Social Policy in Australia - Essay Example

Australian Social Policy Name Date Introduction This essay looks at social policy in Australia under the governments of John Howard 1996-2007, Kevin Rudd 2007 – 2010 and Julia Gillard 2010-Present. While Howard was a social conservative, Rudd and Gillard are both of the Neo-liberal ideological persuasion. These ideological leanings have influenced policy decisions made by these leaders. The essay concentrates on Industrial Relation and Health policies of the three regimes; looking at the defining features of the regime policies on the two social issues. It seeks to give critical insights into the said policies and the social framework on which the policies have been made as well as the economic circumstances prevailing at the time of their formulation (Duckett 2008). Industrial Relations Australia is probably the only country in the west where governments have been voted out of office on account of labor relations. John Howard was voted out due to his government’s policy as espoused in the Workplace Relations Amendment Act (Kelly 2005, p 9). The Howard government amended the Workplace Relations Act 1996 to Workplace Relations Amendment Act 2005 which was popularly known as Work Choices. The Act of 1996 was the main statute regulating labor relations in the commonwealth. After this amendment, workers were no longer required to submit agreements with the Australian Industrial Relations Commission as was previously the case but with the Workplace Authority. This act also weakened the labor movement by taking away the right to recruit members at work (Ryan 2005, p 455). John Howard’s labor relations policy is criticised for reducing protection from unfair dismissal for workers in companies that has fewer than 100 employees and if the reason why the employees are dismissed is operational. Operational reasons range from the employee being ineffective to the company experiencing a reduction in profits. Workers were also allowed to get into individual contracts with their employers under the Australian Work Agreements (AWA) which gave employers the leeway to bargain with individual employees (Kelley 2005). The fairness test was meant to blunt the effects of Work Choices. The test put back minimum conditions that had been removed under Work Choices and led to employers not forcing their employees to work longer hours with less pay. A study by John Buchanan (2008) found that Work Place Agreements signed after introduction of fairness test were had improved especially in construction and retail sectors. The Fairness Test, however, fell short in protection of award conditions including increase of pay in the course of the agreement, long service leave, sick leave, redundancy pay or parental leave. This law also set up a Fair Pay Commission, run by the government. The giving of responsibilities, otherwise handled by the Industrial Relations Commission to government agencies and corporations reduced its power as an independent arbiter on matters regarding labor relations. The intention of this act was to encourage employers to invest more through enabling them to legally reduce pay and change the working conditions for their employees. This would lead to growth of the economy and creation of more jobs as more and more investors invested. This led to a lot of pressure from the public and labor movement, leading to introduction of the Fairness Test in 2007. Proponents of labor reforms argued that fairness tests rolled back the gains made in AWA since using them put their companies at a disadvantage. While some companies continued to use AWA, they were not doing it to reduce labor costs; rather they were doing it to get rid of unions. (van Wanrooy et al. 2008, p 98) Kevin Rudd/ Julia Gillard Rudd’s Industrial Relations policy included the removal of Australian Workplace Agreements. Unfair dismissal laws for companies with less than 100 employees were restored. This assured the workers of the security of their jobs while at the same time increasing the cost of labor which was the reason Work Choices had removed these laws as a way of encouraging small companies to grow thus generating jobs and boosting economic growth. There was also established the Fair Work Australia whose mandate was more interventionist that the Fair Pay Commission under Howard’s government. In this context, concern for workers’ rights as well as economic growth and keeping companies afloat during an economic downturn may be considered one of the defining features of Rudd’s Industrial Relations policy. Rudd’s policy sought to tread a centrist path eschewing the demands of the extreme left who referred to his policy as “Work Choices Lite” and the extreme right who voiced their concerns that the rigidity of the legislation and cost of wage would make things difficult for businesses in the economic environment prevailing at the time. While these were changes in policy, there was also a number of aspects of Work Choices which Rudd retained including making secondary boycotts illegal trying to cushion the economy from the domino effect of mass industrial action while at the same time guaranteeing workers directly aggrieved by an organisation the right to go on strike. Rudd’s Policy continued the restriction of unions’ access of workplaces (Buchanan 2008, p 37). Having been Rudd’s Minister for Workplace Relations at the time the above policy decisions were made, Gillard has not made a lot of changes since she ascended to leadership. Earlier this month, however, the government introduced a bill in parliament seeking to empower unions to force long running disputes with employers to arbitration. The policy has, however, been criticised by employers as being contrary to legal advice given to the government in 2010. Health Funding of public hospitals The division of roles between the federal and state governments in Australia makes funding of public hospitals a contentious affair. The federal government accuses state governments of mismanaging the funds given to them while state governments maintain that the money given by the commonwealth is not sufficient. The buck passing between the two levels of government is a common them in the Australian health services debate (Buckmaster & Pratt 2005). Different governments that come to power have tried different ways of ensuring that they strike a balance in the amount of funding provided and management initiatives to ensure that hospitals are not underfunded and the funds given to them are properly managed. John Howard During the Howard years, the federal governments funded public hospitals was done through payment of benefits to patients as well as subsidies. Service providers that are not directly linked to the government were also paid by the federal government as part of its funding of the public hospitals; funding also involved Specific Purpose Payments to state governments. In 1996-1997, the federal government spent $6,713 million to provide medical services where a big percentage of this amount was used for the funding of public hospitals in the states. While there was money sent directly from the commonwealth to state governments in the form of Specific Purpose Payments. The Howard policy did not lay as much emphasis on the direct funding of public hospitals as it did in providing subsidies to individuals and non-governmental service providers. These subsidies took the form of Medicare benefits, pharmaceutical benefits and nursing home