The Newstart Allowance stalemate reflects a lack of consensus about its purpose

As reflected in the current government inquiry into Intergenerational Welfare Dependence the government seems to narrowly construct disadvantage as the result of individual behaviour such as poor choices and a limited work ethic or what they label welfare dependence.

Welfare dependence is a popular term often used in the News Corp media to depict the increasing (and prolonged) financial reliance of individuals or families on income support payments for their primary source of income. Neoliberals construct welfare recipients as holding fundamentally different values and attitudes to the rest of the community. Dependence on welfare is interpreted as an addiction not dissimilar to that of helpless dependence on drugs, alcohol or gambling.

Neoliberals believe the state should act to motivate and discipline welfare recipients, and reintegrate them with mainstream social values and morality, such as self-reliance and the work ethic. Income support should shift from being a right or entitlement to a privilege. Welfare dependent individuals should be given incentives to choose employment over welfare.

Yet in the real world there is no serious evidence that such an indeterminate psychological concept of illness or addiction exists. Rather, it assumes an ideal world in which anyone who wants work can find work at a living wage, and all citizens enjoy equal opportunities from the time of birth. In contrast, the real world is based on social and economic inclusion and exclusion, and fundamental inequities. The American political scientist, Professor Sanford Schram, Professor of Political Science at Hunter College in New York, has recently published a detailed book chapter titled "Neoliberalizing the welfare state" which exposes the absurdity of this term being used in an attempt to medicalize a debate that to the contrary reflects deep seated political and ideological contention around the causes of social disadvantage.

In fact, what we are arguably talking about here is chronic material disadvantage. That is why some individuals or families have an increased and prolonged reliance on income support payments for their primary source of income. The recent ACOSS report on Poverty confirmed that in 2015-16, 3.05 million people or 13.2 % of the population, were estimated to live below the poverty line.

On the basis of years of research with disadvantaged populations – particularly young people who grow up in out of home care who are a particularly vulnerable group due to the failure of all Australian States and Territories to currently provide ongoing support once they turn 18 years of age – I would argue that outcomes for such groups reflect the connection between two key factors: one is their Individual Agency or resilience (within a social context), and the second being the availability or otherwise of positive relationships via what we call Social Capital through professional and informal support networks.

Those young people and families who overcome disadvantaged backgrounds mostly do so because individuals and/or groups in their local community provide support that gives them opportunities to access education, training, employment, and other social and economic resources that otherwise would not have occurred, and enhances rather than limits their individual choice and agency including particularly their capacity to participate in the social and economic mainstream.

If the debate is about the adequacy of payments to relieve poverty and promote agency, then there is no doubt that ACOSS, and allies such as the Australian Greens, are correct in arguing that Newstart is too low at $545 per fortnight to meet basic needs such as housing, food, utility payments, transport, clothes etc. It also inhibits job search because people may be unable to afford suitable clothes for interviews, or pay for transport either to travel to interviews or to attend skills training, or access the Internet to identify job opportunities.

This is not to say that all Newstart claimants are the same. Those who are long-term unemployed (which is more than 60 per cent of the total number) are more likely to be living in acute poverty. Some will come from severely disadvantaged backgrounds such as those who grew up in state out of home care, and may have few, if any, family or community supports to fall back on. In contrast, those who are unemployed for shorter periods – and particularly if they are able to rely on family support – may be able to manage.

But we currently know very little about the varied needs and experiences of the unemployed or other income support recipients because governments rarely if ever survey or consult service users, or conduct serious research on what works to help people move from long-term welfare reliance to sustainable employment. So oddly we spend large amounts of money without much evidence as to whether or not welfare payments or services are actually benefiting those who use them – assuming that is what governments want them to do.