It’s a libertarian
fantasy that the problem of welfare dependence can be addressed without using
the power of the state to compel responsible personal behaviour.
State
compulsion, for example, is essential to enforce mutual obligation requirements
and force the unemployed to actively seek a job, instead of continuing to loaf
on the dole.
My
research on the nation’s child protection crisis has sharply revealed the
social damage wreaked by unrestricted welfare and parental bad behaviour among
an underclass of dysfunctional families.
I
therefore have no problem with the idea that welfare recipients could be
compelled to take better care of children by being forced to spend their
benefits on food and other essentials, rather than on drink, drugs, and
gambling.
This is
how we should view the debate about the federal government’s plan to expand the
trial of the ‘cashless welfare card’ — as a means of addressing the
intergenerational transfer of dysfunction and dependence within families.
In
philosophical terms, the cashless welfare card is an example of ‘small
government conservatism‘: a socially conservative approach to social
policy which — contrary to the conventional political wisdom — utilises state
intervention to reduce the size of government.
This
position may be difficult to accept for economic liberals who place a premium
on individual freedom and freedom from government control.
However,
it is impossible to deal with the issue of welfare dependence by simply
applying the first principle that government should always do less.
As
former Labor Minister and social commentator Gary Johns has argued, it is
crucial to continue to make the economic case for freedom from state
intervention.
But as
he has also rightly argued, this is insufficient to address the social problems
that have driven growth in the size of government.
Addressing
welfare dependence will require more, not less, state intervention through policies
such as mutual obligation and cashless welfare.
Except the
Turnbull Government intends to roll the cashless debit card out nationally for
individuals without children, people with significant disabilities, full-time
carers of elderly parents, even those who have been on unemployment benefits
for less than less than a month, as well as individuals who have regular employment
but receive Family Tax Benefit.
It is likely
that sometime in the future the Turnbull Government will announce that this
cashless welfare card will also be imposed on age pensioners.
In addition
Dr Sammut espouses the theory that:
Yes, you are
reading that sentence correctly. According to this man individuals and families
have only themselves to blame for their poverty or disadvantage – end of story.
Jeremy Sammut
is the type of commentator that the Liberal Party dreams about having on side.
Alan Tudge MP, Australian Institute for
Progress, The
Spectator, Scott
Morrison MP - ScoMo, Adam
Giles, Ramsay Health
Care, Senator
Dean Smith, The Centre for
Independent Studies, Matthew
Guy, Commonwealth Bank, Senator Scott Ryan, Menzies Research Centre,
Dominic Perrottet MP, Andrew Southcott MP, Asher Judah - Liberal
for Bentleigh and more
No prizes for
spotting the preponderance of right-wing politicians.
After reading
a bit about the man and his attitude, all I can say is that if this attitude
continues to hold sway at federal policy level I don’t think it going to be an
exciting time to be an Australian who is receiving welfare benefits of any type, is in a
low-skilled, low income job, a single parent raising a child or an indigenous
family.
Because to
people like Jeremy Sammut literally millions of Australian citizens are part of an undeserving, dysfunctional
underclass that is to be barely tolerated.
