Welfare Distribution & Two Hypothetical Households in Australia - Case Study Example

 Introduction 1-3 Comparative Analysis of Welfare Distribution to Two Hypothetical Households A. Review of Literature 3-6 B. Presentation of Data 1. Australia’s Welfare Services 6-8 2. Profile of Two Hypothetical Households 8-11 3. Welfare Distribution to Two Hypothetical Households 11-13 Based on Titmuss’ Social Division of welfare Categorisation C. Analysis 14-15 Conclusion 16 Reference List 17-20 Introduction Social policies are defined set of actions mean to affect people’s well being individually and collectively. Policy may either be officially adopted (de jure), or be accepted patterns of behavior (de facto) or as in the sin of omission and sin of commission, may also result from both planned actions and default. (Burch and Michaels, 1991, p14) But understanding its historical-social context, social policy is generally perceived to address the common welfare of society – thus the creation of ‘the state welfare’, which today is being reviewed, whether or not it achieves equality. Since the formation of societies until today, equality remains a compelling issue that perturbs governments and society, and as society reaches almost its zenith growth, the more this issue of equality becomes complex and debatable. Is equality synonymous with ‘equal’? ‘Fairness’? ‘Justness’? Social theorists would say, nay. But to ordinary people, who are mostly affected, equality simply means work and wealth distribution. To this, Marks, et al (2005, p. 47) also considered wealth and its distribution as important factors in understanding modern societies, because these associate closely to the important dimensions of social inequality, which are financial security, poverty and consumption behavior. Looking at social policies, it would be observed that, although there has been social policy shifts, especially among industrialized nations, the problem being addressed to remains the same -- how to equally distribute the wealth of society among its members. Even in today’s modern industrial life, its stability, in part, largely depends on the citizen’s belief that the wealth of the nation is distributed fairly among them. However this equity rather than equality in incomes pertains more on the understandable relationship between income and distribution to society as translated into a logical progression between income classes at the bottom and at the top of the ladder (Op. cit, p. 65). Social policy shifts today rest on the view and understanding on the relationship of wealth share as to work share. This actually is the point of contentions in determining the government’s social policy framework. And this is the question this hypothetical research paper hopes to answer or at least contribute to. Specifically, this research paper, by comparing two hypothetical households based on Titmuss’ Social Division of Welfare categorization, seeks to find out, if the social policies of Australia, specifically its social services really lessen inequality, thereby closing the wide gap between the rich and the poor. If not, consequentially, the paper hopes to ascertain where lies the flaw of Australia’s social services. If it does, then, what is the strength of Australia’s social services? The study centers more on the kind of services rather than on the delivery of services. The study simply compared characteristically similar two hypothetical households that differ on the geographical location, main source of income, and housing. Housing has been a point of reference because in Australia as previous research indicated, approximately 40 to 55 percent of either wealth or assets are held in the form of property thereby making housing to be the major component of household wealth. (Kelly, 2001, as cited in op. cit, p. 47) Furthermore, the paper assumes that aside from housing, the geographical location – whether the household is located in a developed or less developed area and the main source of income – whether it is from a private market earning $65,000 per annum or it is largely dependent on government pension and allowances, also affect equal welfare distribution. To better understand the implications of the research, a discussion on the on going debates regarding Australia’s social welfare distribution today is expounded in the review of literature. This provides the theoretical framework of the study. Comparative Analysis of Welfare Distribution to Two Hypothetical Households A. Review of Literature Social welfare or the social services distributed through government agencies, institutions and programs are becoming more complicated to be accurately defined in any society. Systems of social welfare become more complex and specialize as societies become so. (Titmuss, 1964, abstract) In fact, even the forms of social services which before were applauded by society are now being questioned or put to test. On the other hand, as society develops, needs become multifaceted, and government changes, different approaches are also developed as more and more disparate forces take part in mapping the course of societies. As Martin (2004, p. 74) observed, the growing acceptance of the principles of small government and