Pushing back against celebration of means testing
I noticed an article this morning celebrating Australia’s means testing of social security and expressing concern that universalism is creeping into a range of government services and support.
(note I am not linking to the piece directly as I don’t want to make this about the person behind that post, but about the points they raise – play the ball not the man [sic] and all that)
The author stated that things are great in Australia since the economic reforms of the 1980s and 1990s. Australia has had consistent economic growth, but without a “massive spike in” inequality because of the work taxes and transfers did. The point is made that government stayed relatively small and that Australia can be proud of its delivery of “top-tier health outcomes”; our “robust support to low-income earners” and the “high-quality public education system” in our country. The reason, the author suggests, is because of our social security system being the most targeted in the OECD.
While the article notes some of the arguments for universal provision, it critiqued universal services as too expensive and often being funded by those on the lowest incomes.
Several things irked me on reading such an ode to means testing:
- I am not sure what sort of “spike” counts as “massive” or not, but Australia does have what I’d readily describe as “pretty high” levels of wealth inequality. As Oxfam Australia points out: ‘The wealthiest 10%…control nearly half of all of household wealth…the bottom 50% of households hold just 10% of all wealth’.
- Our health and education systems may be in better shape than in many other countries, but creeping privatisation has undermined their contribution to equity. In education, it has contributed to growing inequality, while in health it has left the system unable to adequately offset the health impacts of economic disadvantage. That’s not a story I would describe as “top-tier” or “high quality”.
- The suggestion that Australia provides “robust support” to low-income earners is undermined by the reality that three in five households who rely on Jobseeker are below the poverty line.
- It’s hard not to notice that means testing is celebrated when it comes to benefits individuals and families receive, but those touting means testing rarely call for it in the various forms of corporate welfare in Australia.
- And any benefit of universal provision that goes to those further up the income tree would be clawed back via progressive taxes, which the author assumes Aussies don’t back, but there’s polling suggesting otherwise.
- Instead, the article implies that the only way to address economic inequality is via government stepping in via redistribution, but inequalities created in the market can be addressed in the market via predistribution.
- Finally, with the author celebrating defence and public parks as a public good (I agree), I am left wondering who decides what should constitutes a public good? With some states and territories making public transport free or very cheap, we can begin to imagine a world where mobility (such that the public transport system enables mobility) is not restricted to those with cars or sufficient income to cover fares. I think there’s a good argument energy might fall into this category, and dare I even say it, food, but where’s that conversation?
I might be accused of talking Australia down, but I’d rather be in the “a good society is one that knows it’s not yet good enough” camp than resting on our laurels (England’s most recent Ashes campaign anyone…?)
