Macklin's welfare change lacks enough flexibility

Comments on Paul Kelly “Macklin's welfare fight is only the beginning”, 17/03/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/macklins-welfare-fight-is-only-the-beginning/story-e6frg6zo-1225841562048

While Paul Kelly seems a strong supporter for this policy change, he nevertheless has taken the easy road of siding with any change by the government when facing a difficult issue.

Yes, there is a need for change, but it does not mean any change will be better or equally good.

Unfortunately in this regard, Paul does not analyse the issue critically enough.

A more sensible approach is giving the government the mandate to use that on any welfare it sees fit, but without any predetermined and possibly a compulsory percentage without taking account the real situations or with little regard to the real need in different situations in the complex world.

The main shortcoming of government income management in the name of changing behaviour is that it can be very disempowering for those under management. For some it may produce the opposite effect to the legislation’s intention, that is, rather than change their behaviour to the better it may actually worsen theirs.

So there is a clear need to restrict its use to absolute minimum and target well.