Birds and beaches, dogs and leashes : dog owners' sense of obligation to leash dogs on beaches in Victoria, Australia

Domesticated dogs threaten the conservation of beach-nesting birds in Australia through disturbance, and destruction of eggs and chicks. Leashing of dogs can improve conservation outcomes, but few dogs are leashed on beaches. We surveyed dog owners to explore their sense of obligation to leash dogs on beaches. Dog owners were more likely to feel obliged to leash their dog when they believed other people expected dogs to be leashed, and when they believed their dog was a threat to wildlife or people. Dog owners were less likely to feel obliged to leash their dog if they considered unleashed dog recreation to be important. Improved compliance may be achieved through community-based approaches to foster social norms for dog control, tailoring information products to emphasize the risk that all unleashed dogs may pose to beach-nesting birds and raising awareness of designated off-leash exercise dog recreation areas.

The mutual obligation policy in Australia : the rhetoric and reasoning of recent social security policy

Since 1997, the Australian Federal Liberal Government has introduced policies which have sought to reduce rates of unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment. The policy, known as Mutual Obligation, increased the expectations on unemployed people in return for their social security payment. At the same time, previous labour market programmes and government assistance schemes were scrapped or privatised. This article explores the justification of the term 'Mutual Obligation' by examining both the language and the underlying principles of the policy. By defining the problem of unemployment in terms of flaws in the previous social security system, the stage is set for the government to introduce policies which remedy those flaws by emphasising self- reliance in favour of government assistance. Further, by invoking notions of fairness and mutuality, the article argues that the term 'Mutual Obligation' masks both the extent and the strength of the obligations imposed on unemployed people.

Mutual obligation? Regulating by supervision and surveillance in Australian income support policy

Through an analysis of speeches by government ministers, documents and regulations, this article examines the Australian national government’s surveillance of unemployed people through what is known as Activity Testing, and more specifically as Mutual Obligation. It seeks to merge the social policy analysis of Mutual Obligation with a surveillance perspective in order to delve deeper into the underlying nature of the policy and its implications for people who are unemployed. It does this by 1. Outlining the neo-liberal political theory underlying these policies; 2. Illustrating the nature and extent of surveillance of people in receipt of income support, and 3. Employing Foucault’s concepts of the technologies of domination and the self to highlight the controlling and coercive aspects of Mutual Obligation in achieving certain of the Government’s political and policy objectives. In doing so, the analysis will make visible something of the power exerted over the disadvantaged while subject to such surveillance.