Brotherhood Comment April 2004

Brotherhood Of St Laurence

Description

ISSN 1320 8632A REGULAR UPDATE FROM SOCIAL ACTION AND RESEARCHApril 2004Making this a social policy electionWe devote this issue of Brotherhood Second, a new social would potential both individually and Comment to the 2004 federal end the politics of denial currently socially. We also seek to highlight election because we believe it will surrounding poverty in Australia the lived experience of exclusion be of vital import for social policy and commit to creating an inclusive which we encounter daily at the in this country. A two-decade Australia free of poverty. Economic Brotherhood, in an effort to end the subordination of social policy globalisation may have brought public silence which has descended In February, to ‘the economy’ appears to be wealth to the fortunate ‘global upon the private pain of their a Roy Morgan ending. As yet the ‘social futures’ classes’, but for others it has been fellow Australians. research poll our political parties have in mind more like dispossession. Rather for the National remain unclear. The Brotherhood than drifting towards a privatised The third element of our proposed Welfare Rights Network found believes a new social policy ‘little America’ with luxury services social policy architecture would that 88 per cent architecture is urgently required for the rich in gated communities be new technologies of democratic of respondents to match an already restructured and punitive, residualised welfare governance. Among the ...

Informations

• Publié par: Mechag
• Nombre de lectures: 182
• Langue: English

Extrait

A R E GULAR UPDATE FROM SOCIAL ACTION AND RESEARCH

ISSN 1320 8632 April 2004

Making this a social policy election We devote this issue of Brotherhood Second, a new social policy would potential both individually and Comment to the 2004 federal end the politics of denial currently socially. We also seek to highlight election because we believe it will surrounding poverty in Australia the lived experience of exclusion be of vital import for social policy and commit to creating an inclusive which we encounter daily at the in this country. A two-decade Australia free of poverty. Economic Brotherhood, in an effort to end the subordination of social policy globalisation may have brought public silence which has descended to ‘the economy’ appears to be wealth to the fortunate ‘global upon the private pain of their In February, ending. As yet the ‘social futures’ classes’, but for others it has been fellow Australians. a Roy Morgan our political parties have in mind more like dispossession. Rather f r o e r s   e t a h r e c   h N  p at o i l o l  nal  remain unclear. The Brotherhood than drifting towards a privatised The third element of our proposed Welfare Rights believes a new social policy ‘little America’ with luxury services social policy architecture would Network found architecture is urgently required for the rich in gated communities be new technologies of democratic t of h   a r t e   s 8 p 8 o  p n e d r  n c t e s n   t  to match an already restructured and punitive, residualised welfare governance. Among the important preferred t e he  economy. But what should it for the poor in ghettoes, we need development in welfare politics government to   look like? to recommit to the Australian of the last five years has been fix problems dream of an egalitarian social the growth of the ‘ethical related to health, This issue departs from our usual infrastructure guaranteeing fair and business’ movement and the a e g d e u d c   a c t a i r o e n   , a   nd  report on research projects. reasonable opportunities for all. takeoff of ‘community’ as a key homelessness, Instead we have sought comment In particular we argue that this organising policy concept. Their rather than to on the election from a range of infrastructure must address the significance as an antidote to give tax cuts of Brotherhood people, including life cycle of risk and opportunity that ‘democratic deficit’ which ( $ R 5  o p y  er M   o w r e g e a k n     Board members and people which is very different from that has been so disempowering for Research 2004).   working in services as well as upon which our old welfare state people concerned with action on our research staff. was based. social issues is not to be ignored. This issue raises specific concerns The first requirement of the new We advocate ‘social exclusion’ relating to socially ethical business social policy, we believe, should as an alternative framework for practice and to government–NGO be a reinstatement of social the analysis of disadvantage. It relations in the provision of welfare. investment in sustainable economies acknowledges the importance of as a function of good governance. people’s right to income support continued page 2 Australian public policy has become as citizens of this country, but so blinded by the ideology that argues that people also have a the market always knows best right to those services which create that governments now enjoying the capacity to fully realise their surpluses would rather give them away in cappuccino-type tax cuts than spend even on urgent social and environmental need. This is not just bad social policy, it is bad economics. We need a more prudent fiscal policy allowing for systematic investment in the social and environmental infrastructure as a basis of sustainable economic development. Further in this issue we illustrate some of the implications of the social investment approach for health, housing, education and employment.

