A non-means tested, non-taxed government payment for all ought to be Tony Abbott's 'maxi' reform, and it should receive welfare lobby support

Tony Abbott's 'Big Bang' welfare strategy immediately raised my hackles, given the propensity for him to generate ideas inimical to citizens in general and to unwilling recipients of income support in particular.

There is no doubt that the welfare system needs an overhaul. Just as there is no doubt that higher payments are necessary to support those suffering under the inequities of neo-liberal policies. Despite Tony's history, the idea of a 'maxi' welfare reform project does have some merit since we currently have two income support policies: one for pensioners, including age pensioners, and one for the labour force or potential labour force.

That is, provided it helps the people in need of income support and is not presented merely to save money, as Coalition policy usually appears to demand.

A recent item announcing a National Summit on Government and Social Renewal was reported in the QCOSS newsletter of 16 December 2002.

The summit will "consider plans (submitted by participants) which break through barriers, harness diverse institutional capacities, unleash social and financial capital and redraw the boundaries between government, communities and business".

In this context, the time now appears to have arrived for serious consideration, research and, hopefully, implementation of a different concept to address the inequalities in our present system of welfare support.

One idea, variously called "guaranteed annual income" (GAI), "basic income", "territorial dividend", "state bonus", "demogrant", "citizen's wage" and "universal benefit" presents itself as a viable alternative to the present ad hoc and inefficient system.

In the past two decades this concept has gradually become the subject of an unprecedented and fast-expanding public discussion, particularly in Europe and parts of the Third World.

Some see it as a crucial remedy for many social ills including unemployment and poverty. Others denounce it as a crazy, economically flawed and ethically objectionable proposal.

In a background paper presented to the VIIIth International Congress of the Basic Income European Network (BIEN) in October 2000, Philippe van Parijs defined basic income thus: "A basic income is an income paid by a political community to all its members on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement."

The concept of unconditional universal income support has not so far achieved any real degree of political recognition, as this concept is still relatively new to Australia despite one of the recommendations of the First Main Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty in 1975 being for the adoption of a carefully targeted and means-tested proposal.

Allan McDonald of the Organisation Advocating Support Income Studies (OASIS) has stated:
"The primary objective of the support income system is to provide a more equitable distribution of income for all citizens without reducing or weakening individual initiative and enterprise. Within the umbrella of this primary objective there are a number of targets or objectives.

a. Reduce the divide between the rich and the poor.
Besides the social benefits to be gained there is also a sound economic argument for this target. Today there is serious concern about the effects of globalisation and the danger of Australia becoming a 'branch office economy', and one of the matters of concern is the relatively small size of the domestic market with a population in the order of 19 million. For items other than the necessities of life, however, the domestic market is far less - possibly only half - because of the large and growing social stratification based on income. Reducing this stratification would help increase the size of the domestic market.

b. Provide a degree of financial security for all citizens not achievable with any other form of income support.
The unconditional nature of the income support will be of special benefit to the labour force and potential labour force. This will allow more workers to accept part-time or casual employment, thus helping to reduce the level of unemployment through a sharing of the available work. This will allow workers to plan for career training and development. And this will provide greater individual security when negotiating conditions of employment (described by some proponents as the empowerment of individuals).

c. Provide life long income security, which in turn will lead to questioning the role of occupational superannuation, and the responsibility of the state to provide taxation concessions for income related retirement incomes."

In closing the OASIS Newsletter, McDonald commented that "there is now at least one group with the interest and understanding to attempt to develop a basic income system for Australia, and to ensure that Australian social scientists maintain contact with international developments in this field."

Within the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) School of Humanities and Human Services a group to be known as the Basic Income Guarantee Australia (BIGA) will operate on the QUT web site, commencing in March 2003.

Development of the concept in Europe seems to be a soft-spoken, back-door approach while in countries such as South Africa and Brazil, where a lot has been happening lately, a more upbeat front-gate approach is happening.

The Irish government has published a green paper, the first major official publication on basic income in Europe since the 1985 report of the Dutch Scientific Council for Governmental Policy. South Africa's Basic Income Grant campaign has set a figure: 100 rands or 10 euros per month for every South African.

It is significant that the first Prime Minister (currently in office) to address a congress of BIEN was from Africa. In his speech at the opening plenary session, Mozambique's Prime Minister Pascoal Mocumbi stated that "the BIEN project, particularly the component that seeks to ensure a minimum income to guarantee school attendance, represents an innovative perspective which should be integrated into the national poverty reduction strategy".

Returning to the domestic situation, the Australians Working Together Bill will extend the notion of mutual obligation, and the risk of breach penalties, to a range of new groups: single parents, parents whose partners rely on social security, and older unemployed people.

This potentially punitive legislation gives rise to further urgency for reform of the current system.

The overhaul and eventual replacement of the present welfare system is not something that should be undertaken lightly or at great speed … but it must be undertaken, and soon.