benefits (Viney 1999, p655; Ryan 2005). Kevin Rudd Kevin Rudd’s reform was laid out in the National Health and Hospitals Network Agreement; its defining characteristics were a changed and a basis for governance in public hospitals that was in harmony across the country. This new governance system gave more authority to doctors and other health experts as well as people with an understanding of the health business. Reports were also to be made by the public hospitals to see how well they had managed to meet national bench marks outlined in the policy. This approach was seen in some quarters as inadequate due to its almost total lack of focus on private health institutions including insurance and hospitals (Duckett 2008 p 187; Butler 2008). The rationale behind focusing on public hospitals was the fact that they are owned by different levels of government and there had been cooperation in their funding and management between Federal and State governments for some time. This ensured that there was a system already in place for the disbursement of funds. Pressure on public hospitals was the result of budget constraints combined with increasing demand. The federal government’s contribution to public hospital funding was to be at 60% of efficient costs, determination of these costs was to be done by an independent pricing authority. This contribution by the federal government would be combined with a 40% contribution by the state government. The contribution by federal government would be disbursed directly to hospitals based on activity; hence the flow of funds would become transparent and not go into the revenue of the state. While the reform removes improved on the previous the five-yearly haggling between Federal and state governments, it did not give the funding and management of public hospitals to the federal government as some stakeholders had earlier suggested (Butler 2008). This new policy ensured that there was a synchronised structure of hospital management throughout the country. Hospitals would be grouped according to their location around one referral hospital which would serve a population of between four hundred and five hundred thousand. Senior doctors and other experts in the health sector were brought in decision making as opposed to earlier when decisions were made by government officers who not only lacked expertise in health issues but also lacked an understanding of the unique issues affecting the hospitals for which they were supposed to make decisions. There would be established a governing council for all the hospitals pooled together in a region which would comprise of health, business and financial professionals, while it was not mandatory for the local community to be represented, the council was required to put into consideration the views of the community. This policy also established a National Performance Authority which would monitor and report on the performance of each of the networks and the individual hospitals therein. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care was given an enhanced mandate to allow it develop clinical standards (Duckett 2008). Julia Gillard In 2011 the government of Prime Minister Julia Gillard came up with different health funding scheme for commonwealth health services. This was intended to address complaints by state governments regarding funding of their health facilities. In this scheme, the federal government is expected to fund 50% of the efficient costs in state health facilities; this high is expected to be achieved in the 2017-2018 financial year. The efficient costs are expected to be calculated by a national hospital pricing authority which is an independent body. Local state governments apart from contributing the remainder; will be the system managers whose responsibility will include budgeting and defining of the limits of the services that can be offered in the hospitals (Australia Government 2010). The increased funding by the federal government was informed by the fact the commonwealth collects more taxes than state governments and therefore should contribute more to healthcare funding. Introduction of Medicare made it a condition for state governments to offer free medical services in order for them to receive funding from the federal government. This led to blame game between federal government and state government with the state government blaming federal government for poor services in the public health facilities (AIHW 2010). The arrangement by Gillard government did not change the health system in its fundamentals; it only changed the ratios of funding between the two levels of government. The core issue of limited services and queuing for services does not get addressed in this proposal and the blame game between the federal and state governments concerning this issue is unlikely as a result of the implementation of these proposals. The main issue which is at the cause of how money allocated is spent in both federal and state government level. Conclusion While ideology has played an important role in policy making in the three governments examined e.g. Howard’s Work Choices policy. Political expediency also contributes to policy decisions. A case in point is Howard’s introduction of fairness test to blunt the unpopular effects of Work Choices in 2007 during an election year. Prevailing circumstances have also contributed to the decisions made on policy issues which may be seen in Gillard’s decision to reform Rudd’s Health Reforms after realising that it was difficult to make them work. Rudd’s healthcare reforms show that quest for efficiency and transparency in social issues also affects decision making at a policy level. All these drivers in policy making cut across all regimes. References Australian Government 2010 A national health and hospitals network for Australia’s future: delivering better health and better hospitals, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. A I H W 2010, Health expenditure Australia 2008–09, Canberra: AIHW Buchanan, J 2008, 'Values, research and industrial relations policy: recent controversies and implications for the future dialogue.’ Journal of the Social Sciences in Australia, vol.27:1, pp. 30-40. Butler, JRG 2001, ‘ Policy change and private health insurance: did the cheapest policy do the trick? Canberra: National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health. Buckmaster L, Pratt A 2005, ‘Not on my account! Cost-shifting in the Australian health system.’ Parliamentary Library Research Note; 6(2005-06).   Duckett, S 2008, The Australian health care system, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Duckett SJ, Jackson TJ 2000,‘The new health insurance rebate: an inefficient way of assisting public hospitals. Med J Aust ;172:439–42. Kelly, P2005, ‘” Re-thinking Australian governance- the Howard legacy”, Occasional Paper 4/2005, Canberra: Academy of Social Sciences in Australia Peck, J 2001, ‘ Neo-liberalising states: thin policies/hard outcomes’, Progress in Human Geography 25(3): 445–68. Ryan, N 2005, ‘A decade of social policy under John Howard: social policy in Australia’ Policy & Politics’ Volume 33, Number 3, pp. 451-460(10) Van Wanrooy ,B, Jakubauskas, M, Buchanan J, Wilson, S and Scalmer, S 2008, Australia at work. working lives – statistics and stories,Sidney: University of Sydney Viney, R 1999, ‘Carrots and sticks-the fall and fall of private health insurance in Australia’. Health Economics 8: 653–60. Read More

