Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
145
VOLUME 29 • NUMBER 2 • 2017 AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND SOCIAL WORK
EXTENDED REVIEW
Australia’s welfare wars: The players, the
politics and the ideologies
Philip Mendes (3rd ed.) 2017
UNSW Press, Sydney, NSW
ISBN 978-174223-4786, pp. 416, paperback, NZD64.99
The second half of the title provides
some very transparent clues to the
ways in which Mendes goes about
his work of reviewing developments and
changes in Australia’s welfare state over
the last three decades; decades which
have seen the strengthening of neoliberal
and managerial frameworks throughout
Australia and much of the developed (and
indeed developing) world. The back cover
and pp. vii–viii provide six core questions
which are the basis of the book. Paraphrased,
these questions are about: the failure of
government policies to address structural
issues of poverty and unemployment; the
impact of economic globalisation on welfare
state thinking; the convergence of political
views among the major political parties (with
the exception of the Greens); the influences
of lobbying and interest groups; the reasons
for the rise of poverty and inequality and the
lack of concern about this issue on the part
of politicians; and why do governments fail
to consult with users and communities on
welfare issues.
The brief for this extended review was to
use the review to reflect on experiences
in Aotearoa New Zealand in the light of
Mendes’ discussion about Australia. I will
do that shortly, but the review needs to
begin with a brief outline of the book’s
coverage. I make no claims to being an
expert on the details of the development of
Australia’s welfare state over the time period
here. Suffice to say, Mendes chronicles key
aspects of this clearly and concisely, with
appropriate attention to the details around
the specific changes. The three sections of
the book cover the context of the Australian
welfare state (including discussions on
neoliberalism and on globalisation and
their impact on welfare state changes), the
Australian political parties and the welfare
state and interest groups (including ACOSS,
various contributors to the debate and a brief
discussion on the role of faith communities).
Throughout the book, there is a thorough
and thoughtful mixture of analysis,
commentary and reflection, drawing on
both evidence and data from a diverse range
of sources and on a solid understanding of
the literature and research on the politics
of welfare change. The writing style is
lucid and the flow of the discussion and
debate is clear and easy to follow. In short,
the book is an interesting, informative and
thought-provoking read. The author’s social
democratic and participatory approach is
clear throughout (and quite explicit) but does
not “get in the road” in the discussion.
What a pity there is no comparable volume
for this country because my intuitive sense
is that the analysis would follow similar
lines, with one notable difference, which
I will return to below. On many, many
occasions I found myself reading a sentence
or paragraph and substituting the relevant
Aotearoa New Zealand institution and
reflecting that the sentence or paragraph
would hold equally well for this country.
The four examples below will illustrate;
it would have been possible to provide a
number of others.
• Australian government policies are
based on motivating and disciplining
welfare recipients and reintegrating
146 VOLUME 29 • NUMBER 2 • 2017 AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND SOCIAL WORK
EXTENDED REVIEW
them with mainstream social values and
morality (p. 9).
• Neoliberal ideas of small government,
free markets and limited social
expenditure have provided the
ideological inspiration for cuts to the
welfare state (p. 17).
• Work was assumed (by the social
security review) to provide major health,
social and economic benefits for both the
individual and the wider community.
There was little reference to addressing
the financial needs of long-term income
security recipients (pp. 42–43).
• Probably the strongest factor
contributing to retrenchment is the
domination of individualistic values and
beliefs. Poverty and disadvantage are
increasingly constructed as matters of
private individual choice and behaviour
rather than as collective moral and social
responsibilities (p. 332).
A central part of his thesis is that the
welfare state needs to be sustained, albeit
with some important differences from its
historical form. It “represents a significant
gain for poor and working class people in
the struggle for a fair distribution of wealth
and income” (p. 5). The neoliberal revolution
is, he argues, a reversion to the 19th century.
Neoliberal values have won the day because
the rich and powerful have more resources,
have engaged effectively with global
interests and have used a set of strategies
and articulated ideas and proposals which
have been taken up by the media while
much of the Left has been undecided
about its approach to the welfare state.
Importantly, the media have close
connections with powerful economic
interests and, in some instances, are owned
by them. Does this not sound very like
Aotearoa New Zealand ?:
“Typically, they [think tanks] publish
simplistic but innovative and accessible
arguments in non-refereed pseudo-academic
journals which are then easily reshaped
as opinion pieces in daily newspapers
or repeated by sympathetic newspaper
columnists or talkback radio hosts” (p. 86).
Turning to the local comparison, I noted
above that there is one important difference
which an equivalent Aotearoa New Zealand
study would need to attend to, namely the
contribution of Māori and the role of Te Tiriti
in shaping various aspects of the reforms on
this side of the Tasman. In various places
Mendes notes the significance of the changes
for Aboriginal and Torres Strait peoples (see,
for example, pp. 236 et seq.). Those changes
are clearly significant and, equally, it is
significant that Aboriginal and Torres Strait
peoples had no meaningful role in shaping
or influencing those changes.
A comparable review here would need
to examine the role of a diverse range
of tangata whenua interests in shaping
various dimensions of the Aotearoa New
Zealand changes, in some instances with
some important impacts and, in others,
with little or no impact. Moreover, it would
be inappropriate to assume that there is a
simple totality about those interests—the
different interests will be as important as the
common interest. Any discussion of the role
of tangata whenua would need to explore
both activist and academic contributions
to the changes and the challenges to those
changes. Significantly, a review would note
that Māori have borne the brunt of the effects
with very high poverty and unemployment
rates and higher rates among the homeless,
for example.