the market freedom being espoused by neoliberalism, has undermined the consensus on the welfare state. Today, the general view that governments have the sole responsibility for providing social welfare and that it is appropriate for the state to intervene in the functioning of economies to achieve social welfare beneficiaries is no longer conceded. Furthermore, new concepts emerge shaping recent social policy shifts that tend to liberalise government’s social responsibilities. More popular among these terms is social exclusion, mutual obligation, community – understood not as a social grouping but as a government agent, participation, and self-help. By these concepts, the present welfare reform agenda of western industrialized nations is emphasized by controversial assumptions and understanding on the behaviour of the poor. ((Everingham, 2001, p. 105) These policy trends can be similarly seen in Australia with the government adopting the principle of ‘mutual obligation’ in employment initiatives and welfare benefit controls (Mclure, 2000 as cited in Martin, 2004, p.74), making this the central theme in its current social policy framework. During the 1990s there was a shift in the focus of Australian social policy from issues of social justice to questions of social order. Earlier policy which used the language of rights -- understood primarily in terms of access and equity -- has come into disfavour, being associated, often inaccurately, with `passive' welfare assistance. It has been increasingly replaced by the language of `obligations', reflecting a growing concern with the need for social integration in the face of the increasing social divisions associated with globalisation. Crucial to this shift has been a move to reconstitute `community'. The new `politics of community' is a central terrain of political debate and contention, in which the traditional concerns of social justice need to be articulated (Everingham, 2001, p. 105). Is this a departure from Australia’s former social policy? A social policy, which looking back is described by Braithwaite, et al (2002, p. 225) as a residual welfare state with means-tested, tax financed payments predominantly supporting two key life course stages – through child benefits and old age pensions – a characteristic entirely different compared with many European nations during the post war. This social policy framework, intended to protect the family unit, was initially expressed in the Harvester Judgment in 1907, which ruled that a minimum wage must be set first based on the needs of a man, wife and two children. It was this judgment that has made Australia be referred to as the wage earners’ welfare state. (Castles, 1983 as cited in Chenoweth, 2008, p. 53) Over the past 20 years, Australia has experienced a gradual dismantling of the welfare state. The initial focus for reform was on the long-term unemployment with the underlying assumption that the cause of social problems such as poverty, unemployment and single parenthood lay within the individual rather than social or systemic problems. (Chenoweth, 2008, p. 55) Today, wherein the social and political context of Australia’s welfare to work policies are founded on obligations rather than rights, its main strategy is to invest more in employment to get more people, even the elderly, to work, to get away with what critics of state welfare called passive welfare. Goodin (2001, p. 189) believed that if work is good for you, that it is the state’s legitimate role to enforce this to you, then there could be no grounds for confining this paternalism to the poor, because paternalistically speaking, the rich should be equally made to work, too. Supporting this point he quoted Gutmann & Thompson (1996: 280) after Titmuss (1958), “After all, the rich claim many public benefits, in the form of occupational or tax concessions, which they have done nothing to earn either.” He further argued that if the state believes that work is good then everyone who cannot otherwise find it should be actively provided by the state. To which Perry and Henman (2002) reported, that the recession periods have been aggravated by the disproportionate relationship of jobseekers and job vacancies – more people wanting jobs have risen faster than the number of jobs that could be availed. In addition, welfare reform has also instituted workplace reforms whereby individual contracts have replaced the capacity to have collective work agreements and protections (Chenoweth, 2008, p. 60). Although there has been no study yet on the resultant effect of this change, many argue that these have threatened and eroded workplace rights making lower paid workers more susceptible to poorer working conditions (Ibid). But to some, critics of Australia’s policy shift have often misconstrued the nature of support for the welfare state in Australia. Most of all, they have exaggerated the change in the commitment both by policy makers and most of the public to collective provision for income maintenance, health and education. (Papadakis, 1990, Abstract) Changes have been made. Opposing views are being expressed. But underlying all of these is the search for the most appropriate social policy framework that could address inequality in a given social context. After all, social welfare should mean to, at least, shorten the gap between the rich and the poor. To sum it all, the bottom line of these contending issues is: Is the current social welfare policies – specifically social welfare distribution – of Australia really closed the gap between the rich and the poor? To this question, this hypothetical research hopes to add enlightenment. B. Presentation of Data To better understand Australia’s welfare distribution based on Titmuss’ Social Division of Welfare categorisation, the list of Australia’s welfare services are enumerated first, followed by the comparative data of the two hypothetical households. 