Myths of Welfare Reform

In Australian welfare reform debate, a range of approaches and policies have been advocated. Regardless of their diversity, I argue that the debate has an unnecessarily narrow framework resulting from the widespread acceptance of at least three welfare reform myths. First, is the idea that the current system is anachronistic and in disrepair. Instead of this narrow focus on welfare policy, I argue that the welfare reform debate must be widened to include other domains of public policy to involve a ‘joined up’ approach to addressing poverty and disadvantage. The second myth is that welfare recipients need to be the focus of policy attention. Policy reforms focus on changing the behaviour of recipients and their communities. Because structural changes underlie increased benefit receipt, such reforms will only have minimal consequences. The third welfare reform myth is the false notion that the current welfare system lacks obligation. Worldwide, the reform of social security or welfare policy is a hotly contested domain. However, despite the diversity of opinion, voices from all sides of politics seem agreed that the various welfare systems need reform. But, as this paper argues, the apparent need for welfare reform is not the only area in which the various proponents agree. The language – the use of ‘welfare’ instead of ‘social security’ or ‘income security’ – and the key questions that are asked of welfare policy have similarly, yet narrowly, focussed politicians and policy makers mind to closely related policy issues. In short, even though there is a diversity of opinion about how welfare should be reformed, there remains an overwhelming sameness that results from at least three shared myths of welfare reform. Although this paper is focussed on current welfare reform debate in Australia, there is a sameness with other parts of the world, especially in Anglo-American countries, and a continuity with welfare reforms ideas and debates since the mid 1980s. Myth 1: That the welfare system is anachronistic and in disrepair Typical in arguments for welfare reform is the notion that the current system is broken, or at least not suitable for the present socio-economic environment. Welfare reform advocates correctly point out that today’s social and economic environment is very different to that when the welfare state was established. For example, the Minister for Social Security’s Discussion Paper on welfare reform explained why Australia’s welfare system needed to be reformed as follows. ‘In many ways ... our welfare system is still rooted in the past. It embodies assumptions about the structure of work, the structure of families and gender roles that