Chapter 6 focused on a recent development of “income management,” a measure which aims at controlling over recipients of certain family and welfare payments by quarantining those payments and restricting their usage only for the “priority needs” including foods, clothing, housing, and education. Through this measure, Aboriginal parents in specific Indigenous communities and other non-indigenous “bad parents” have been partly excluded from the category of “deserving.”
Since at least 2007, Australia has linked welfare and family payments with “socially responsible behaviour” of parents, particularly through income management. First introduced as a part of the Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER) under the Howard Coalition Government, it was extended beyond the NT Intervention and was even represented as “a key tool” in the Rudd-Gillard Labor Government welfare reforms, indicating the importance of analysing it not just with respect to Indigenous Affairs but also in the context of welfare and family policies. Through the examinations of debates on income management measures, Chapter 6 illustrated the process through which governmental management of welfare payments has become a prominent feature of welfare reforms and revealed that parenthood has been the core element by connecting normative parental behaviour with provision of welfare and family payments. Much like the repetitive disputes over welfare reforms since the 1980s, the development of income management has been a process of problematising welfare dependency, and constructing and justifying income management as the requisite response. The Howard measure introduced as a part of the NTER was actually a scheme to advance the Government’s welfare reform based on the p...
... middle of paper ...
...deal parenthood and allowing the government to roll back the payments or make them conditional. To be called welfare dependent leads to the assumption of being irresponsible parents and to being excluded from sufficient state support. At the same time, the vagueness of the term “welfare dependency” itself as well as the ambiguity of those notions/categories used for welfare reform justification (e.g. parenthood) must have actually made them extremely useful for the governments.
Furthermore, the close examination of the sole parent pensions and income management in particular revealed the possible importance of attributes such as family, gender, ethnicity, and class strata for the problematisation of welfare dependency. Reforms targeting specific welfare payments seem to result in calling the particular groups of people who receive those payments “welfare dependent.”
Toronto: Pearson Prentice Hall. The Justice System and Aboriginal People: Child Welfare. n.d. - n.d. - n.d. The Aboriginal Justice Implementation Commission. Retrieved December 12, 2013, from http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volumel/chapter14.html.
The purpose of this program was not stereotypical because the nature of the act corresponds with the actual needs and circumstances of the claimant as this treatment is actually giving aids to younger people to secure employment. (http://casebrief.wikia.com/wiki/Gosselin_v_Quebec_(Attorney_General). It was found that welfare recipients under 30 were not suffering from any negative pre-conception but rather it was an affirmation of their potential (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gosselin_v_Quebec_(AG)#Supreme_Court.27s_opinion). The government had a purpose for adopting this conspiracy because they had the plan to get people under the age of 30 into the working system. This would instill in them valuable skills to get permanent employment while also making up for the lower base amount they received. By doing this, the government was supporting the welfare recipients under 30 indirectly. The system that was adopted gave young people an incentive to be compelled to partake in its training program, which enabled them to learn and also have experience. Also aiding in the long run of their employment
This mini-paper will discuss the social welfare system. The mini-paper includes a discussion of welfare Policy, residual and institutional approach, and what is Social Welfare and Social Security. Midgely, (2009), pointed out that social welfare systems deliver services that facilitate and empower our society, especially to those persons who require assistance in meeting their basic human needs. The goal of social welfare is to provide social services to citizens from diverse cultures, and examples include Medicare, Medicaid, and food benefits. Midgley,( 2009).
Hays, Sharon. (2003). Flat Broke With Children: Women in the Age of Welfare Reform. New
Sharon Hays argues that welfare reform policymakers were legislating moral prescriptions for women in poverty who were to take on Welfare aid. I think it could be argued that moral prescriptions on the lives of Welfare recipients was purposeful. Politicians felt Welfare needed to change and help recipients become more self-sufficient over time. This would save money as time went on but would also be a measure of success if less people were on Welfare as time went on. To make Welfare more temporary, inefficiencies had to be addressed and solved. Welfare legislators decided to put the inefficiencies and prescriptions on the recipients themselves and not take into account any other barriers that could be preventing poor individuals and families from getting out of poverty. Moral prescriptions make poverty a cause and solution affair where the cause is moral negligence and the solution is a set of rules and regulations aimed to change morality which will gain people the self-esteem and knowledge to get a job and get out of Welfare.
