Introduction to the special issue on welfare conditionality in Australia

Abstract

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.

Responsibility for homelessness: Lived experience perspectives and their alignment with neoliberal discourse

“…Maria shared similar views, stating that current welfare measures such as the “Cashless Debit Card” amounted to “stepping on someone that's already been stepped on” because of the way they target and treat already marginalised people. These views resonate with literature identifying the increased conditionality of welfare in Australia (Parsell et al, 2020; Watts & Fitzpatrick, 2018), including enhanced compliance measures for income support, which have seen many people struggling with homelessness receiving payment suspensions (Henriques‐Gomes, 2019).…”

“…The ongoing reconfiguration of relationships between citizens, states and markets within liberal democracies has resulted in more conditional welfare systems that emphasise individual responsibilities rather than collective security (Dean, 2010; Mounk, 2017; Rose, 1999; Watts & Fitzpatrick, 2018; Young, 2011). Consistent with these international developments, welfare provision in Australia is increasingly being made conditional on individuals assuming greater responsibility for their current and future circumstances (Parsell et al, 2020).…”

“…People experiencing homelessness represent one such targeted population. In liberal‐democratic societies such as Australia, neoliberal policies have entrenched conditionality within the welfare system, making access to housing and other resources increasingly dependent on individuals accepting greater responsibility for causing and resolving their homelessness (Johnsen et al, 2018; Parsell et al, 2020). Accordingly, research has examined the shift toward personal responsibility within policy and service delivery, and the impacts on those homeless.…”

DENIGRATING BY NUMBERS: Quantification, Statistics and Territorial Stigma

“…: 7). Early indications are that this classificatory system, which follows the introduction of fixed-term tenancies (Fitzpatrick and Pawson, 2014), additional charges for vacant bedrooms, and harsher anti-social behaviour laws (Martin, 2016), should be read as part of the policy turn towards welfare conditionality, with its 'end to leniency' and shift from 'people processing' to 'people changing' via new techniques of discipline and surveillance (Wacquant, 2009: 292; see also Clarke et al, 2019;Parsell et al, 2020). Practices of quantifying phenomena like exit rates and tenancy durations must be seen within the context of these neoliberal political rationalities, which have produced a desire or demand for such knowledge.…”

Examining the Consequences of Welfare Conditionality: A Case Study of Compulsory Income Management in the Regional Community of Ceduna, Australia

“…However, critics argue that compliance measures are overly punitive (Taylor et al, 2016;Reeve, 2017), and can have serious adverse consequences for vulnerable groups such as undermining their choice and agency (Carney, 2015), increasing their social exclusion (Dwyer, 2019;Parsell et al, 2020), and magnifying the risk of financial hardship and homelessness (Watts and Fitzpatrick, 2018). Additionally, they argue that welfare conditionality is mostly ineffective in enhancing employment opportunities or responsible behaviour (Carney, 2019;Dwyer, 2019).…”