1. Australia’s Welfare Services In Australia social welfare payments – subjected to a means test – are provided by the Commonwealth Government of Australia under the following acts of parliament: Social Security Act 1991, A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 and Student Assistance Act 1973. Most of the data that follow are taken from Centrelink (http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/individuals/child_support.htm#family, 2008) –the agency tasked by the Australian government to assess and assist claimants of welfare. Other data are from the Australian government’s Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (http://www.facsia.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/family/nav.htm, 2008). Government data were not presented according to Titmuss’ Social Division of Wefare categorization. Thus, to fit into Titmuss’ categorisation, data are sorted out based on their given descriptions as to Titmuss’ Social Division of Welfare categorization identified as follows: (1) public or social welfare, (2) financial welfare, and (3) occupational welfare. Services that cut-across the three categorizations are aligned to which they seem most nearest. a. Public/ Social Welfare A study (http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/introduction/equality.htm, no date ) on Titmuss’ categorisation generally described Titmuss’ public/social welfare as “the social services” – commonly to be referring to social protection, or protection against socially recognized conditions, including poverty, old age, disability, unemployment and others. The following welfare services suit this category of Titmuss: ABSTUDY, AGDRP, Assitance for Isolated Children Scheme, AUSTUDY, Baby Bonus, Bereavement Allowance, Carer Allowance (adult), Carer Allowance (child), Carer Payment (adult), Carer Payment (child), Child Care Benefit, Disability Support Pension, Double Orphan Pension, Maternity Immunisation Allowance, Mobility Allowance, Newstart Allowance, Parenting Allowance, Partner Allowance, Pensioner Education Supplement, Pharmaceutical Allowance, Remote Area Allowance, Seniors Concession Allowance, Special Benefit, Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme, Telephone Allowance, Utilities Allowance, Widow Allowance, Widow B Pension, Wife Pension, Youth Allowance. b. Fiscal Welfare Titmuss (1958, p.44) defined fiscal welfare to be consisted of “allowances and reliefs from income tax, through providing similar benefits and expressing a similar purpose in the recognition of dependent needs.” From among the listed social welfare services in the Centrelink, the following fit this category of Titmuss: Family Tax Benefit Part A, Family Tax Benefit Part B, Family Tax Benefit Part A and B Supplement. c. Occupational Welfare A study (http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/introduction/equality.htm, no date) on Titmuss’ categorization defined occupational welfare as the “welfare distributed by industry as part of employment.” The following fit this category: superannuation, sickness allowance, age pension, wage assistance, wage subsidy, pension bonus scheme, mature age allowance and pension bonus bereavement payment. 2. Profile of Two Hypothetical Households Profiling the two hypothetical households, which must be characteristically identical except for the main source of income, housing status, and geographical location, is made based on the characteristics typical to Australian households of four members as described by Aussie.com (2007a) and Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2007b). The characteristics, especially on the standard of living, attributed to Hypothetical Household A (HHh-A), which is located in Perth, the capital city of Western Australia, and Hypothetical Household B (HHh-B), which is located in Duncraig, a suburb in Western Australia are largely guided by Aussie.com (2007a). The profile of the two hypothetical households is divided into two: general characteristics – to which both are identical and socio-economic profile – to which the two differ. Assumed data on both are tabulated in Table 1 and Table 2 respectively. Table 1: The General Characteristics of the Two Hypothetical Households For Table 2, the socio-economic profile is limited to the geographical location, housing, occupation, sources of income and expenses. The main source of income of HHh-A is given at $65,000 per annum to which the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006) and Payscale.com (2008b) for Perth attributed