Proponents of labor reforms argued that fairness tests rolled back the gains made in AWA since using them put their companies at a disadvantage. While some companies continued to use AWA, they were not doing it to reduce labor costs; rather they were doing it to get rid of unions. (van Wanrooy et al. 2008, p 98) Kevin Rudd/ Julia Gillard Rudd’s Industrial Relations policy included the removal of Australian Workplace Agreements. Unfair dismissal laws for companies with less than 100 employees were restored.

This assured the workers of the security of their jobs while at the same time increasing the cost of labor which was the reason Work Choices had removed these laws as a way of encouraging small companies to grow thus generating jobs and boosting economic growth. There was also established the Fair Work Australia whose mandate was more interventionist that the Fair Pay Commission under Howard’s government. In this context, concern for workers’ rights as well as economic growth and keeping companies afloat during an economic downturn may be considered one of the defining features of Rudd’s Industrial Relations policy.

Rudd’s policy sought to tread a centrist path eschewing the demands of the extreme left who referred to his policy as “Work Choices Lite” and the extreme right who voiced their concerns that the rigidity of the legislation and cost of wage would make things difficult for businesses in the economic environment prevailing at the time. While these were changes in policy, there was also a number of aspects of Work Choices which Rudd retained including making secondary boycotts illegal trying to cushion the economy from the domino effect of mass industrial action while at the same time guaranteeing workers directly aggrieved by an organisation the right to go on strike.

Rudd’s Policy continued the restriction of unions’ access of workplaces (Buchanan 2008, p 37). Having been Rudd’s Minister for Workplace Relations at the time the above policy decisions were made, Gillard has not made a lot of changes since she ascended to leadership. Earlier this month, however, the government introduced a bill in parliament seeking to empower unions to force long running disputes with employers to arbitration. The policy has, however, been criticised by employers as being contrary to legal advice given to the government in 2010.

Health Funding of public hospitals The division of roles between the federal and state governments in Australia makes funding of public hospitals a contentious affair. The federal government accuses state governments of mismanaging the funds given to them while state governments maintain that the money given by the commonwealth is not sufficient. The buck passing between the two levels of government is a common them in the Australian health services debate (Buckmaster & Pratt 2005). Different governments that come to power have tried different ways of ensuring that they strike a balance in the amount of funding provided and management initiatives to ensure that hospitals are not underfunded and the funds given to them are properly managed.

John Howard During the Howard years, the federal governments funded public hospitals was done through payment of benefits to patients as well as subsidies. Service providers that are not directly linked to the government were also paid by the federal government as part of its funding of the public hospitals; funding also involved Specific Purpose Payments to state governments. In 1996-1997, the federal government spent $6,713 million to provide medical services where a big percentage of this amount was used for the funding of public hospitals in the states.

While there was money sent directly from the commonwealth to state governments in the form of Specific Purpose Payments. The Howard policy did not lay as much emphasis on the direct funding of public hospitals as it did in providing subsidies to individuals and non-governmental service providers. These subsidies took the form of Medicare benefits, pharmaceutical benefits and nursing home benefits (Viney 1999, p655; Ryan 2005).

Read More