Social Welfare in Australia

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Introduction

Social security and welfare of the Australian populations has become the major issue on the agenda. In particular, the Australian government expressed concerns with the state of the Australian Welfare State due to the constantly increasing unemployment rates, as well as income inequality among the citizens.

As a result, the reform has undergone major change to avert the critical situation. A number of political and economic underpinnings, including post-war revival and economic recession, have contributed to the causes of changes.

Major Changes to the Nature and Scope of the Australian Welfare State between 1945 And 1996

In simplistic terms, the Australian Welfare State was aimed at enhancing the employment rates in the country after the Second World War.

The government introduced social security reforms and provided the nation with conditions that should have allowed them to enhance their financial position and improve the overall economic and social situation in Australia (Keating 1996).

One of the tangible changes to the welfare state was greater access of women to various social policy programs and benefit schemes. The government paid specific attention to supporting and reinforcing gains in the sphere of employment and wages (Wiseman 2000).

The most notable shifts include expanding public childcare insurance, delivering equal access to income security policies, and creating new entitlements that would meet the needs of women.

The changes, however, also affected the institutional state model that introduces new social citizenship that differed from the established male breadwinner model.

However, the hybrid structure was inconsistent with the establishment of the conservative government and radical system of wage policies in Australia.

Shift to individual rights in Australia is another feature of the welfare state policies that needs to be reconsidered because certain controversies. In particular, adhering to an individual-centred model cannot be regarded a realistic alternative for governing the public sector (Keating 1996).

The inappropriateness of the model is explained by inability to adopt the model in Australian context because it had been applied previously in Scandinavian countries.

In addition, both the gender shifts and individual focus face certain contradictions in terms of employment, sphere of care, familial ideology, and entitlement.

Political and Economic Causes Underlying the Pattern of Structural Change

According to StillWell (2005), the emergence of the 1945 White Paper signified “a foundation stone for a post-war settlement between capital and labour, based on the assumption that the workers could share …economic growth through full employment” (p. 24).

However, this promise turned out to be failure because of the long boom initiated in the 1970.

The attempts of the Australian Welfare State to contribute to the employment rates in the country failed due to a number of political, social, and economic pre-conditions in the countries, as well as various purposes pursued by political activists, the Australian government, and other social organizations.

The failure is explained by the inability of the post-war government to adequately assess the peculiarities and possibilities of the Australian economy, as well as what social and political consequences the reform would contribute to the overall welfare of the nation.

According to Mendes (2009), the inconsistency of the reforms was due to the fact that “social work has been divided between those would emphasise the treatment and cure of individual problems and deficiencies, and those who prefer to emphasise structural inequities and the importance of social reform” (p. 17).

In other words, the reform introduced to movements among which there were those who believe that changing the individual is the priority for the welfare of the society and there were those who were more concerned with the changing the society to satisfy the needs and concerns of the individual.

Antagonistic approaches provided a number of challenges for the Australian government.

The fact that Australia is the country of immigrants that unites many cultures is undeniable (McClelland & Smyth, 2010). Being the land of social justice, the Australians adhere to the concept of faire distribution, which is imprinted in Australian culture and national identity (Jump 2000).

Moreover, Australians strongly associated welfare with employment, as well as with self-reliance of those who are able to work and with compassion for people who are not able to work. Although social expenditures on welfare have augmented over time, they did not contribute significantly to unemployment rate reduction (McClelland & Smyth, 2010).

Therefore, because the government provided assistant to socially unsecure people and to those who are unable to work, Australia can be regarded a liberal country which greater control taken on the welfare system.

The changes to the Australian Welfare State are also predetermined by complex economic underpinnings. Due to the fact that the Australian government focused on reducing unemployment, they paid little attention the importance of advancing economic growth in the country.

In addition, the new economic rationalist approach also requires tangible economic improvements, which were impossible to achieve because of the deregulated and internationalised markets (McClelland & Smyth, 2010).

As a result, employment growth did not ensure high salaries, which was especially problematic for working women. As a result, the increased employment rate contributed to the economic recession and instability.

