Splashing Money Is Not A Social Assistance Plan

It turns out that the government’s trick to overturning poverty statistics is simply to distribute money and hope.

It was revealed this week that no one receiving a benefit has ever been penalized for their social responsibility obligations. There is a contract between the state and the recipient and things like sending your child to school, registering them with a doctor, in other words being a good parent, are necessary.

Statistics would show us that this doesn’t happen all the time because if it did, we wouldn’t have the intergenerational issues that we face. And the Prime Minister would not have made so many fuss about his personal goal of changing the landscape.

Social bonds came into effect under the previous government. But this government decided that they were all a little difficult. Administratively, everything is a bit difficult and complex. So that’s it then.

So the only chance the Prime Minister has to adjust the levers of poverty in this country is money and hope. It is their policy, their money and their hope. The assumption is that by distributing even more money, that money goes into something productive.

As I said this week, the whole conversation is skewed the wrong way. The amount of money is not the problem, the attitude is. It is that social assistance is not a palliative, it is a livelihood. The increase in payment does not make the gap between jobs more acceptable; it’s a pay raise for doing nothing.

The danger comes from both sides of the equation. A government that claims this is all good economically because the money is being invested in the economy. This is true, but the government does not seem to care whether it is productive spending or waste.

And the beneficiaries do not see their situation improve by the effort, but rather by simply asking for more.

In Australia, or in part, social assistance is linked to a card. It is limited in what it can be spent on. We are certainly years behind in terms of tracking obligations with technology. For example, the card is loaded when the child has a school record and a doctor.

But again, it’s the attitude. If the Department of Social Development can’t even bother to ask a few questions, it is hardly looking for technological solutions, is it?

This government’s whole redistribution argument is based on leveling the playing field. What happens when the ground is leveled with people who have more money, but still aren’t playing their part?

What is the future of a child, when mom or dad is hopeless and the role of the state is nothing more than a bank?

How long before those who work to finance this bank give up and join them or pack their bags?

About Sharon Joseph

Check Also

Government urged to release funds for welfare of special people – Journal

KOHAT: Amjid Afridi, District Social Welfare Officer, has asked the government to release funds for …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.