Social security law: what does the politics of ‘conditional welfare’ mean for review and client representation?

Carney, Terry

doi:10.1002/j.1839-4655.2011.tb00217.x

Cited by 9 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 41 publications

(36 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nonetheless, I argue that the key differences between 'old' and 'new' paternalism lie in the move to secure behavioural change through the conditional provision of benefits and substantial and ongoing 'investment' in intrusive surveillance infrastructure such as the BasicsCard by successive Australian Governments (Thomas and Buckmaster 2010;Billings 2011;Carney 2011). Thus surveillance mechanisms of the kinds discussed in this article act as a conduit through which 'the preventativesurveillance state' becomes not only 'broader, more interventive and more regulatory' (Parton 2008: 166), but also deeply embedded in the daily minutia of life for people attempting to survive on welfare.…”

Section: Background: Governing Welfare In Australiamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The current UK social policy environment of deep cuts to public expenditure and services and severe welfare-to-work reforms have been spurred on by apparent widespread, 'citizen initiated' support for denying welfare benefits, including public housing, to people involved (but not convicted) in the 2011 riots (Carney 2011;Levitas 2012). This delineation of 'target populations', singled out for conditional welfare, divides and 'sorts' individuals (and some 'dysfunctional' communities) into categorisations such as 'disengaged youth', 'single mothers', 'troubled' and those considered more active as 'jobseekers' and 'good' citizens, in becoming 'self regulating subjects' (Schram et al 2010: 230;Lyon 2007).…”

Section: Institutionalising Welfare Surveillance-the Australian Basicmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this respect, the absence of trust and confidence by governments in people on welfare, exemplified in compulsory 'income management' schemes such as the BasicsCard and the ramping up of dataveillance and conditionality, is akin to pouring old wine from new bottles. In this case the old wine is infused with suspicion and loathing of the poor, while the new bottles are the surveillance, control and monitoring apparatuses constructed at massive public expense, (or so called investment) to accomplish the new paternalist governance project of early 21 st century, post Global Financial Crisis, austerity themed welfare (Carney 2011;Levitas 2012).…”

Section: Institutionalising Welfare Surveillance-the Australian Basicmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Welfare Surveillance, Income Management and New Paternalism in Australia

Dee

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article discusses the situation of income support claimants in Australia, constructed as faulty citizens and flawed welfare subjects. Many are on the receiving end of complex, multi-layered forms of surveillance aimed at securing socially responsible and compliant behaviours. In Australia, as in other Western countries, neoliberal economic regimes with their harsh and often repressive treatment of welfare recipients operate in tandem with a burgeoning and costly arsenal of CCTV and other surveillance and governance assemblages. Through a program of ‘Income Management’, initially targeting (mainly) Indigenous welfare recipients in Australia’s Northern Territory, the BasicsCard (administered by Centrelink, on behalf of the Australian Federal Government’s Department of Human Services) is one example of this welfare surveillance. The scheme operates by ‘quarantining’ a percentage of a claimant’s welfare entitlements to be spent by way of the BasicsCard on ‘approved’ items only. The BasicsCard scheme raises significant questions about whether it is possible to encourage people to take responsibility for themselves if they no longer have real control over the most important aspects of their lives. Some Indigenous communities have resisted the BasicsCard, criticising it because the imposition of income management leads to a loss of trust, dignity, and individual agency. Further, income management of individuals by the welfare state contradicts the purported aim that they become less ‘welfare dependent’ and more ‘self-reliant’. In highlighting issues around compulsory income management this paper makes a contribution to the largely under discussed area of income management and the growth of welfare surveillance, with its propensity for function creep, garnering large volumes of data on users approved (and declined) purchasing decisions, complete with dates, amounts, times and locations.

show abstract

Section: Background: Governing Welfare In Australiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Institutionalising Welfare Surveillance-the Australian Basicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Institutionalising Welfare Surveillance-the Australian Basicmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Welfare Surveillance, Income Management and New Paternalism in Australia

Dee

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The conditionality in Australia’s welfare state has sustained a significant academic critique (Cox & Priest ; Klein & Razi ; Curchin ), including critique published in this journal (Shaver ; Carney ; Altman ; Lovell ; Mendes et al ; Taylor et al ). In this Special Issue of the Australian Journal of Social Issues , we contribute to the existing critical literature on welfare conditionality.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The conditionality in Australia's welfare state has sustained a significant academic critique (Cox & Priest 2012;Klein & Razi 2018;Curchin 2019), including critique published in this journal (Shaver 2001;Carney 2011;Altman 2016;Lovell 2016;Mendes et al 2016;Taylor et al 2016). Lisa Fowkes examines how information technologies have been important in the emergence of new forms of control and surveillance of welfare recipients and of those who administer labour market programmes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction to the special issue on welfare conditionality in Australia

Parsell

Vincent

Klein

et al. 2020

Aust J Social Issues

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conditionality in Australia’s welfare state has sustained a significant academic critique, including the critique published in this journal. In this Special Issue of the Australian Journal of Social Issues, we contribute to the existing critical literature on welfare conditionality. This Special Issue aimed to provide empirical scrutiny into welfare reform and conditionality in Australia. The articles extend our understanding of welfare conditionality’s underpinnings and its lived effects. These case studies illuminate the aspects of welfare conditionality that have not received enough attention: the role of technology, the question of mobility, the relationship with housing and the little thought given to the state’s role in mutual obligation. What is clear is that the individualisation of structural problems is not just a theoretical and political misstep ripe for critique, but leads to the formulation of policies that impact marginalised people’s capacity to shape life on their own terms. Through different empirical foci, all papers in this Special Issue demonstrate how welfare conditionality is put forward as a solution to address the consequences of structural disadvantage.

show abstract

Paternalism in Australian welfare policy

Mestan¹

2014

Aust J Social Issues

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since at least the 1990s, policies comprising welfare reform in Australia have focused on securing employment for jobless people. This article demonstrates that these policies are highly paternalistic, and argues that despite the absence of the term 'paternalism' from relevant government discourse, paternalism is indeed a substantial characteristic of the policies. Such policies have been substantially justified through appealing to the objective of advancing the interests of those people subject to the policies while simultaneously involving compulsion. The research is based on evidence from 1996 to 2011. Through the analysis of government documents and interviews with policy makers, the presence of a benevolent justification is identified and analysed, focusing on two subordinate justifications: reducing welfare dependency, and promoting social inclusion. Policies aimed at getting people into work are then examined, where it is found that compulsion is the primary policy instrument. It is shown that the compulsive elements in workfare, when linked to the objective of helping workfare subjects, renders the policies implicitly paternalistic.

show abstract

Social security law: what does the politics of ‘conditional welfare’ mean for review and client representation?

Cited by 9 publications

References 41 publications

Welfare Surveillance, Income Management and New Paternalism in Australia

Welfare Surveillance, Income Management and New Paternalism in Australia

Introduction to the special issue on welfare conditionality in Australia

Paternalism in Australian welfare policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About