Introduction
The liberal democratic state implies that its citizens have access to rights and freedoms, guaranteeing their development and safe living. These benefits should also be available to individuals representing various social groups, including the most vulnerable ones, such as migrants, refugees, minorities, and indigenous people. For this reason, governments functioning under the concept of liberal democracy should focus on using effective social policies and altering them to meet diversified and constantly changing needs. It can guarantee better integration, a nation’s consolidation, and its ability to move forward. Australia is considered a liberal democratic state guaranteeing access to the benefits mentioned above. At the same time, it is a welfare state focusing on providing basic economic security to its citizens. However, it faces numerous challenges because of the necessity to care for vulnerable populations, such as migrants and refugees. Policy debates promote change within the sphere and help to alter it.
Background
Australia’s public policies emerged due to the state’s continuous evolution and the necessity to consider local people’s needs. The country’s political ideology emerged as a response to a certain cultural, historical, and economic context (Stokes et al., 2004). The leaders viewed the necessity to inspire Australians and provide them with certain benefits because of their citizenship (Stokes et al., 2004). As a result, the idea of a third way, or a state supporting its people, emerged. This paradigm impacted the emergence of specific public policies designed to support every citizen and ensure access to health services, work, stable social payments, and education (Stokes et al., 2004). However, the given approach was seriously criticized at the end and beginning of the 20th century because of the growing problem of migrants and refugees (Stokes et al., 2004). As a result, Australia needed to alter its major social policy domains, especially employment and income support.
Vulnerable Social Groups
Australia has a long history of providing shelter to refugees and migrants from various parts of the globe. Thus, over 800,000 displaced persons arrived in the state after 1945 (Australian Red Cross, 2022). In 2020, 57,411 refugees were granted asylum, while in 2021, the state accepted 55,606 refugees from various states (“Australia refugee statistics 1965-2022,” 2022). Speaking about migrants, their number is much higher. The data gathered in 2020 shows that 29,1% of the resident population, or 7,502,000 people, were born overseas (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2021). It means they used to be migrants who arrived in the state hoping for the better. In 2021, the government reported that 103,500 individuals arrived in Australia as refugees (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2021). The numbers prove that the given population group is significant and comprises a big part of the state’s population. However, their integration into society and provision with the benefits of the welfare state becomes a severe challenge to the government.
The problem comes from the specific nature of migrants’ and refugees’ needs. Because, in many cases, the decision to change the place of leaving was spontaneous or caused by external factors, this cohort requires accommodation and maintenance (Au et al., 2019). The state should ensure that arriving people have shelter and products to meet their basic needs. Second, migrants and refugees require access to healthcare because of the stress, possible chronic diseases, and epidemiological conditions in the states where they lived (Au et al., 2019). Finally, they have employment and income support to guarantee their successful integration into the state’s system and survival (Romanis, 2021). Following the government data, 77% of refugees do not have work 12 months after their arrival in Australia (Cain et al., 2021). The rate remains high after three years and comprises 38% (Cain et al., 2021). For migrants, the situation also remains problematic. It means that the group does not have access to income sources and should be supported by the government, which requires additional spending. Under these conditions, the idea of a welfare state becomes a severe challenge.
Major Domains of Social Policy
The current Australian social policy is designed to address the major domains playing an essential role in citizens’ lives. These include income support, employment, housing, health care, indigenous Australians, and family and child welfare (Carson & Kerr, 2017). The increased attention to these aspects can be viewed as the result of the development of the welfare state, which focuses on ameliorating the condition of people living in poverty (Fenna, 2004). For this reason, the social policy rests on welfare programs designed to address issues emerging in one of the domains mentioned above (Saunders, 2002). However, there is a specific criticism of the given system as it simply returns sources back to those who originally provided them (Saunders, 2002). These social transfers require serious state support, meaning that the neoliberal model might not be as effective as planned (Saunders, 2002). Speaking about the migrants and refugees, the problems become more topical.
The income support domain can be viewed as one of the most critical social policy spheres for the discussed cohort. Depending on an individual’s current situation, there are specific payments that are offered by the Australian government (Carson & Kerr, 2017). Moreover, a crisis payment for people arriving in Australia for the first time might help to improve their situation and adapt to the local peculiarities (Carson & Kerr, 2017). However, the effectiveness of this approach is doubted because of the growing challenges. For instance, the proportion of long-term unemployed people continues to grow (Raper, 2000). It is also linked to the growing problem of migrants and refugees and the lack of income sources. For this reason, the given domain requires extra attention and some reconsideration to remain flexible and preserve its ability to respond to new changes, and guarantee that all arriving individuals can have a chance for better living.
The employment domain is another critical aspect of social policy within the concept of the welfare state. Following social security ideas, the Australian government has to monitor the labor market to ensure full employment for all citizens and individuals residing in the country (Smyth, 2006). It can guarantee reduced poverty rates and stable economic development (Ziguras, 2006). However, regarding the constantly growing migrant and refugee rates, the problem of providing them with jobs remains topical. Several barriers prevent newcomers from being fully employed and earning for living. These include the lack of jobs for unskilled personnel, the lack of qualifications among this cohort, and the complexity of using knowledge and expertise acquired in other countries in local companies (Carson & Kerr, 2017). As a result, social policies focused on employment are not as effective as planned.
