Christian Porter pushes obligation test for welfare

Radical rules are being ­planned for the nation’s $160bn welfare system in a dramatic overhaul.

Radical rules are being ­planned for the nation’s $160 billion welfare system in a dramatic overhaul that could see parents lose cash if they do not send their children to school, as part of a tough new era of “mutual obligation” for every payment.

The federal government is ­determined to impose strict conditions on more than 400,000 welfare recipients who could be at work or in training, sparking a furious debate over whether money should be withdrawn from those who spend it on ­alcohol or fail to turn up to a job opportunity.

Social Services Minister Christian Porter yesterday declared the new goal would be “self-reliance” for more Australians by taking them off welfare, rejecting claims about the “fairness” of lifting payment rates when more money would not fix the system.

“There is nothing particularly progressive about parts of a system which fail to place fair and firm obligations on capable individuals to assume increasing ­responsibility,” Mr Porter said.

“There is nothing morally ­superior about welfare structures that passively allocate money in a way that corrodes the recipient’s chances of experiencing the meaning, engagement and the purpose that work brings to all of our lives.”

The tough message clears the way for a national debate over trial programs to improve the system, modelled on the “no jab, no pay” scheme that halts taxpayer help to families that do not get their children vaccinated.

The government is likely to need support in parliament for legislation to set up the pilot schemes, following the example of the “healthy welfare card”, under which government benefits are paid into a debit card so the money cannot be spent on ­alcohol or gambling.

Warning of “terrible” welfare dependencies being passed from parents to their children, Mr Porter said the existing system was so complex it was like “assembling Ikea furniture in the dark” and had to be replaced with a new ­policy.

The government’s new ­“investment approach” will begin with three target groups — young carers, young parents and students — out of concern that too many are destined to stay on welfare for up to 45 years because they are not given enough incentives to train or find work.

But the biggest challenge is likely to be the group of 400,000 people who are receiving income support and could be in work but face no obligation to work under the current rules.

Calling for ideas to be applied in the pilot schemes, Mr Porter announced a $96 million “Try, Test and Learn Fund” that will ­allocate cash to social service agencies or others that come up with ways to invest in services to get people off welfare.

“More money allocated to ­existing frameworks is not the ­answer,” Mr Porter said.

“For too many people in the system, money flows and nothing changes — and lives are not ­improving. New approaches and new structures — they have to be tried to improve the lives of groups who become trapped in the welfare system.”

The new approach was immediately rejected by the Australian Council of Social Service, whose chief executive, Cassandra Goldie, warned that further ­mutual obligation was an “exceptionally bad idea” when people on welfare needed more help to find work.

“We need to learn from the ­experience that we’ve had that when it comes to, for example, a young carer or a young parent,” Dr Goldie said.

“What you need is more support. You need a mentor, you need somebody who really cares, who is looking out for you.”

The fight over the welfare ­system also saw Labor attack the government for trying to make further cuts to payments after the divisive budget reforms of early 2014, including cuts to Newstart Allowance or family tax benefits that are still blocked in parliament.

“It’s not an ‘investment ­approach’ if you’re cutting support to vulnerable Australians,” said Labor families spokeswoman Jenny Macklin.

Ms Macklin also noted that Mr Porter stood by a contentious ­government policy to increase the Age Pension eligibility age from 67 to 70 over the decades ahead, a change affecting anyone born after June 1958.

One focus of the new approach will be whether to link family tax benefits to tighter requirements such as sending children to school, learning from the “no jab, no pay” policy that was legislated last ­November.

Mr Porter said there were “other areas” where the same stringency could be applied and that school attendance was one of them.

“That’s an idea that’s been mulled over for a long time, but with the sort of data we’ve got available … I think these ideas are definitely worth looking at,” the Social Services Minister said.

“The success of ‘no jab, no pay’ has been utterly outstanding.”

Other ideas are to withdraw payments if the recipient is spending the money on alcohol or drugs, not turning up to appointments to get a job or not paying debts to the government for past welfare ­payments.

The head of the Prime ­Minister’s Indigenous Advisory Council, Warren Mundine, backed the idea of tightening payment rules and said this had to apply to Aborigines and other groups alike.

“If people aren’t getting their kids to school they should lose their payments,” Mr Mundine said.

“If you go to the suburbs of western Sydney and you see some of the kids that are not going to school there, they are not indigenous kids, they are white kids.

“They should be put under the same rules. We should not be driven by identity, by whether you’re Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal. It’s about the outcome.”

Former Mission Australia chief Patrick McClure, who led a landmark welfare review in 2014, said the “transformational approach” to the system was a good start and the tougher rules on school ­attendance would be accepted by most. “The outcome is a no-brainer. Linking it with income support could be quite reasonable,” Mr McClure told The Australian.

“Would most Australians think this was fair and reasonable? The notion that children should be in school and having a pathway as they get older into vocational education and training and a job is a reasonable expectation, unless they don’t have the capacity.”