Australian Politics and Policy - Senior, 2019a

Australian Politics and Policy
At the same time as remote-employment policies are becoming more coercive,
employment rates in remote Australia have remained largely stagnant and the
gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous employment in remote areas has
widened. 68 Despite claims about the importance of evidence-based or informed
policy, there is little to no robust evidence available on the public record which
demonstrates that the CDP, or similar previous programs, have worked to improve
employment outcomes for remote participants, especially those experiencing
complex employment barriers. 69 This suggests that factors other than evidence are
driving the design of social policies in this area, and indicates a need to reconsider
the framing of the remote-employment policy ‘issue’.
Social policy as a behavioural tool
Social policy can be used to enable and empower, but also to govern, coerce and
control. Social policies inevitably embed normative assumptions about suitable or
desirable ways of living and behaving, which can serve to restrain each individual’s
power over their own lives and identities. They can also explicitly contain
behavioural objectives, seeking to influence the ways that social policy ‘subjects’
view and interact with the world, including through behavioural economics and
‘nudge’ interventions. 70 For instance, social policies often seek to influence how
individuals address their health, spend their time, grow their wealth, and more. 71
Thaler and Sunstein discuss ‘nudge’ interventions as being grounded in a
libertarian-paternalist framework, which recognises the critical importance of
personal liberty, but which also acknowledges the potential benefits of ‘soft’
paternalism in influencing behaviour without restraining individual choice. ‘Choice
architects’ – those responsible for devising nudge interventions – seek to subtly
manipulate the context within which choices are made so as to encourage, but not
to require, certain choices over others. Thaler and Sunstein provide the example
of placing fruit at eye-level in school cafeterias to encourage students to choose
healthy food options. While this policy does not restrain their ability to choose
other options, it nevertheless subtly influences the likelihood that their choices will
be healthier than if the fruit was placed elsewhere.
At the other end of the scale are policies driven by hard paternalism. These
policies tend to limit individual freedom and choice, instead coercing individuals to
conform to particular standards of behaviour or ways of being. Extending Thaler and
Sunstein’s example, a hard paternalist approach to improving school students’ diets
might involve regulating the food options available in school cafeterias to exclude
unhealthy foods, thereby restricting choice and removing individual discretion.
68 DPM&C 2018d; Venn and Biddle 2018.
69 Staines 2018.
70 Thaler and Sunstein 2009.
71 Deeming 2016.
700