nearest to managers and administrators in major cities. So, it is assumed that the occupation of the father, the family bread winner must be a manager. The other source of income may account for the bonus, which Payscale.com (2008a) amounted to $4,976 per annum for this position plus the part time job that the mother could contribute, which may account to a rough estimate of $3,600, totaling both additional income to $8,576 per annum. Expenses are divided into two: fixed and other expenses. Expenses are determined based on the common need of a typical Australian family of four living in a city with fixed income and computed based on the average cost of living in Perth – the fixed expenses as computed annually refer to: housing (mortgage = $26,592; council rates =$1,250; water rates = $850; water usage rates = $250; building insurance = $550 covering $325,000; content insurance = $410 covering 85,000; electricity = $1,200; gas = $500; phone = $600; and broadband internet = $600; totaling to $32,802), schooling: state primary ($200) and private high school ($5,400), cars and travelling with two cars – each car travelling 15-20,000 miles annually (pajero = $4,000 and Daewoo = $2,500), food and drink ($12,000), and sports and recreation ($2,064), while the other expenses refer to optional expenses covering usually clothes ($550), eating out ($1,000), holidays ($1,500), new furniture, electrical goods, and home improvement, totaling to $5,550, where the difference from the sum total of clothes , eating out, and holiday, may be spent on any of the remaining three items. From this is assumed the possible expenses of a family of four living in the suburb and largely dependent on government support. For HHh-B, presupposed to largely depend on government pension and allowances, it is assumed that neither of the couple is a wage earner, for the household to avail government support. Wage and salary earner is defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006) “as persons aged 15 years and over who have submitted an individual income tax return and for whom wage and salary income was the principal or main source of income for the financial year.” Following this definition, it could be allowed that the couples may be working part-time with combined earning of $64 a week. This becomes possible despite the couples relatively high educational attainment. The problem lies in the availability of work that may suit their capacity, skills, or experience, especially so that their place is low-income compared to Perth. Thus to compute the main income of HHh-B, who lives at the mercy of government support, all the available welfare services payments it might qualify are summed up. This is assumed to amount to $17, 846. From the list of expenses typical for HHh-A, there are those not necessary for HHh-B. The identified possible expenses of HHh-B are also computed per annum in an adjusted rate as per Duncraig standard of living (Aussie.com,2007a): house rent ($8,640), water usage ($480), electricity ($500), gas ($350), state primary school ($200), state high school (300), public transportation – from Duncraig a2-zone ‘Multi rider’ ticket at $25.50 a week for ten trips (1,224), economized food (6,720), and clothes for schooling children ($50) totaling to $18,464. Table 2: Socio-economic Profile of the Two Hypothetical Households 3. Welfare Distribution to Two Hypothetical Households based on Titmuss’ Social Division of Welfare Categorisation The social welfare distribution made on the two hypothetical households are based on what each can avail as per Australian government’s policy as defined by Centrelink (http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/individuals/child_support.htm#family, 2008) using the specified maximum amount that could be claimed by the approved recipient. Again, for easier comparison data are tabulated in Table 3. To have an overview of the social services these household type may generally avail the following are those seen they could fit in because of the nature of these specified social services as defined by the Australian government. a. Public/ Social Welfare Parenting Payment, which can only be paid to one person who cares for a child, provides financial help for people, who primarily take care of children. Rent Assistance aims to give extra help for those renting privately. The new Child Support Scheme aims to better balance the interests of both parents and be more focused on the needs and costs of raising children, thereby reducing conflict between parents regarding parenting arrangements, encouraging shared parental responsibility, and ensuring child support is paid in full and on time. Newstart Allowance for unemployed to help them while looking for work and allows them to participate in activities designed to increase their chances of finding work. Partner Allowance helps those facing barriers to finding work because they have had limited participation in the workforce and their partner is getting income support. Low Income Health Care Card is effective from 1 July 2008 assessed on gross income for the eight week period ending the day the claim is lodged. Pharmaceutical Allowance helps approved recipient buy prescription medicines