Welfare as a means of social control
I have deferred writing about the Howard government action on child abuse in indigenous communities as I am still in two minds about it. However, one aspect of the plan involves quarantining a portion of welfare payments received by indigenous families to be spent on essentials for children. While the concept of ensuring that children are adequately provided for is attractive in principle, I have wondered about the extent to which this provision will be used to monitor, control and intrude into the family life of welfare recipients and exactly how far the government would be willing to take that intrusion.
Well, if recent reports are true - very far indeed. In fact, the government is reportedly planning on extending that provision nation-wide. Plans reportedly discussed in Cabinet would see laws allowing government to "quarantine" 40% of a family's welfare payment if parents fail to spend the money on essentials like food and rent.
There can be little doubt that parents have a duty to adequately look after their children. But does that mean that a government should be able to dictate how they spend their money? How would the government know whether the parents are failing to spend money on food and rent? How can it know without significant intrusion into their private lives? If the government is to regulate the amount of money spent on food, should it not also regulate what sort of food is purchased? When you think about, feeding your kids only hamburgers and chips is probably worse for them than missing a meal. Should the government make sure that kids have their three serves of veges every day? Should it force parents to spend more money on buying healthy food and less on soft drinks? Should there perhaps be a government inspector assigned to supervise every welfare recipient's trip to the local supermarket?
Yes, I'm being a tad facetious, but the plan is, in essence, to use welfare payments as a means of very close social supervision and control. The persons singled out for this treatment are one of the most vulnerable groups within society. There is of course no logical reason why only welfare recipients should be required to properly look after their children. They are targeted by this plan because the government can most easily control them through controlling their income (for now, that's not to say other groups aren't to follow).
As with the intervention in indigenous communities, the plan is one of coercion. The subjects of this coercion are singled out because they are less economically or socially secure secure. If the government was interested in long-term reforms to foster responsible parenting, it may have focused its attention on parenting, nutrition or budget-management education and counseling for families who are struggling to properly care for the children. It may have preferred to give families in difficulty tools to turn their situation around rather than controlling and directing their expenditure. It may have even (gasp) looked at whether the welfare payments are adequate for giving the children the appropriate opportunities and care.
Of course, use of welfare for social control is not new. But the extraordinary level of intrusion and micromanagement is. It suggests that control rather than meaningful reform is the aim.
RSS
