TOWARDS A HUMAN SERVICES STATE: WHAT IS THE FUTURE FOR AUSTRALIAN SOCIAL POLICY?
Australian social policy stands at a crossroads.
A series of Royal Commissions and other reports have revealed deep gaps between societal expectations and social policy performance. These gaps are not limited to one or two areas, but extend widely.
Looking across the individual reports gives the impression that our social policy system is barely keeping its head above water. The problems are not simply about delivery. They go also to the design of policy.
A further commission, that on Robodebt, is unlikely to change things. Instead, it seems likely to find incompetence (possibly worse) at the heart of the welfare system.
Perspective is needed, of course. Australian citizens receive a level of social support that few in the world enjoy. For most, this support plays an unambiguously positive role in promoting individual and societal wellbeing.
It also arguable that social policy failings flow more from ambition than neglect. System and individual neglect clearly exists and is a problem. But it would be unfair, for example, to suggest that problems with the heroically-designed National Disability Insurance Scheme flow primarily from neglect.
Social policy has evolved greatly from its ancient, often religiously inspired, base. A broad brush reveals three modern waves. First, was the private charity model emerging from European Enlightenment. Second, was the welfare state introduced to the Anglosphere by the UK’s Beveridge report. Third is the wave we are in today, which might be best described as the ‘human services state’.
Three broad inter-related features characterise the emerging human services state. In combination, they define a social policy system very different to the welfare state it is overtaking.
Feature 1: The emergence of the care economy
Perhaps the most significant feature of social policy today lies in the role government plays in provision of care previously provided inside the family home.
In a very real sense, this change has seen the creation of a care economy. Government action has resulted in activities with great social, but no measured economic, value being brought into the formal economy. This has seen government shift from a provider of limited services for the vulnerable, to chief steward, funder and rule maker for care services to millions of Australians.
Powerful cultural and economic drivers are behind this shift. One important driver has been the pursuit of equality in employment participation and opportunity for women. Another has been the desire to bring greater expertise and resources to care than generally available within the home. A third has been the measurement and efficiency benefits from the bringing care out of the home and into the formal economy.
Government-supported (aged, child, disability etc) care systems now dominate overall social policy effort, if health and mental health care are included. Notably, however, this structural shift in government activity has not come with a shift in revenue raising effort or a deeper reflection on who should pay (and be responsible) for what. Nor has it come with a conscious investment in government’s ability to play its new role well. Instead, agencies have largely been left to ‘learn on the job’.
Feature 2: Precision and the promise of individualisation
A second feature of human services state involves individualisation in the design and delivery of services.
Social policy today involves a growing expectation that support will be tailored to the needs for each individual. For care services, this expectation is coupled with a goal of placing choice and control in the hands of the ‘consumer’. The mantra, reflected in developments like MyGov, is of placing ‘citizens at the centre’.
This philosophy has been developing since the 1980s and contrasts greatly with the undifferentiated services of the original welfare state. Beveridge himself, for example, had a preference for a near universal welfare system with few categories and light means testing. It is a design that bears little resemblance to Australian social policy today.
The implications of the shift to precision are profound. For one thing, it is changing the bargain between citizen and state. No longer is the state able to easily say, ‘here is some support, the rest is up to you’. With individualisation, has come state responsibility to ensure that it delivers.
Precision is also changing the way performance is assessed. In the past, social policy performance was largely assessed at a whole of society level. The potential for poor outcomes for individuals (and groups) was understood and accepted. Provided people were better off in aggregate, policy was a success.
Today, performance assessment occurs much more through the lens of the individual. The question now is did each and every individual get a good outcome. Tolerance for poor outcomes for any individual is (perhaps rightly) much lower than in the past.
Achieving precision in practice requires highly sophisticated assessment and delivery systems, backed by deep (and often diverse) supply. High levels of confidence are needed in the accuracy and quality of decision making, and in the quality and availability of services. None of this is easy to muster.
Feature 3: Competition and the role of the market
A third feature of the human services states is the increased, dominating in some areas, role played by competition and markets.
Markets and competition, despite their prevalence, remain controversial in social policy circles. Mention ‘markets’ and audiences immediately divide. Many see markets as preventing good social services, while others (those promoting social investment for example) see an even greater role. Views are held strongly, and tend to be ideologically based.
It is unlikely that the rapid expansion we have seen in government-funded human services could have been achieved without the use of market-based models. By bringing together diverse sources of supply, these approaches have allowed for more flexible and faster responses than government (or any individual organisation) could achieve on its own. This doesn’t mean the outcomes have always been good, of course.
The market and competition models used in social policy vary. Delivery of employment services operates very differently to aged care, for example. But within this variance lies a reasonably consistent common objective - utilising the benefits of diversity and competition to enhance service availability and quality (and, in some cases, choice), while minimising cost.
Achieving these objectives in the social policy context has been much harder than many expected. Despite this, a wholesale replacement of the market/competition approach is unlikely. The counterfactual, of direct government service provision or the creation of a private service monopoly, does not offer an obvious prospect of better outcomes. The bottom line, however, is that improved performance from the market/competition model will be needed for the human services state to realise its potential.
The future
Australia’s evolution from welfare state to human service state is paved with good intentions. But it is also a high-wire act, involving substantial shifts in underpinning policy philosophy and practice. Success requires unprecedented levels of sophistication and precision in the design and delivery of policy.
The evidence on government’s success in navigating the high-wire is, at best, mixed. Responding to flaws revealed by expensive and narrowly-focussed Royal Commissions feels a case of ‘bopping crocodiles’ rather than a genuine investment in a better system. The risk for society is that the gap between expectations and delivery continues to widen, and the deeper societal questions posed by the emergent human services state go unanswered.
Unlike the creation of the welfare state, the creation of the human service state has not been guided by a systemic plan. In particular, it has not been supported by the conscious development of sustainable funding arrangements or government stewardship capability. Too much has either been assumed, or left to chance.
Our good-intentioned path needs more than the occasional Royal Commission to keep us on track. In 1942, William Beveridge created a comprehensive vision for a welfare state in the UK. In 2022, it is perhaps time for the Australian government to take a similar leap and commission a comprehensive vision and plan for translating the promise of the human services state into reality.
Sean Innis is Principal of Damala St Consulting. He is an Honorary Fellow of the Australian Studies Institute at ANU and Chair of Public Policy at ADC Forum.