Opinion & Commentary
Charities must support rules
The federal Government and the welfare lobby have fallen out yet again over the way claimants are penalised when they fail to fulfil the conditions of their benefits.
Ever since mutual obligation was introduced for unemployed people, welfare groups have been campaigning against the harshness of the penalties imposed on those who disregard their obligations. They particularly dislike the fact that claimants who breach their welfare conditions three times in a 12-month period risk losing eight weeks of payments and it is this that lies at the heart of the latest dispute.
Last year the Government extended mutual obligation requirements to unemployed single parents with children over the age of eight. This made a lot of sense (most European nations already do it), for allowing these parents to stay on welfare for unlimited periods was generating high rates of dependency and rendering many of them unemployable.
But extending mutual obligation to single parents inevitably raised the question of what should happen to those who refuse to comply with the new requirements? What happens if a parent refuses to look for a job, or doesn't turn up for a training course, or ignores interview requests?
Afraid of causing hardship to the children of claimants, ministers decided that the same breaching penalties as already applied to other unemployed people should be applied to single parents, but that special payments could be made if there was a danger that their children might suffer. Various welfare charities were then recruited to determine cases where these special payments were warranted, and to help run the system.
Some welfare groups are reneging on their agreement to participate in this safety-net system. A Catholic Social Services spokesperson has claimed the system is immoral and hardline groups such as St Vincent de Paul have shunned it from the outset.
These charities no longer wish to be associated with a policy that takes benefits away from people who break the welfare rules. But there are four questions they should ask themselves before mounting their high horses and galloping away.
First, should people be expected to work if they are capable of supporting themselves? Some welfare activists still cling to the ideal of unconditional welfare where somebody deemed to be in need could receive money with no strings attached. But while this may be a laudable principle for a Christian charity to follow when dealing with the needy, it is clearly undesirable in a government welfare system. Governments owe a clear duty to working taxpayers to ensure their money is not squandered on people who choose to live off the efforts of others.
Second, if it is right to lay down conditions for the receipt of welfare, how can compliance with these conditions be assured if not by the threat or use of sanctions? A rule without sanctions is not worth the paper it is written on. And doesn't there come a point where repeated breaching of the rules must result in withdrawal of benefits, at least temporarily? If we are never allowed to stop payments, how can those who repeatedly flaunt the rules ever be reformed?
Third, having applied financial sanctions to those in breach of the conditions of their benefits, what should government do in cases where hardship results? If the hardship affects only the transgressor, the Government need do little, for the remedy lies in the hands of the claimant, but when innocent third parties begin to suffer, especially children, somebody presumably has to step in.
This is precisely where charities can play a role. For the government to restore benefits as soon as breaching caused hardship would be counter-productive, like an indulgent mother chastising a naughty child and then buying it lollies to stem the crying. But these charities exist to help people in need, regardless of circumstances, and they can therefore help people suffering hardship without compromising public policy principles. For Anglicare to complain that claimants should not be forced on to charity is spectacularly to miss the point of its own existence.
Fourth, these welfare organisations should reflect on the long-term relationship they want to have with government. Ever since the Job Network was launched they have been cosying up to Canberra, running contracts for employment services and making pots of money as a result. But if you are willing to take the money, you can hardly complain when politicians call on you to play an uncomfortable tune.
It is a bit hypocritical for these charities to be appealing to a higher morality when they have for so long been happy to rely on the Government's cash for so much of their income.
Professor Peter Saunders is Social Research Director at The Centre for Independent Studies.
