Going Green: The political party setting the agenda in social welfare reform

In the 1970s and early ’80s, it was common for social policy theorists to name the Labor Party as the party of welfare state expansion and innovation, and in contrast, label the Liberal-National Party Coalition as the source of welfare state resistance and reaction.

This binary framing reflected the key role Labor governments had played in establishing major social security payments and programs –initially the core unemployment and sickness benefits introduced from 1941-49, and later the Whitlam government’s Supporting Mother’s Benefit and Australian Assistance Plan from 1972-75.

However, since the Hawke Labor government was elected in 1983, there’s arguably been a convergence of the Labor and Coalition perspectives on social welfare.

As a general rule, both the major parties agree the needs of the economy should take priority over those of social welfare, that paid work is always preferable to reliance on income support payments, that welfare spending should preferably be restricted and targeted, and that taxes should be reduced.

To be sure, Labor remains more interventionist in some social policy areas compared to the Coalition, but the differences in both ideas and policy action when in government are arguably much smaller than in the past.

In contrast, the Australian Greens have acted as major champions of the welfare state over the past two decades. It’s the party most informed by progressive values that highlight the broader structural and systemic causes of poverty and hardship, and explicitly reject policy solutions that primarily attribute disadvantage to flawed individual choices and behaviour.

Political and economic objections

Some analysts might object to the above description on two grounds: political and economic.

The political demurral would be that the Greens is a small minor party (based mainly in the upper house of the Federal Parliament) that has no chance of securing government, and can irresponsibly make grandiose promises to expand welfare that have no chance of being implemented.

The second objection might be that its promises aren’t economically affordable, and would result in huge budget deficits that would be detrimental to economic growth and wellbeing.

In my opinion, these criticisms have their own limitations.

For example, the Greens have been responsible formal or informal partners in earlier federal (the Labor government from 2010-13) and state governments (Tasmania from 2010-14), and may secure an opportunity to play this role again in the near future should Saturday’s federal election result in a hung Parliament.

Additionally, the Greens do provide detailed economic statements as to the means (such as higher taxation on billionaires and large corporations) by which they would fund their welfare state proposals. But most significantly, the Greens have proactively introduced clear-cut reform proposals onto the public policy agenda on a number of issues that have arguably informed Labor Party policy initiatives and revisions.

Opposing welfare conditionality

One example is their consistent opposition to welfare conditionality measures such as Work for the Dole, Parents Next, proposals to drug-test new applicants for social security payments, and most notably the Cashless Debit Card (CDC).

The CDC was introduced by the Liberal-National Party Coalition government in 2014, and quarantines 80% of social security payments in certain proscribed sites to discourage spending on socially harmful products such as drugs, alcohol or gambling. The Greens reject the CDC and earlier forms of compulsory income management (CIM) such as the Basics Card introduced by the Coalition government in 2007 on the following grounds:

• They’re punitive and paternalistic policies that unfairly control the lives of citizens
• They were introduced without adequate consultation with local communities or potential CIM participants
• They’re not effective in reducing social harm
• They’re racially discriminatory in that they disproportionately target Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities
• They’re extremely costly to administer, which wastes money that could be better allocated to holistic social and health services.

In contrast, the Labor Party supported all forms of income management from 2007 until about 2018. However, more recently, it’s adopted positions increasingly similar to the Greens, and stated an intention to abolish the CDC should it win government.

There’s been some speculation about the motives for Labor’s about-turn. One possible explanation is that it identified some electoral advantage in adopting a position that could strengthen its primary vote against left-wing challenges from the Greens and other critics of the CDC. Regardless, its policy agenda seems to have been strongly influenced by the Greens’ lead.

Support for JobSeeker allowance increase

Another example is the Greens’ ongoing advocacy for a major increase in the JobSeeker payment to the unemployed to $88 a day so they receive an income above the poverty line.

The Greens argue an increase is necessary to alleviate poverty, enable recipients to cover basic needs such as housing, utilities, transport and food, and enhance the life opportunities of unemployed Australians.

