‘Mutual obligation’ policies do little to help the poor and underemployed

Not everyone has equal difficulty meeting the “mutual obligations” imposed upon them. Unemployed, white, middle class, organised, well educated, good looking, compliant, nicely dressed, Australian born people who are skilled communicators and who are not having family or transport difficulties don’t seem to have any difficulty gaining and retaining social security benefits. Clearly they must be both “needy and worthy”.

The St Vincent de Paul and the Brotherhood of St Laurence report, replicated in Schooneveldt’s research, identifies particular groups which have more difficulty obtaining and retaining social security benefits under a “mutual obligation” regime. These groups are composed of people who have social, intellectual, mental health, addiction, educational and communication difficulties. Indigenous people, recently arrived migrant and refugees also encounter disproportionate difficulties meeting the dictates of Centrelink staff.

It may be that ministers in the present government would judge some of these people as “unworthy”. It is unlikely that the Government, as a whole, would hold the view that simply experiencing one of more of these difficulties should automatically disqualify a person from obtaining benefits.

If the government were of that view then it would be appropriate for it to attempt to legislate to that effect. If it is of that view but convinced that the Parliament would not pass such legislation then it seems an unethical approach to impose roundabout sanctions on such groups. This amounts to a less than transparent process of exclusion that is not only unconscionable but is a denial of natural justice that no affluent group would tolerate.

Within such groups some are cut off benefits more than once. Clearly the greater the disadvantage a person experiences the more difficult they will find it to establish their eligibility for benefit. They are the ones who have the greatest difficulty meeting imposed obligations. They may not understand they are required to meet such obligations. They often don’t understand why they are expected to meet such obligations. They are more likely to interpret the imposed obligation as an imposition rather than assistance. They are often living in extreme poverty having lived with their disadvantage for many years. The reality is that the most disadvantaged are the ones most adversely affected by increased targeting, “mutual obligation” surveillance and compliance measures.

The “mutual obligation” regime is not a pragmatic way to ascertain “the worthy and the needy”. Nor is it a way to deter “the greedy”. It imposes paternalistic obligations without assisting people find work or alternative income sources to social security. It diminishes the liberty and self–respect of recipients by saddling them with stigma. It is neither a direct nor efficient way to run a welfare system. It is a misnomer to call “mutual obligation” pragmatic. Given that the policy has, in one form or another, been in place for over six years it would seem a legitimate question to ask, “What use is the ‘mutual obligation’ regime to the government?”

The number of people receiving social security is limited by the generic design faults in targeted welfare assistance systems and by the imposition of stigma. Such difficulties are exacerbated if recipients lack bureaucratic sophistication or experience a disadvantage. Apart from such shortsighted savings, there seems little apparent advantage deriving to the Howard Government. It is cheaper because it fails to pay many people who are eligible for a benefit. The savings that accrue to the federal government are, in substantial part, displaced onto the various state governments, charitable bodies and to poor families themselves. "Mutual obligation" may be cheaper, but it is poor policy because it fails to ensure that all eligible people are provided with a liveable income. Its cheapness is not a sufficient explanation. It does not explain the ardent promotion of the “mutual obligation” regime by so many Ministers in the Howard government.

The underlying use of “mutual obligation” is an ideological one. It provides the Howard government with a tool to berate the poor for their poverty while absolving the Government of the need to pay them. It reinforces middle-class preconceptions about people who are poor and excuses their failure to help those less fortunate than themselves. It undermines feelings of noblesse oblige and portrays as ridiculous any idea of socialist solidarity with such “unworthy” people. In an insidious fashion, it erodes the viability of many poor families. It destroys the social cohesion of this nation as it undermines egalitarianism. In fact, “mutual obligation” is a weapon of mass distraction in Howard’s culture wars.