Australian Politics and Policy - Senior, 2019a

Australian Politics and Policy
circumstances as well as policy changes relating to eligibility requirements’. 29 They
are also partially due to the addition of the National Disability Insurance Scheme
(NDIS), which is expected to increase expenditure on disability services from $4.7
billion in 2015–16 to around $24 billion in 2019–20.
Notwithstanding these overall increases, Australia’s social welfare expenditure
as a percentage of GDP continues to be comparatively lower than most other
countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD). 30 Welfare in Australia, in the form of income support payments, is also
highly targeted. In 2017, about 80 per cent of Australia’s spending on cash welfare
benefits was means tested, making Australia the highest means-testing country in
the OECD. 31
Againstthisbackdrop,thegapbetweenrichandpoorinAustraliaisgrowing.
The wealthiest 20 per cent of households accounted for 59 per cent of total
household wealth in 2004–5 and 63 per cent of total household wealth in
2015–16. 32 In contrast, the poorest 20 per cent of Australian households only
accounted for around 1 per cent of total household wealth in 2004–5 and also in
2015–16. (The gap did, however, remain largely stable from 2013–14 to 2015–16.)
Wealth also tends to be distributed unequally across geographical regions and for
different groups. For instance, median disposable household income for Indigenous
households in urban areas between 2011–16 increased by $57 per week, but fell
by $12 per week in very remote areas where incomes were already far lower. 33 In
general, Indigenous Australians are more likely to experience absolute as opposed
to relative poverty. 34 Addressing these disparities requires political and policy
change. Ongoing policy debates about the means and ends of welfare are
underpinned by competing moral arguments, as the following section illustrates.
How is social policy made, and by whom?
Thequestionofwhoisinvolvedinmakingsocialpolicyisimportant,because
different policy actors will have different worldviews, moral beliefs, experiences
and agendas. This is particularly apparent when thinking about the different goals
and objectives of state actors (i.e. bureaucrats and elected politicians) and non-state
actors (e.g. individuals, collectives, not-for-profit and private-sector organisations).
State actors shape social policy through their direct role in the policy-making
process. Policy advisers in the public service or in ministerial offices have the role
of exploring social policy ‘problems’ or ‘issues’ as they arise, gathering research
29 Klapdor and Arthur 2015.
30 OECD 2016.
31 AIHW 2017.
32 ABS 2017; ABS 2005.
33 Markham and Biddle 2018.
34 Marston, McDonald and Bryson 2014.
692