Welfare review too complicated - ACOSS

When a gov says it's going to "streamline" payments, or "simplify" them, the alarms bells start ringing in my head. It's just another way the gov wants to save money. As it is on this occasion with the Welfare Review handed to the gov the other day. 

In it it follows the New Zealand example of simplification and reducing the number of payments. This may be good for gov paperwork but the initial reports out of NZ indicate people falling through the cracks and increased poverty in the community.

The Australian Council of Social Services has ironically called the gov's plans here in Australia as being too complex. "Simplification" my ass! 

"This report should be used as a starting point for further discussion with the community with an objective of achieving structural reform that is bold in vision and scope. It usefully identifies the key problems in the payment system which need to be addressed: complexity, unfairness, inadequacy and disincentives to work. 

"However, some of the Report's suggested answers are flawed. While some current income support recipients would go on to a higher payment than they receive currently, many newer applicants would be worse off under the proposed rules. Additionally, the recommended 4-yearly reviews on adequacy are welcome, but indexing to CPI or another price index in the interim would be likely to erode the value of payments over time. In the case of the Aged Pension, the Commission of Audit estimated this erosion at $80/week in a decade if pensions are indexed to prices only. 

"Moreover, for people of working age, four income support payment levels instead of three is neither simpler or fairer; and four definitions of disability is likely to be unworkable. To this end, we urge the Government to design a simpler model than that proposed in the Report, which is founded on the principles of adequacy, consistency and fairness. 

"We know that many stakeholders raised concerns about the adequacy of allowances and the increasing gap between pensions and allowances. We would have liked to have seen a stronger recommendation that payments to people who are unemployed need to be increased as an urgent priority. 

"We welcome the recommendation to establish a panel to regularly review payment adequacy and make recommendations about payment levels. We support this proposal and call on the Government to conduct an initial review of adequacy as a next priority in the reform process. 

"Under the current system, people in similar circumstances with similar basic living costs receive different levels of financial support and face different expectations of work. 

"Unfortunately, the Report recommendations preserve many of these inconsistencies and create new anomalies in the system through its complex tiered payment proposal. more