Queensland's budget austerity and its impact on social welfare : is the cure worse than the disease?

While considerable attention has been paid to the austerity experiments in Europe, much less attention has been paid to austerity case studies from other parts of the world. This paper examines the case of Queensland, Australia, where the government has pursued austerity measures, while making dire warnings that unless public debt was slashed and the public service sector downsized,Queensland risked becoming the Spain of Australia. The comparison is incomprehensible, given the very different economic situation in Queensland compared with Spain. This comparison constructed a sense of crisis that helped to mask standard neoliberal economic reform. While pursuing neoliberal economic policies,the Queensland Government has also been introducing draconian laws that limit civil liberties and political freedoms for ordinary citizens. This mix of authoritarianism and austerity has met considerable resistance, and this dynamic is discussed in the paper, along with the predictable and unequal impact that austerity measures have had on the general population and social services.

Submission to KPMG review of the Federal Government Initiative to “analyse dementia program and services funded by the Department of Social Services"

The comments I make are based on my nearly twenty years involvement in the dementia cause at both a national and international level. In preparation, I read two papers namely the Ministerial Dementia Forum – Option Paper produced by KPMG Management Consultants (2014) and Analysis of Dementia Programmes and Services Funded by the Department of Social Services: Conversation Starter prepared by KPMG as a preparation document for those attending a workshop in Brisbane on April 22nd 2015. Dementia is a complex “syndrome” and as is often said, “when you meet one person with dementia, you have met one” meaning that no two persons with dementia are the same. Even in dementia care, Australia is a “lucky country” and there is much to be said for the quality and diversity of dementia care available for people living with dementia. Despite this, I agree with the many views expressed in the material I read that there is scope for improvement, especially in the way that services are coordinated. In saying that, I do not purport to have all the solutions nor claim to have the knowledge required to comment on all the programs covered by this review. If I appear to be a “biased” advocate for Alzheimer’s Australia across the States and Territories, it is because I have seen constant evidence of ordinary people doing extraordinary things with inadequate resources. Dementia care is not cheap and if those funding dementia services are primarily only interested in economic outcomes and benefits, the real purpose of this consultation will be defeated. In addition, nowhere in the material I have read is there any recognition that in many instances program funding is a complex mix of government (at all levels) and private funding. This makes reviewing those programs more complex and less able to be coordinated at a Departmental level. It goes without saying therefore that the Federal Government is not” the only player in this game”. Of all those participating in this review, Alzheimer’s Australia is best placed to comment on programs as it is more connected to people living with dementia and has probably the best record of consulting with them. It would appear however that their role has been reduced to that of a “bit player”. Without wanting to be critical, the Forum Report which deals with the comments made at a gathering of 70 individuals and organisations, only three (3) or 4.28% were actual carers of people living with dementia. Even if it is argued that a number of organisations present represented consumers, the percentage goes up only marginally to 8.57% which is hardly an endorsement of the forum being “consumer driven”. The predominance of those present were service providers, each with their own agenda and each seeking advantage for their “business”. The final point I want to make before commenting on more specific, program related issues, is that many programs being reviewed have a much longer history than is reflected in the material I have read. Their growth and development was pioneered by Alzheimer’s Australia organisations across the country often with no government funding. Attempts to bring about better coordination of programs were often at the behest of Alzheimer’s Australia but in the main were ignored. The opportunity to now put this right is long overdue.

Children and family services institutions and community services to the visually handicapped, fiscal year ending June 30, 1963 /

On cover: Annual report, 1963.

Identifying good re-engagement practice : case studies from Brisbane North and West Youth Connections action research

This report summarises the action research undertaken by the Brisbane North and West Youth Connections Consortium during 2010 and facilitated by staff from QUT. The Consortium consists of a lead agency which undertakes both program coordination and direct service delivery (Brisbane Youth Service) and four other agencies across the region who undertake direct service delivery. Funds for Youth Connections are provided by the Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. This report describes and analyses the participatory action research (PAR) undertaken in 2011, including eight case studies exploring questions seen as important to the re-engagement of young people in education and training.