A brief Aotearoa New Zealand story
While it is not possible in the context of this
review to undertake a comparable analysis
of the Aotearoa New Zealand experiences,
it is possible to indicate some of the issues
which such a review might explore and some
of the information we currently have. We
know, for example, that poverty (especially
child poverty) and inequality have increased
significantly over the last three decades. We
know too, that housing access, affordability
and quality are much more difficult and that
public provision has declined significantly,
particularly in relation to access to state
housing. We also know that there have been
147
VOLUME 29 • NUMBER 2 • 2017 AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND SOCIAL WORK
EXTENDED REVIEW
significant changes to social security (now
known as income support). Rates have been
cut (and never restored), there has been a
significant shift from rights to responsibilities
and a fundamental change in the framework
for social security with paid work being the
dominant motif. Moreover, the approach has
become more punitive, with recipients being
subject to a range of requirements as to their
behaviour and sanctions surrounding non-
compliance with those requirements. In a
broad sense, many of the directional changes
which Mendes identifies in the directions of
Australia’s welfare provision, coverage and
access and the attendant neoliberal framing
are echoed very loudly in this country.
In the light of the current focus and
debate in this country, it is timely to note
Mendes’ references in chapter four to the
idea of social investment as a basis for
reshaping and redeveloping the welfare
state. It is not, however, the neoliberal and
conservative social investment as we know
that term in this country, far from it. “Social
investment”, he notes, “refers to productive
future-oriented forms of social spending
that promote inclusion of all citizens
in the social and economic mainstream
rather than merely repair the short-term
damage experienced by groups suffering
disadvantage” (p. 119). That, he argues,
has to be accompanied by a much more
participatory reformed welfare state “based
on a genuine partnership between the state,
welfare consumers and the community”
(p. 4). This is the very antithesis of the
welfare state changes in this country and
of the approach adopted to social investment
here. Mendes talks of the approach of
one of the right-wing critics to child
protection—social work practice should,
the critic argues, “return to … prompt and
permanent removal of abused and neglected
children from their parents” (p. 82). Does this
not sound scarily like the vulnerable children
approach to social investment?
One of the significant areas of focus
in Australia’s Welfare Wars is Mendes’
discussion of the role of right-wing think
tanks, right-wing political interests and key
personnel in shaping the new directions and
guiding the war effort. Here too, there are
very interesting and significant parallels in
New Zealand’s experiences. The work of
the Business Roundtable (and its current
reincarnation in the New Zealand Initiative)
and associated economic and political
interests, influences and related think tanks
is an obvious starting point for examination
as they have pursued their agenda of
economic and political liberalisation. As in
Australia, there have been other voices such
as those concerned with child poverty, the
trade union movement, some social service
practitioners and leaders and a small number
of academics (Jane Kelsey is a good example)
whose work and activities have been based
around (and produced challenges to) “the
new normal.” However, as in Mendes’
examination of the Australian experiences,
even a cursory review indicates that the
Aotearoa New Zealand changes have been
dominated by neoliberal economic and
political interests, to the detriment of the
poor and powerless.
In more recent times, the role of key
individuals such as Paula Rebstock in both
the social security reforms and the changes
to care and protection of children (through
the Expert Panel) would provide a very
interesting investigation, especially when
placed alongside her background with the
Commerce Commission and her current
role as Chair of the Accident Compensation
Corporation Board. As in the Australian
story, alternative views and directions
have been systematically ignored and/
or sidelined. The work of the Alternative
Welfare Working Group and Child Youth
and Family’s Workload and Casework
review provide good examples. The role of
other key figures (including, but not limited
to, ministers of the Crown) in the welfare
changes of the 1990s and subsequently and
the more recent raft of changes would be an
important part of the New Zealand story.
In his examination of “contributors to the
debate” (ch. 9), Mendes has an interesting
148 VOLUME 29 • NUMBER 2 • 2017 AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND SOCIAL WORK
EXTENDED REVIEW
discussion on the contribution of social
workers and social work associations. While
noting the ethical basis of policy action as a
legitimate core part of social work practice,
Mendes goes on to observe that AASW
seems: “to have had only minimal impact on
policy debates” (p. 270). This he attributes
to lack of adequate preparation in education
programmes for undertaking such action, the
role of public sector employment in limiting
opportunities for speaking out, the lack of
social work leadership profile in the media
and in the wider public and uncertainty
among AASW as to who it represents. Might
these factors also be significant in Aotearoa?
The two case studies he uses to discuss the
influence of social work lead him to note
that: “narrower professional social work
identity and broader social justice advocacy
concerns can be reconciled and synthesised
to good effect in social action campaigns”
(p. 275). This is an important rejoinder for
social workers in Aotearoa as we engage
and struggle with a range of changes in
health and social services in areas such as
the care and protection of children, provision
of mental health services and services for
people with disabilities—to name but three
examples. The interesting question is how
we respond to that challenge—what kind of
social work/social worker will we be, and
become?
The ultimate question in any book review is:
does this work warrant reading? The answer
here is an unreserved “yes”—and reflect on
the issues and questions for understanding
welfare changes in your country as you do so.
Reviewed by Mike O’Brien University of Auckland