Conversely, it argues that the existing low JobSeeker rate not only causes social disadvantage such as housing insecurity, poor physical and mental health, and limited access to education, but actively creates barriers to accessing paid employment.

In contrast, the Labor Party has continued to privilege paid work over welfare, and has adopted an ambivalent approach towards an increase in the JobSeeker rate.

Read more: Why is poverty not a priority for Australia’s major political parties?

Since 2018, Labor has alternatively promised a review of the rate if it won government, withdrawn its commitment to a review, indicated its support for an increase without identifying a specific amount, and then finally, in April 2022, confirmed it would neither review nor increase the rate during a first term in government.

Labor’s flip-flopping seems to have been influenced at least in part by the Greens’ firm resolve to increase JobSeeker, and a concern not to be politically outflanked by the Greens.

The Greens have collaborated extensively with the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS), the peak non-government advocacy group that campaigns for policies to relieve poverty and inequality. Indeed, ACOSS paid tribute to Greens senator (and longstanding spokesperson for community services) Rachel Siewert on her retirement in August 2021, opining:

“Senator Siewert has been a stalwart supporter of people on the lowest incomes in Australia, and has done so much to ensure their issues were raised, and voices were heard, in our Federal Parliament and beyond … We extend our deep gratitude for all she has done to protect and promote the rights of people less powerful in society.”

More recently during the election campaign, ACOSS welcomed the Greens’ pledge to lift income support payments above the poverty line.

“We are pleased the Greens will take their policy of lifting JobSeeker and other income support payments to the negotiating table should they hold balance of power in a hung Parliament.”

Illicit drugs and harm reduction policy

A further example of progressive social policies placed by the Greens on the policy agenda includes illicit drugs and transitions from out-of-home care.  

The Greens have long espoused a harm-reduction policy on illicit drugs that emphasises policies and services intended to reduce drug-related harm either to the user or their family or the wider community, rather than attempting to eradicate drug use.

Not surprisingly, it’s actively supported the introduction of a supervised injecting facility in Victoria – where illicit drug users can inject substances such as heroin or methamphetamine in relative safety under the supervision of medically trained personnel – for many years.

In contrast, the Victorian Labor Party in government and opposition chopped and changed its position. It attempted unsuccessfully to introduce five SIFS in 2000, actively opposed SIFs from 2001 onwards, and then abruptly changed its mind and announced the introduction of Victoria’s first SIF trial in North Richmond in October 2017.

Labor’s policy reversal seems to have been strongly influenced by a concern to ward off a challenge from the pro-SIF Greens in a by-election in the state seat of Northcote, and specifically to secure the preferences of the small Reason Party in the same by-election, which was actively campaigning for an SIF.

Once again, Labor’s policy agenda seems to have been informed at least in part by the Greens’ policy proposals.

The Greens also led the way in proposing an extension of out-of-home care to 21 years of age.

Read more: Happier 21st? Victoria’s out-of-home care comes of age

The first national policy document to propose extended care was a 2015 parliamentary inquiry report into out-of-home care (OOHC) chaired by Greens senator Rachel Siewert. That report urged all states and territories to lift the age at which young people transition from out-of-home care (whether foster, kinship or residential care) from 18 to 21 years of age. The report recommendation has since informed the highly successful Home Stretch campaign to extend OOHC until 21 years in all jurisdictions.

In Victoria, the state Greens issued a policy statement in September 2018 recommending a universal extension of OOHC to 21 years of age backed by amended legislation. At that stage, the Victorian Labor government had only introduced a trial of extended care for a small group of care-leavers, but eventually in November 2020 announced a universal extension of care.

The Greens continued to be proactively involved in Victorian parliamentary debates, insisting extended care would result in improved outcomes for care-leavers in health, education and housing.

In summary, the Greens are the leading parliamentary voice for a generous welfare state that targets the societal causes of poverty and disadvantage.

While it remains a minor party, its campaigns in favour of social justice and equity have evidently influenced the Labor Party at both a federal and state level in a more progressive direction.