Health and community services for trafficked women : an exploratory study of policy and practice

The trafficking of women has attracted considerable international and national policy attention, particularly since the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children (2000), of which the Australian Government has been a signatory since 2005. The provision of health and community services for trafficked women is a central feature of this Protocol, but in Australia service provision is made difficult by how trafficked women are understood and treated in policy and legal terms. This study aimed to explore the provision of health and community services for trafficked women in the Greater Sydney region through a series of interviews with government and non-government organisations. The findings reveal that services have been inaccessible as a result of sparse, uncoordinated, and poorly funded provision. The major obstacle to adequate and appropriate service provision has been a national policy approach focusing on 'border protection' and criminalisation rather than on trafficked women and their human rights. We conclude that further policy development needs to focus on the practical implications of how such rights can be translated into the delivery of health and community services that trafficked women can access and be supported by more effectively.

Aliens, borders and social citizens : Health and community services for trafficked women

Australian policy makers recognise women who are trafficked to Australia (and these are largely for the purposes of sexual exploitation) primarily as victims of crime. The main public mechanism by which the "problem" of trafficked people in Australia is managed is the criminal law. At the same time, however, as a signatory to the UN Protocol on Trafficking and the Declaration of Human Rights, the Australian Government also recognises the rights of women trafficked to Australia to access health and community services in the wake of the health damage and trauma they often incur as a consequence of their experience. Current evidence suggests that trafficked women in Australia face considerable barriers in being able to avail themselves of such a right and of the services that accompany it. This paper explores the tensions posed by Australian policy and service approaches to trafficked women in light of the concept of social citizenship and the ways in which it is mediated in the Australian context by national border protection policy.

The Australian welfare state : who benefits now?

This text outlines the links between Australian's conceptions about welfare and the redistributive outcomes of the welfare state, canvassing theoretical explanations about why many Australians develop and maintain misconceptions of the broad disyributive mechanisms of the Ayustralian welfare state and hold negative attitudes towards its social welfare element. The book is an indispensable resource for students undertaking studies in sociology, social policy, public administrion and social work.

Editorial : Action research, action learning and community services

This edition of ALARj has a focus on the contribution of action learning and action research to the development of community services, particularly nonprofits. The landscape of community services has been changing rapidly in recent decades, and can be typified by the notion of complexity. Complexity in the nature of issues that services seek to respond to, complexity in the policy environment and systems of support that have tended to silo and compartmentalise problems and people, and complexity in the institutional location non-profit services occupy in ‘helping’ those who are seen as ‘in need’ or marginalised. In addition to being typified by complexity the environment in which community services are located is dynamic, undergoing profound and ongoing change as neo-liberal approaches to understanding and responding to human need, which emphasise the individualisation of risk, and market principles such as choice, competition and innovation, drive social policy. How can long held values of empowerment, care, inclusivity and benefit to individuals and communities have expression in community services as they grapple with the challenges of being viable and relevant in such a dynamically changing environment? This edition brings together a range of contributions which speak to these challenges. The thematic through these is that processes are needed which engage services and communities in ongoing processes of inquiry about how they can best proceed in contexts typified by complexity and change. Action learning and action research can provide processes of this character.

Poverty by acronym in Australia : welcome to CIM, VIM, PBIM, CPIM and SEAM

This paper discusses Compulsory Income Management (CIM) in Australia and the implications of technology backed forms of surveillance and increasingly conditional benefit payments. The CIM project raises important questions about requiring people to take greater responsibility for their personal behaviour when they no longer have control over key financial aspects of their lives. Some Indigenous communities have resisted the BasicsCard, because CIM was imposed with little prior consultation or subsequent independent evaluation. The compulsory income management of individuals by a paternalist welfare state contradicts and undermines the purported policy aims that they become less welfare dependent and more positively engaged with the world of paid employment and does little to address the growing condition of poverty in Australia.