www.bsl.org.au 

Contents Interrogating social investment 3–4 The case to invest in health care 5 The social investment state and the labour market 6–7 The importance of education 8 Hard-headed public policy with a big heart: Benefits of affordable housing 9 Through a new lens: Advantages of a social exclusion approach 10–11 Creating more democratic processes:The importance of social governance in Australia today 12–13 Who benefits? Who pays? Precarious employment in global economies 14 New information resources 15   1

April 2004  

from page 1 Recent •        S of u   b R m e i p s r s e i s o e n n   t t a o t   i t v h e e s     H St o a u n s d e i   n   g     In particular we deplore the submissions  Committee on Employment and ork lace Relations r fi e n d g u e c r t s i   o of n     t o h f e     w st e a lf te a ’ r   e a   n N d  G c O al s l     t f o o   r ‘   l a it   tle  The Brotherhood puts forward its               In W quir p y into Employment:   views when it believes that it can  Increas n in d genuine partnership model.  make a considered contribution to   work, in u g p u a s r t  ti 2 c 0 ip 0 a 3 tio pai     I b n e   li s e u v m e t m h a a r t y   , t   h w is e    at the w   e B l r l  o b t e h   e a r   hood  a better understanding of the needs  •  Submi   ss A io g n to thrd   may of low-income Australians based on  e Boa ‘social policy election’ of historic  its research or policy analysis or its          t o h f Ta C x h a a t r i i o ti n e   s r   e B g il a l r   d 2 i 0 n 0 g 3    ,       experience in providing services.  e  t s t i o g   n m ifi ak c e a   n t c h e i . s    e W le e c   t c i a o ll n     o t n h   e a   l o l  c p c a a r si ti o e n s     Submissions or statements made  Sepember 2003 o ec f  o a n   o de m fi is ni m ti   v w e  h b ic re h  a c k h   a w r i a t c h t  t er h i a s t e   d  in the last year include: •  Sub d m u i c s t s i i v o i n t   y t   o C  t o h m e     Pro mission • Submission to the Senate d A e u c s a t d ra e l s i .  an W   e p   o b l e it l i i c e s v   e o  t v h er a   t t   h cr e e  l a a t s i t n   g t   wo     Community Affairs             I H nq o u m ir e  y  O in w t n o  e F r i s r h s i t p   ,       References Committee  November 2003 an inclusive Australia through ‘social invest   m m e u n c t h ’   a w s i   l s l  o m c ak l  e good     Inquiry into Poverty and   •  Sbssion to the     Financial Hardship,  u mi economic as ia sense.  March 2003  Victorian Treasurer  • Submission to the  regarding 2004–2005 P G a e u n l  e S ra m l yt M h ager Social Action   state budget priorities,  an  Review of Pricing  December 2003 and Research  Arrangements in ( p 0 s 3 m )  y 9 t 4 h 8 @ 3 b   s 1 l. 3 o 7 r 2 g.au    Residential Aged Care,      •       P R r e o s d p u o c n t se to the     Commonwealth  ivity Commission Reference    Department of Health                F D i i r s s c t  u H ss o io me O a w f n t, e   rship     and Ageing, March 2003  n Dr R o o ll y     fo M r  o t r h g e a   n N   a R t e i s o e n a a r l c   h W  2 el 0 f 0 ar 4 e     (u Ri n g p h u t b s l   is N h e e t d w ), o   rk   February 2004 P • Submission to the 25–26 February 2004.  Working Age Task Force  • Submission to the    in response to the           r S e t   eeri a n f g Committee   discussion paper  Dr t OECD  ‘Building a simpler  Principles of  system to help jobless  Corporate Governance,  families and individuals ,  February 2004. ’  (with the Welfare Rights  Unit (Vic)), June 2003 • Submission to the     Commonwealth Task  Force on Child  Development, Health  and Wellbeing, June 2003 • Submission to the  Productivity Commission  re post-2005 tariff and  industry assistance, March 2003

