In the previous post I commented on the government plan to "quarantine" a part of the welfare payment to parents who are considered not to be spending enough money on essentials for their kids and what the move meant in terms of using welfare as a means of control.
The federal cabinet approved the plan, also including a provision to cut welfare payments of parents whose children don't attend or play truant from school. It plans to cross-check Centrelink records and school attendance records to identify children who have not been attending school. Presumably such checks will need to be carried out on regular basis for the plan to work and the government hinted that the job would be outsourced to the private sector.
Naturally, ensuring that children attend school is of great importance. But, again, the proposal is about coercing and punishing people who are economically and socially vulnerable, rather than introducing reforms aimed at providing appropriate services and counselling to both parents and students to encourage school attendance. Without focus on affecting social change, the plan is likely detrimental consequences. Consider a student who is discouraged by having to turn up to school in second hand daggy clothes, with second hand books and with no lunch money. Consider the student who stops attending school because he has trouble understanding school material and has no one at home to lend any help. Consider a student with behavioural problems that his parents are unable to adequately cope with. Or even consider a student who feels schooling is pointless because his parents are too stupid or too apathetic to encourage education.
Is this student going to be assisted by his parents having even less money for clothes or books? Is the student likely to be encouraged to attend school or to perform better by being singled out as a delinquent by the government's welfare laws? Are the parents likely to be any more encouraging towards their child because they are singled out as bad parents?
While a punitive or coercive approach may be justified when all other approaches have been tried and failed - the government has not attempted to encourage school attendance or appropriate spending on essentials for children by putting in place positive programs, education or counselling. During the last eleven years the government has done nothing to remedy any of these social ills. It has gone from doing nothing to absolute control and coercion.
There can only be one conclusion - the government's plan is not about bettering the lot of neglected children. It is about control. It is about punishment. It is about treating all welfare recipients as meriting suspicion and being incapable of reforming without coercion. It is about equating poverty with social criminality. The plan is reminiscent of the Elizabethan (as in Elizabeth I) poor laws - the "deserving poor" get our help, anyone defined as "undeserving poor" is put in a pillory or whipped through the streets (or in our more modern version get their payments cut and get labeled as delinquents).
July 5th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Australian politics, Howard government, Health and Welfare, Family, Education, Social control |
no comments
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.
July 3rd, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Australian politics, Howard government, Health and Welfare, Family, Social control |
no comments
RSS