The economic roots of social problems in Australia are strongly associated with four major determinants of economic development – ideology, state, market, and class. In this respect, Stillwell (2005) refers to the connection between market and state because they characterize best social and capitalism.

The impossibility of promoting individual-centred approach to the welfare of the country is connected with the economic roots as well.

In particular, “Class relationships almost inevitably contain the seeds of conflicting interests, simmering underneath the cooperative relationships necessary to make the existing system work” (Stillwell, 2005, p. 27).

Therefore, class-structured society often faces contradictions that premised on the connection between wages and economic surplus. In particular, high wages increase the production costs and, therefore, they destruct the economic surplus that is necessary to promote economic growth.

At the same time, high wages are needed to foster adequate consumers’ demand because of the increased amount of produced goods and services. Overall, the illustrated contradiction in political economy can influence social development.

Analysis of Cumulative Effect of These Changes on the Degree of Income Inequality in Australian Society

Despite the rational and straightforward course on increasing the number of working places, as well as on the development of egalitarian society, the government failed to fill in the fast-growing gap between the rich and the poor.

At the threshold of the 1990s, the major part of Australian households had incomes below the poverty line (Garton 1994). The emerged inequality was the result of the excess focus on shifts in labour distributions and the economic problems, which could be associated with the period of the Great Depression in the United States.

The dichotomy between individual and structural visions on economic and social development stands at the core of the causes of the emerged changes as well as the increased income inequality in Australia.

In fact, the highlighted distinction is premised on various approaches to considering social change in society.

In this respect, Mendes (2009) argues that the emerged contradictions between personal and structural views on social welfare are predetermined by conventional and critical views on the stage of social transformation.

In order to define the factors contributing the income inequality in Australia, specific reference should be made to the wage income distribution among full-time workers.

This particular group is especially importance because it constitutes the primary labour forces and, therefore, it can be influenced by the cumulative effects of wage and income policies in past and present policies of the Australian Welfare State.

Further, analysis of the identified groups necessitates investigating demographic and employment characteristics. In this respect, the welfare reform in Australia proved to introduce increase in population size due to the greater participation of women (Jamrozik, 2005).

It has also been defined that Australia does not attain much important to transformation of labour market programs and, as a result, unemployment rates increased as soon as prices on oil increase.

According to Saunders and Fritzell (1995), “policies which seek to influence the overall level of wages or the structure of wages amongst different classes of workers…have the potential to have far-reaching effects on income distribution” (p. 7).

The main point is that the Australian authorities consider wage to be the most important resource of income in the country’s economy. Nonetheless, wage income depends largely on the level of employment and wages, which has a potential influence on economic development and individual welfare.

In this respect, the character of wage policies, along with the employment pattern, identify the character of income distribution. The extent of influence of wage on unemployment is similar to that of income inequality.

Wage determination in the country is predetermined by the comparative wage justice and wage compensation principles.

Due to the fact that the Australian Welfare State was more focused on increasing productivity and efficiency, wage distribution principles encourage labour and market flexibility (Saunders and Fritzell, 1995).

According to the Australian government, focus on increased productivity could contribute to competitiveness and increased motivation among the employees.

Dealing with these patterns of wage the distribution, however, does not improve the situation for the better (Saunders and Fritzell, 1995).

On the contrary, focus on productivity did not allow the government to ensure equal wage distribution because of various abilities and opportunities employees had to work efficiently.

At the end of the 1990s, the inequality situation in Australia aggravated significantly because the distribution of net incomes related to the wage income only.

As a result, wealth distribution depended largely on individuals who could contribute to profitability and productivity of the country. Apparently, excess concern of the government with the social welfare of individuals deprived the citizens of the motifs to remain more self-reliant (Saunders and Fritzell, 1995).

The extent to which the Australian Welfare State contributes to equal distribution of resources is questionable because of the significant discrepancies in ideological approaches and social structure peculiarities.

