night - 'Last Chance Motel - which aimed to present the reality of homelessness for families stuck in a cycle of temporary housing.

As expected, the families featured all have their own stories to tell - when it comes to homelessness there is no stereotype: it is a situation arising from system failure rather than human failure.

As one father mentioned: "I've always had this picture in my head of a homeless person... they've got torn dirty clothes, they're not shaven, they're sort of sitting out on the corner looking for a handout… I'm not in that category but I don't have a home for my family and it's really embarrassing."

Homelessness is a symptom that arises from the combination of a low-income, a tight rental market favouring prejudice and a public housing system that has been systematically scaled back over the past decade.

As one mother mentioned in the program, how is she supposed to perform her role as mother while they have their family packed into a single hotel room and living out of boxes? Long-term 'temporary' accommodation is hardly the solution.

While rental properties are pricing low-income earners out of the market, there needs to be adequate public housing to meet the demand - but taxpayer funded 'temporary' accommodation should only ever be just that...temporary.