The over-representation of Aboriginal children in the Canadian Child Welfare system is a growing and multifaceted issue rooted in a pervasive history of racism and colonization in Canada. Residential schools were established with the intent to force assimilation of Aboriginal people in Canada into European-Canadian society (Reimer, 2010, p. 22). Many Aboriginal children’s lives have been changed adversely by the development of residential schools, even for those who did not attend them. It is estimated that Aboriginal children “are 6-8 times more likely to be placed in foster care than non-Aboriginal children (Saskatchewan Child Welfare Review Panel, 2010, p. 2).” Reports have also indicated that First Nations registered Indian children make up the largest proportion of Aboriginal children entering child welfare care across Canada (Saskatchewan Child Welfare Review Panel, p. 2). Consequently, this has negatively impacted Aboriginal communities experience of and relationship with child welfare services across the country. It is visible that the over-representation of Aboriginal children in the child welfare system in Canada lies in the impact of the Canadian policy for Indian residential schools, which will be described throughout this paper.
O?Beirne, Kate. ?The State of Welfare: An old and tricky question resurfaces.? National Review 54.2 (February 11, 2002): 1--2. Online. Information Access Expanded
Aboriginal family life has been disrupted and forcibly changed over the last two hundred years, as a result of the many segregation and assimilation policies introduced by Australian governments. Often a combination of the two was employed. The policy of segregation has impacted upon Aboriginal family life, for through this policy, Aboriginals were restricted and prohibited to practice their traditional culture, hence, resulting in the loss of their Indigenous identity and limiting the cultural knowledge for future Aboriginal generations. The segregation policy also achieved in disfiguring the roles of family members, primarily the male's role within the family. The policy of assimilation, in comparison to the segregation policies, has also affected Aboriginal family life, because through the removal of children from their Aboriginal homes they to as a result were deprived of their Indigenous identity and cultural links. However, the policy of assimilation has had far greater an impact upon Aboriginal family life, for it has not only separated families and communities, but denied the parenting and nurturing of a generation of Aboriginal peoples and has also attributed to breakdowns in relationships between the non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal parent.
In today’s America, there are many people who would either be disgusted at the very mention of Welfare or be highly grateful for its existence. I believe that in order for welfare to be more effective in America, there must be reform. From the time of its inceptions in 1935, welfare has lent a helping hand to many in crisis (Constitution Rights Foundation). However, at present many programs within the system are being abused and the people who are in real need are being cheated out of assistance. The year after the creation of welfare unemployment was just about twenty percent (Unemployment Statistics). The need for basic resources to survive was unparallel. Today, many people face the same needs as many did during the 30s. Some issues with
The idea of a welfare state was created from a misguided desire to gain social equality. This created a society dependent on the government, but with encouragement of individualism this dependence will be removed. The ideological perspective of the author is neoconservative, which in the message the author is trying to suggest that individuals in a welfare state will become dependent on the government to provide them with programs and initiatives. The author believes a state should not be involved within the economy and should encourage individualism. This is shown when the author says “a culture dependency on the state has emerged” and “only in a state that promotes individualism will such dependency be eliminated”. This relates to liberalism because of how it promotes self interest and self reliance compared to collective well being, this is shown when the author says “ only in a state that promotes individualism will such dependency be eliminated”. Society should rather embrace and develop the idea of a welfare state, which can improve and become beneficial to the state.
Being raised in a single-parent lower class home, I realize first-hand the need for welfare and government assistance programs. I also realize that the system is very complex and can become a crutch to people who become dependent and complacent. As a liberal American I do believe that the government should provide services to the less fortunate and resources to find work. However, as able-bodied citizens we should not become complacent with collecting benefits and it is the government’s job to identify people who take advantage of the system and strip benefits from people who are not making efforts to support themselves independently. I will identify errors that exist within the welfare system and several policy recommendations to implement a change that will counteract the negative conditions that currently exist.
She argues the differences in the amount of support given to low-income families living near or below the poverty line as well as people without jobs or means to support their families otherwise. As a result political figures holding similar views will attempt to change government programs. The president Bill Clinton was successfully able to overhaul the welfare program in 1996. This article relates to Tunner and Pimpare article because it shows how the social welfare reforms has not make a significant impact to individuals well living for low-income families living near or below the poverty
The notion of overseeing welfare wasn’t always the case in the UK. Before this the ‘Poor Law’ was operated. (1598-1948) This consisted on a basis that the poor amongst society were essentially a problem of their own making and in turn needed to be punished because of this. ‘Those without jobs were lazy, feckless or in some other way delinquent’ (Coats: 34: 2012) Welfare was deemed to be a privilege, a goodwill gesture from the rich to the poor. Harsh living conditions and the punishments were seen as motivation for the poor to strive to improve their own lives.
McDonald, P 1984, Can The Family Survive? - Change in Australia, Discussion Paper no. 11, Australian Institute of Family Studies, accessed 10 April 2012 http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/dp11.html
CAFCA. (2011). Working with Indigenous children, families and communities Lessons from. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family