00 2ilpr ro   B by4 silbuP  u A ni deh nce 6 aure unsw7 Br ohdohtretSL o  f  Vy,toica,ri06 3  kciertS iF te orzt 4 603 467 024 Tel  5uAtsaril A a NB2  :elimiscaF 3811 348 93)(0: nehoep acitbuil:lp m-ia 691 E 17 2) 94 (03 oC dnemmehtooohr g.or Br [e-mail] sea y aerheet milished tt is pub 2    A     4     ilpr00 2o.lsa.grw   b.ww nder y,  u vertf poseo acsuht eeh srceaes rsoalt  I.dega eht dna deunemploy es,  the   rafimiltiei sof andivcticrv aeso eges fediwnar  cni wol .semo por   f al one pleo f roa b teet redbbies governmentcudeoitana nol dketacos unmmy it w ecneruaL tS foel whe tor fksor ec .rune taLfoS  ood herhBrotThe  nois fo  hcriviDrhhed ooe thotBr S coai l rybt eh nd Resea Action  a  dIt . es isths oevorp yb  a gnidi ial  socpersand c rinolaatcnucsmmecotos mp iveroeht e rionoc,cim l-being of Austrlaaisn o    nol wni

Interrogating ‘social investment’

Evan Thornley, co-owner of Pluto Press Australia and Brotherhood of St Laurence Board Member, offers a personal reflection on the use and misuse of the catchphrase ‘social investment’. In Death Sentence: the decay of public language , Don Watson humorously bemoans the universal use of management jargon and its grey camouflage of reality. So I want to probe, dissect, question and dismember ‘social investment’ to see if ‘there’s a there there’ . It’s part of a wider enquiry— can the ‘toolkit’ of business be separated from the worst excesses of some of its proponents? This is a different question from much of the Third Way theory, which tends to focus on blending the objectives of social democracy with those of neo-conservatism. Personally, I’m just fine with the objectives of social democracy and don’t think they need blending! But that doesn’t mean we can’t learn from the ‘toolkit’ that drives modern capitalism. There is nothing inherently good or bad about markets, investment, measurement or a range of other basic business disciplines. These essentially neutral tools can be harnessed by those who believe in justice, equity and opportunity just as they can and have been harnessed by those who believe in greed and social Darwinism. These tools, in the right hands, are enormously powerful. Investment and social policy Let’s take the concept of investment—the engine of prosperity in capitalism—and look at how we can use that in social policy. But let’s also be wary of sloppy, half-baked use of the language. At its best, ‘social investment’ is a powerful idea justifying changes in national priority. At its worst,

www.bsl.org.au

it’s empty jargon dressing flabby, self-interested mutton up as economically rational lamb. How do we tell the difference and therefore deliver a truly better deal for the disadvantaged and the nation? Let’s start with Capitalism 101 – Terminology: Consumption disappears. Investment stays and grows. Good investments anyway. Bad investments don’t grow, or even decline. Money in, more money out—that’s a financial investment. Money in, good things (houses, cars, telephone networks, etc.) and more money out—productive investment. Money in, skills and ideas and more money out—intellectual capital investment. Money in, preconditions for good things (roads, rail, ports, etc.) and more money out—infrastructure investment. Money in, more money out, more money back in, even more money out—reinvestment. This is ‘the magic of compounding’ as Warren Buffet (the world’s most successful financial investor) calls it. So what is ‘social investment’? Money in, good social outcomes (better health, education, less poverty, etc.) and more money out. More than social spending Social investment is not just social spending—not if that spending is just consumed with no other return. Money in, good feelings out is not an investment! Why should we care? Because of compounding. If we can make successful social investments and get good social outcomes and more money out, we can reinvest