The period of income inequality is strongly connected to the period of various patterns distributions of income growth. On the one hand, uniformity in distributing income to society excludes the possibility of competition, which is also an important factor of economic growth (Jamrozik, 2005).

On the other hand, social security intervention excludes equal distribution of wages among the employees because societal welfare should be a priority. As a result of such discrepancies, the inequality issues are still on the agenda.

Recommendations on Further Introduction of Changes

In order to contribute to the welfare of Australian society, as well as reduce the unemployment rates and income inequality, specific emphasis should be placed on uni-dimensional approach to improving social welfare and security in the country.

In particular, the government should focus on adequate distribution of resources and define new strategic approaches to establishing labour market. Labour distribution principles should be delivered in accordance with workers’ capabilities and level of experience and efficiency (Bryson, 1996).

Second, shift in gender labour distributions should also be handled in a more rational way. In particular, the government should provide equality to define which positions can be taken by male and female workers.

In other words, the government should strictly define the values in accordance with which labour distribution should be accomplished.

Aside from the establishment of priorities, it is necessary to strike the balance between the needs of individuals and the goals of the society in general. In particular, the government should reconsider social security and spending issues and invent alternative resources of profit (Bryson, 1996).

Wages, therefore, should be primarily sources of income distribution among the population. In addition, rational approaches to labour and income distribution does not provide strong economic basis for improvement.

On the contrary, the course should be taking on expanding economic discourse at the international level to solve the problems in larger context.

Local conditions, therefore, should be reconsidered with regard the peculiarities of the global process occurring in Australia.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the government should be able to adjust the existing trends in labour market distribution to the ongoing changes in the global community (Stilwell, 2005).

In such a way, it will be possible to reduce the poverty and unemployment rates. Progressive economic course is beneficial for the Australian Welfare State because it establishes new principles of dealing with economic challenges.

References

Bryson, L. (1996). Transforming Australia’s Welfare State-Social Policy under Labor. Just Policy, 6, pp.35-38.

Garton, S. (1994). The Emergence of Welfare, In M. Wearing and R. Berreen, Welfare and Social Policy in Australia: The Distribution of Advantage. Australia: Harcourt Brace & Company, pp.31-38.

Jamrozik, A. (2005). Social Policy in Australia, In A. Jamrozik, Social Policy in the Post-Welfare State: Australian Society in the 21st Century. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia, pp.70-82.

Jupp. J. (2000). Immigration and the Australian Welfare State, in A. McMahon, J. Thomson & C. Williams (Eds.), Understanding the Australian Welfare State: Key Documents and Themes. Croydon, Vic: Tertiary Press, pp.137-153.

Keating, P. (1996). The Labor Government and Social Policy: 1983-1995. Extract from a speech delivered by the Prime Minister at the National Social Policy Conference. Sydney. Just Policy, 5, pp.3-8.

McClelland, A. & Smyth, P. (Eds.) (2010). The Historical Context for Action, In A. McClelland, and P. Smith: Social Policy in Australia: Understanding for Action (second edition). South Melbourne: Oxford University Press, pp. 95-111.

Mendes, P (2009). Tracing the Origins of Critical Social Work Practice, in J. Allean, L. Briskman & B. Pease (Eds.), Critical Social Work: Theories and Practices for a Socially Just World (second edition). St. Leaonards: Allen & Unwin, pp. 17-29.

Saunders, P., and Fritzell, J. (1995). Wage and Income Inequality in Two Welfare State: Australia and Sweden, SPRC Discussion Paper, 60, 1-56.

Stilwell, F. (2005). Work, Wages, Welfare, in A. McMahon, J. Thomson & C. Williams (eds), Understanding the Australian Welfare State: Key Documents and Themes. Croydon, Victoria: Tertiary Press, pp.23-28, 39-40.

Wiseman, J. (2000). All for One or One for All? The Past and Future of the Australian Welfare State, in A. McMahon, J. Thomson, & C. Williams (Eds.) Understanding the Australian Welfare State: Key Documents and Themes. Croydon, Vic: Tertiary Press, 229-247.

Click Here To Order Now!