available through Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. b. Fiscal Welfare Family Tax Benefit Part A is an annual tax benefit which aim help families augment the rising cost of raising children. Family Tax Benefit Part B provides extra assistance to single parents and families with one main income including circumstances where one parent chooses to stay at home or balance some paid work in exchange with caring for children. Family Tax Benefit Supplement is available to all families eligible for Family Tax Benefit, but where families have received too much Family Tax Benefit or Child Care Benefit, this supplement will be utilised to offset the amount owing. Child Care Benefit, which payment can be made either directly to the Child Care Centre is paid to Australians who use and are charged for child care services. Its means tested payment based on the recipient's taxable income. c. Occupational Welfare Superannuation is a compulsory pension scheme wherein the law requires employers to pay 9% of an employee's salaries and wages quarterly into a superannuation fund, which can only be accessed upon employee’s retirement. Table 3: Social Welfare Distribution to Two Hypothetical Households based on Titmuss’ Categorization Space filled with yellow color means it could be availed by the household; however the computation is not clear. Space filled with green color means that the benefit cannot be availed right away, except after retirement The white blank spaces mean it is not applicable for the household. Except for the supplement, the computation for the fiscal welfare of HHh-A is set only on the base figure since it is earning an annual income, which is 43% of the required maximum annual income of $150,000; while that of HHh-B is computed at the maximum amount for obvious reason. All data given are per annum basis. Other benefits of the salaried/ wage earner as provided by law are not included here. C. Analysis Analysis of the available social services and their distribution that the Australian government provides to its people, based on the Social Welfare Distribution Categorisation of Richard Titmuss, reveals the following findings: 1. Public or social welfare service in Australia is so multifarious that it seems to respond to almost all aspects of its people’s lives from birth to growing-up, to schooling, to parenting, to sickness, to finding job, to extra conditions, to old-age, to death. Also, it gives special attention to indigenous peoples, the most vulnerable, and the remoteness of areas. Generally, summing up Australia’s available public/social services illustrates the government’s intention to ensure that its people will live the basics of life: food, clothing, shelter, clean water and clean air, and education, regardless of color. Although, the annual expenditures of HHh-B is only 30% of the total expenditures of HHh-A, it could be said that such low-expenditure accounts to the basics a family of four needs to live at least decently maybe in a less developed country standard, stretching all possible means to sustain so-called decent living. Furthermore, it can be observed that its social services also help its people to achieve the necessary skill, capacity and readiness to be incorporated in the labor force and be a financially productive contributor to the community. In fact, government support to wage is directed not only to individual wage earners but also to employers to encourage them to hire the disadvantaged labor force. 2. Australia’s fiscal welfare remains to be family-oriented benefiting not only the non-wage earners, but also the low-salaried and wage earners promoting balanced parenting and working. Also, this tax-based benefit schemes encourage reproduction, that government shares responsibility in ensuring child rearing and education. However, looking at the impact of these schemes on the two hypothetical households implies that: a. Household-A becomes $6,931.55 richer (approximately 8-9% addition to HHh-A income but 58% lesser than HHh-B’s total tax benefits). In fact, by adding this to HHh-A main and other incomes, it reaches the $80,000 middle-income bracket. While HHh-B remains in the low-income bracket even with an additional $12,002.35 tax benefit. b. The largest payments HHh-B could receive come from tax benefits, which are heavily mean tested. Mean test for Australia refers to a tedious process of investigation that will determine the individual or family applicant’s eligibility in receiving certain types of benefits from the government. This test quantifies either the income, or assets, or a combination of both of the party. Critics observed that this process – as how it is actually processed – is humiliating to the point that it drives applicants away. 3. The occupational welfare services listed here do not represent all the benefits a wage-earner like HHh-A could receive from his employer as provided by law. However, even based on this very limited occupational services listed, data show that indeed the largest benefit that any Australian household may receive comes from its earning of wages/ salaries. In fact, comparing the two hypothetical households, it is its having a wage earner that puts HHh-A into a better