This paper explores contemporary contradictions and tensions in Australian social policy principles and governmental practices that are being used to drive behavioural change, such as compulsory income management. By means of compulsory income management the Australian Government determines how certain categories of income support recipients can spend their payments through the practice of quarantining a proportion of that payment. In this process some groups in the community, particularly young unemployed people and Indigenous Australians, are being portrayed as requiring a paternalistic push in order to make responsible choices. The poverty experienced by some groups of income support recipients appears to be seen as a consequence of poor spending patterns rather than economic and social inequalities. By contrast, Australia's National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) has been constructed as a person-centred system of support that recognises the importance of both human agency and structural investment to expand personal choices and control. Here we look at the rationale guiding these developments to explore the tensions and contradictions in social policy more broadly, identifying what would be required if governments sought to promote greater autonomy, dignity and respect for people receiving income support payments in Australia.

The Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 changes the architecture of labour market regulation in Australia in a significant way. The focus of this article is on changes to the regulatory framework for minimum wage determination and the rationale for, and likely consequences of, conferring this power on the Australian Fair Pay Commission. Underpinning the Work Choices package is the view that Safety Net wage rises awarded by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission have had negative effects on employment. In this article we establish that the evidence to support this claim is weak, and is being used to engineer a historic shift in the objectives of the Australian wage setting process. We argue that the new legislation will act as a downward drag on the pay and conditions of minimum wage workers and advance an alternative policy approach in which attaining full employment does not require us to abandon the principle of fairness or a decent wage floor.

This paper evaluates the effectiveness of disability employment policy in assisting people with psychiatric disability to find, or return to, paid work. We argue that the poor employment outcomes from current programs establish the need for a paradigmatic shift in the form of a state‐provided Job Guarantee (JG) for people with psychiatric disability. In the absence of measures to generate suitable jobs, forthcoming changes to the eligibility criteria for Disability Support Pension will create risks rather than opportunities. Under the JG, the Federal Government would maintain a ‘buffer stock’ of minimum wage, public sector jobs to provide secure paid employment for this highly disadvantaged group. The role of the state in this alternative model is two fold. First, the state must provide the quantum of JG jobs required. Second, the state must ensure the design of jobs is flexible enough to meet the heterogeneous and variable support needs of workers. This will require effective integration of the JG scheme with mental health, rehabilitation and employment support services.

The passage of the Work Choices Act 2005 serves to eliminate one of the last symbols of fairness in Australian society; the judicially-determined conciliation and arbitration system and wage-setting machinery. In this paper we examine the flawed conceptual framework, which underpins the Government's view that reducing the rights and protections of workers will produce superior labour market outcomes. We argue that the principal failure of the Work Choices Act is that it ignores the role of macroeconomic policy in directly addressing the efficiency and equity issues that have been said to motivate its provisions. The Act also ignores the different bargaining power of workers and capital and pays no attention to the serious social repercussions that will flow when labour is treated like a commodity. The imperative to minimise labour costs under Work Choices will spur a race to the bottom and the profusion of insecure, low-paid, poor-quality work in an economy characterised by allocative and dynamic inefficiency.

No abstract