it and get even more good social outcomes. And so on. It’s so good, you’d want to bottle it! But this is hard to do. This is the Holy Grail of social policy, an idea so powerful, its name is frequently taken in vain and used all over the social spending landscape. Typically, whole classes of spending are ruled in or out in this simplistic approach. Assessing sound investments Is education a sound social investment? What about healthcare, environment? Sometimes. It depends: does the money in and m genera   te g t o ?  od thingsore  At its best, money ou ‘social e s di investment’ en I i s n   v w e e s l t f m ar ent? p  Som n et g i   m a  e s s o .  c I i   a g l r   ew is a powerful   up in a sole parent family with idea justifying changes in f w o e u   r h   a k d i   d n s  o o  c n  h w an el c f e a .  re W .  it W h i   t it h ,  o a ut n  i d t   , a     national priority. k At its worst, it’s t l h ot e    t o a f  x g p o a o y d e   r l   u u c lt k i   m an at d e   l h y a   r m d  a w de or a  ,  empty jargon   very strong return. There are dressing flabby,   l self-interested many ike us. mutton up as But there are also many, less lucky, economically who’ve inherit d a lifetime of rational lamb. e welfare dependence. Not much investment there. Necessary consumption spending perhaps, but less exciting than a social investment outcome. How can we get more of the former and less of the latter ? Rather than generalise for whole classes of spending like these, what we need to do is assess specific policies, projects and programs and see where we are and aren’t making a successful social investment. Learn and extend from where we are, reduce where we aren’t.  

April 2004   3

Sometimes the results are But not everything that looks like So let’s use the toolkit of capitalism staggering—and wonderful. For a worthwhile investment turns out to advance progressive social policy. every road death there are about ten to be a good one. A dollar invested But getting over a knee-jerk reaction serious injuries. These injuries have in a clean gas-fired power station to such things does not mean an a typical lifetime cost of over $1 may generate cheap, clean energy uncritical embrace or an unthinking million—$250,000 in the first year. for years and more dollars back. splattering of the language to And that’s not counting the human A dollar invested in a new solar dress up existing ideas. It’s about misery. So reducing Australia’s technology may generate better, understanding the true power of road toll from 3200 to 1700 per cheaper, cleaner energy and the tool in question—in this case annum also prevents about 15,000 even more dollars back. Or, if the concept of investment—and serious injuries. That’s a saving of it doesn’t work, it may deliver applying it to the objectives that $3.75 billion in the first year and nothing. A dollar ‘invested’ in a we care about. a lifetime saving of $15 billion! Californian coast oil refinery 20 The cost of the extra police, court years ago now delivers negative So, next time a project is sold as and TV advertising time to do five dollars of environmental a ‘social investment’, let’s think that is less than $400 million per liability back! A dollar ‘invested’ about whether it really is, how you year. So we create a huge amount in Chernobyl … well you see will know and how you can prove of good things (people saved what bad investments do. it. As Don Watson would not put from horrendous injury) and we it, ‘this will materially positively effectively generate a ten-fold return Lessons for social policy impact outcomes going forwards’! in the first year and forty-fold What’s this got to do with social return on our money over a lifetime. spending? A dollar spent on some Evan Thornley So we have $3 billion to reinvest social priority could generate in other things next year alone. anything from lots of good and Now that is a social investment! lots of money back to lots of bad Thankfully there are many and calls for even more money to examples like it. follow. To use the current language, the ‘tipping points’ and ‘multipliers’ Return on investment mean a wide range of results from The difference between social seemingly similar spending: some investments and other social good investments, some bad, spending, then, is that with a some awful and some not really social investment you get the money investments at all, just once-off back, and more, to reinvest or fund consumption. It makes the greater consumption, so long as apparently mundane budget battles you’re patient and so long as the of ‘a dollar here or a dollar there’ investment is a good one. You might seem positively dangerous. forego some consumption today to pay for the investment, but you get more back tomorrow to consume or reinvest.

  4    pAir l0240          www.bsl.org.au