socio-economic position, while it is the lack of regular employment that puts HHh-B into its miserable situation. Furthermore, wage earning ensures stability even after retirement, In addition, a closer attention to means test – to which Australia’s welfare services are heavily subjected – implies that the distribution of welfare services in Australia is primarily determined by wage earning because it is through this that a household can earn an income and asset. Thus, it could also be surmised that income determines the social welfare division since it is the basis of social welfare benefits. It would also follow that geographical location affects social welfare division because income differ between cities and suburbs. Conclusion Findings on the comparative study on Australia’s social welfare distribution based on Titmuss’ categorization of the two hypothetical identical households but whose socio-economic status differ leads this research to conclude that: 1. Australia’s social welfare distribution does not in fact equalize income among identical households. Neither does it lessen the gap between the haves and the have nots. In fact, the change in the economic status effected by welfare state proves Bryson’s argument to be true. However, it cannot also be denied that what save HHh-B from greater destitution are the government’s social welfare services. 2. Among the three Titmuss’ categories of social distribution, it is the occupational welfare that is most progressive, because it provides stability not only on the household but also on the state. This may be the reason for the shift in the social policy framework of Australia – ‘mutual obligation’. Therefore, it only means that the government should create jobs for its people, which ironically will bring it back to its original framework – ‘the wage-earner state welfare’. 3. Although it may seem multifaceted and comprehensive, the public/social welfare appears to be the regressive among the three categories because aside from it being a dole-out, it is in fact humiliating, negating its intention to raise the people’s quality of life. 4. Fiscal welfare, on the other hand remains to be an effective check mechanism in transferring wealth from the advantaged to the disadvantaged, especially so that employment opportunity, rate of income and cost and standard of living of households differ according to geographical location. Reference List Arthurson, K. (2004) ‘Editorial’. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 39 (1), pg. 3+. [Online] Available at: http://www.questia.com/read/5002649995?title=Editorial (Accessed: 13 August 2008) Aussie Move.com (2007a) ‘Cost of Living in Australia’ [Online] Available at: http://www.aussiemove.com/aus/costlive.asp (Accessed: 17 August 2008) Aussie Move.com (2207b) ‘Overview of Benefits’ [Online] Available at: http://www.aussiemove.com/aus/benefits.asp (Accessed: 17 August 2008) Aussie Move.com (2007c) ‘The Australian Workforce’ [Online] Available at: http://www.aussiemove.com/aus/jobs.asp (Accessed: 17 August 2008) Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006) ‘Characteristics of Wage and Salary Earners in Regions of Australia, 2002-03’ [Online] Available at: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/6261.0.55.001 (Accessed: 15 August 2008) Australian Government. Centrelink (2008) ‘Family Assistance’ [Online] Available at: http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/individuals/child_support.htm#family (Accessed: 17 August 2008) Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2007a) ‘Welfare expenditure Australia 2005-06’. Australian Policy [Online]. Available at: http://www.apo.org.au/linkboard/results.chtml?filename_num=186347 (Accessed: 12 August 2008) Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2007b) ‘Australia’s Welfare 2007’ Cat. no. AUS 93. Canberra: AIHW. [Online]. Available at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/aus/aw07/aw07.pdf (Accessed: 12 August 2008) Braithwaite, V. et al (2002) ‘If mutual obligation is the answer, what is the question’. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 37 (3), pg 225+. [Online] Availabale at: http://www.questia.com/read/5000669006?title=If%20Mutual%20Obligation%20Is%20the%20Answer%2c%20What%20Is%20the%20Question%3f (Accessed: 13 August 2008) Burch, H. A. and Michaels, D. G. (1991) The Whys of Social Policy: Perspective on Policy Preferences. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. [Online] Available at: http://www.questia.com/read/9540828?title=The%20Why's%20of%20Social%20Policy%3a%20Perspective%20on%20Policy%20Preferences (Accessed: 12 August 2008) Campbell, C. S. (1988, 2004) ‘The Imperiled Gift Relationship’. The Hastings Center Report, 18 (1), pg. 4. [Online] Available at: http://www.questia.com/read/5002137108?title=The%20Imperiled%20Gift%20Relationship (Accessed: 12 August 2008) Chenoweth, L. (2008) ‘Redifining Welfare: Australian Social Policy and Practice’. Asian Social Work and Policy Review, 2 (1), pp. 63-60. [Online] Available at: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119423649/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 (Accessed: 12 August 2008) Commonwealth of Australia. Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. (2008) Family Assistance and Relationship Services. [Online] Available at: URL: http://www.facsia.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/family/nav.htm (Accessed 15 August 2008) Craig, L. (2005, 2006) ‘The Money or the Care: A Comparison of Couple and Sole Parent Households’ Time Allocation to Work and Children’. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 40 (4), pg. 521 +. [Online] Available at: http://www.questia.com/read/5014474463?title=The%20Money%20or%20the%20Care%3a%20A%20Comparison%20of%20Couple%20and%20Sole%20Parent%20Households'%20Time%20Allocation%20to%20Work%20and%20Children%20* (Accessed: 13 August 2008) Everingham, C. (2001, 2002) ‘Reconstituting Community: Social Justice, Social Order and the Politics of Community’. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 36 (2), pg. 105. [Online] Available at: http://www.questia.com/read/5001038175?title=Reconstituting%20Community%3a%20Social%20Justice%2c%20Social%20Order%20and%20the%20Politics%20of%20Community (Accessed: 13 August 2008) Forth, G. (2000) ‘What is the future fro Australia’s declining country towns?’. Australia’s e-journal of social and political debate, ISSN 1442-8458. [Online] Available at: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=935&page=0 (Accessed: 12 August 2008) Goodin, R. E. (2001) ‘False Principles of Welfare Reform’. Australian Journal of Social issues, 36 (3), pg. 189. [Online] Available at: http://www.questia.com/read/5000888034?title=False%20Principles%20of%20Welfare%20Reform (Accessed: 13 August 2008) Henry, K. (2003) ‘Fiscal Policy in Australia’. In: Australian Conference of Economists Business Symposium. Pp. 1-17. [Online] Available at: http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/699/PDF/Speech021003.pdf (Accessed: 12 August 2008) Marks, G. N. et al (2205) ‘Household Wealth in Australia: Its Components, Distribution and Correlates’, Journal of Sociology, 41 (1), pg 47+. [Online] Available at: http://www.questia.com/read/5009564772?title=Household%20Wealth%20in%20Australia%3a%20Its%20Components%2c%20Distribution%20and%20Correlates (Accessed: 13 August 2008) Martin, S. (2004) ‘Reconceptualising Social Exclusion: A Critical Response to the Neoliberal Welfare Reform Agenda and the Underclass Thesis’. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 39 (1), pg. 79+. [Online] Available at: http://www.questia.com/read/5002650019?title=Reconceptualising%20Social%20Exclusion%3a%20A%20Critical%20Response%20to%20the%20Neoliberal%20Welfare%20Reform%20Agenda%20and%20the%20Underclass%20Thesis (Accessed: 13 August 2008) Mendes, P. (1999) ‘The ideology of the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS): from the charity model to welfarism to social justice’. Melbourne Journal of Politics, 26 (0), pg 27+. [Online] Availabale at: http://www.questia.com/read/5001899732?title=The%20Ideology%20of%20the%20Australian%20Council%20of%20Social%20Service%20(ACOSS)%3a%20From%20the%20Charity%20Model%20to%20Welfarism%20to%20Social%20Justice (Accessed: 13 August 2008) Murphy, J. (2005) ‘The other welfare state: the non-government welfare sector in Victoria’. In: Models of Welfare State Formation in the Global Context World History Congress. University of Melbourne: The Australian Center. Papadakis, E. (1990) ‘Conjectures about Public Opinion and the Australian Welfare State’. Journal of Sociology. 26 (2), pp. 209-234. Paul, H. and Perry J. (2002) ‘Welfare dependency? A critical analysis of changes in welfare recipient numbers’. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 37 (3), pg. 315+. Available at: http://www.questia.com/read/5000652903?title=Welfare%20Dependency%3f%20A%20Critical%20Analysis%20of%20Changes%20in%20Welfare%20Recipient%20Numbers (Accessed: 13 August 2008) Payscale.com (2008a). ‘Bonus Survey Report for City: Perth’ [Online] Available at: http://www.payscale.com/research/AU/City=Perth/Bonus (Accessed 19 August 2008) Payscale.com (2008b). ‘Salary Survey Report for City: Perth’. [Online] Available at: http://www.payscale.com/research/AU/City=Perth/Salary (Accessed 19 August 2008) Petchey, J. and Levtchenkova, S. (2004)’Fiscal Equalisation in Australia: proposals for an efficiency-based system’. Economic Papers (Economic Society of Australia), 9 (23), pg. 8. Find Articles [Online]. Available at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PAO/is_2_23/ai_n6153072/pg_8 (Accessed: 12 August 2008) Simmers, D. (1995) ‘Diverging Paths: Retirement Income Policies in Australia and New Zealand’. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand. (4). [Online] Available at: http://www.msd.govt.nz/publications/journal/04-july-1995/index.html#5 (Accessed: 12 August 2008) Titmuss, R. M. (1958) ‘The Social Division of Welfare: Some Reflections on the Search for Equity’, in Titmus, R. M. (author) Essays on the ‘Welfare State’. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., Chapter 2, pp. 34 – 55. [Online] Available at: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst (Accessed: 13 August 2008) Titmuss, R. M. (1964) ‘The Limits of the Welfare State’. New Left Review, 1 (27), pg. 1. [Online] Available at: http://www.newleftreview.org/?view=1478 (Accessed: 12 August 2008) Read More