Australian Politics and Policy - Senior, 2019a

Social policy
Over the past decade, there has been an intensified interest in translating
behavioural economics theory into public policy development. 72 Bonoli has
referred to this as the ‘active social policy paradigm’: one in which governments
routinely use social policy instruments to pursue the health and wellbeing of their
populations. 73 In Australia, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet now
has a dedicated behavioural economics team, ‘BETA’, established to enhance the
ability of the Australian public service to, among other things, ‘apply behavioural
insights to public policy and administration’. 74 The team has worked on a range
of policy projects to date, including in relation to tax compliance, influencing
consumers’ energy choices, and ensuring compliance with labour laws. 75 Though
there are arguments for and against the use of behavioural economics, behavioural
objectives are apparent in a range of social policies in Australia. Income management
(discussed in the below case study) provides one example.
Case example: income management in Australia
Compulsory income management involves ‘quarantining’ proportions of an individual’s
welfare income and diverting the quarantined amount to a ‘BasicsCard’, a
type of debit card where funds cannot be converted to cash, nor used to purchase
certain items that are deemed (by the state) to be morally hazardous, including
alcohol, tobacco, pornography and/or gambling services.
Having been first introduced in 2007 under the Northern Territory Emergency
Response, income management now operates in discrete jurisdictions across
Australia, including across the NT, and in parts of Western Australia (WA),
Queensland, New South Wales (NSW), South Australia and Victoria. By March
2018, there were around 25,270 participants across Australia (though this excludes
participants in the areas added since this time). 76
These schemes operate differently, quarantining between 50 and 80 per cent
of an individual’s welfare income, and taking different approaches to the administration
of income management. For example, individuals who live in Bankstown
(NSW) can have 50 per cent of their welfare income managed for at least 12 months
if they are referred by a social or child protection worker, are less than 25 years of
age and considered to be a ‘vulnerable welfare payment recipient’, 77 and/orifthey
volunteer. 78
72 Oliver 2013.
73 Bonoli 2013; Deeming 2016.
74 DPM&C 2018b.
75 DPM&C 2018b. See also DPM&C 2018c for case studies of BETA projects.
76 DSS 2018.
77 That is, if they are in receipt of certain categories of welfare, live within a specified income
management area, experience financial hardship, fail to undertake ‘reasonable self-care’ and more.
78 Australian Government 2018; DHS 2018.
701