As a result, the factors mentioned above have some adverse effects on the idea of a welfare state. People expecting work, wages, and benefits from the government suffer from failed expectations and an inability to find their place in society (Stilwell, 2000). Moreover, the concept of neoliberalism, implying free markets and the possibility of earning money for everyone, suffers from the growing poverty rates (Stilwell, 2000). As a result, it undermines the ideas neoliberal ideas and introduces new questions to the government and the policy used by it. Australia is still considered one of the countries with the most effective social systems providing access to healthcare, income, and employment (Stilwell, 2000). However, the state experiences a growing number of hardships because of migrants, and the necessity to provide them with access to work and income requires alterations, which is evidenced by the debates in public spheres.
Positive and Negative Aspects
At the same time, it is impossible to say that the current approach is useless and fails to perform the primary functions. Australian social policies were designed to protect all residents and arriving individuals by providing them a chance to integrate into society and improve their well-being (Romanis, 2021). The crisis payments, support during the unemployment phase, and assistance finding jobs can be viewed as the strength of the existing approach (Carson & Kerr, 2017). It helps to control poverty levels and provides some guarantees to the most vulnerable groups. Furthermore, the existing approach helps to understand the social problems and provide an appropriate response to the emerging threats. As a result, citizens and migrants can enjoy some guarantees preventing them from suffering and critical poverty levels.
However, migrants and refugees face numerous barriers limiting their chances for successful integration. One of the major problems is that the idea of a welfare state emerged in the second half of the past century and evolved in terms of the third-way concept (Megalogenis, 2004). It implied benefits for citizens, and in several decades an inevitable backlash was observed (Mendes, 2017). The neoliberalist ideas promoted the government’s development while the social sphere remained unchanged (Fenna, 2004). For this reason, the new challenges emerging in the 21st century contributed to the emergence of some dangerous threats. For instance, the level of job insecurity in Australia remains high (Carson & Kerr, 2017). Migrant workers, mainly from non-English speaking countries, face a higher risk of failing to find a job or winning the rivalry competing with locals or newcomers with native English (Romanis, 2021). It also leads to numerous problems with access to income sources and the impossibility of providing social benefits to these vulnerable groups.
Welfare State Crisis
The problems outlined above can be considered regarding the welfare state crisis. The problem is proven by the statistics, showing that 20% of income earners have 50% of all the income in Australia (Raper, 2000). Moreover, most millionaires avoid paying taxes meaning the unequal patterns emerge (Cobbold, 2022). For this reason, debates about the crisis of affordability emerge. It implies that societies can no longer afford a welfare state (Saunders, 2002). As a result, levels of social vulnerability also grow as some groups, such as migrants or refugees, suffer from non-participation in the labor market (Zepezauer, 2004). For this reason, the necessity of restricting the welfare state becomes a point of discussion. In numerous cases, Australia is viewed as a post-welfare state with an altered approach to distributing social benefits and unequal access to the most demanded resources (Zepezauer, 2004). The groups with the reduced ability to use rights linked to citizenship are more vulnerable than others as they cannot benefit from income and labor support (Zepezauer, 2004). For this reason, a particular problem affecting the whole state emerges.
The work of the current social system is also impacted by civil rights movements and demands to build a more democratic and tolerant state. For instance, feminism can be viewed as one of the facilitators impacting the reconsideration of capital distribution within society. It is argued that more attention should be given to how the welfare system considers the interests of particular groups (Pierson, 1998). Speaking about the current situation, a certain number of women arriving in Australia have specific needs because of their cultural and religious backgrounds (Au et al., 2019). As a result, it is necessary to change the current distributional patterns to ensure their specific demands and considered; otherwise, they will not be integrated into society (Au et al., 2019). For this reason, Australian social policy supports gender equality incentives, which might also apply to newcomers. It supports them during the first stages of their state in the country.
Innovative Approaches
In such a way, the problems outlined above show the need for reconsidering the idea of a welfare state and using innovative approaches. First of all, new approaches to service delivery should be created and implemented into the work of the social domain (Raper, 2000). The reform agenda should be impacted by several factors, such as a desire to reduce public expenditure, build capacity for communities, and provide more effective support for groups requiring specific support because of their vulnerability and social status (Raper, 2000). It would guarantee the more effective use of the available funds and their distribution through practical channels (Raper, 2000). The welfare state should shift from providing all services to individuals to considering opportunities for meeting the specific needs of the most vulnerable populations. It will promote the increased effectiveness of the social system and all its domains.
Future Challenges
In the future, it is possible to predict the emergence of new issues affecting migrants and refugees because of the existing social policy. It is expected that the level of unemployment will remain high. First, the income of new migrants remains high, meaning that they should be provided with jobs and access to income sources. However, the Australian labor market is full, meaning there is a reduced number of opportunities for unskilled individuals to get a job. Furthermore, the barriers to employment for educated specialists will remain significant because of the lack of mechanisms for integration (Romanis, 2021). In such a way, the debates over the welfare state and its ability to meet the needs of all population groups will become more intense.
Conclusion
Altogether, Australia remains one of the states with a developed social system. It emerged in the second half of the 20th century as the result of a new ideology focusing on the necessity to meet citizens’ needs and provide them with benefits necessary for their personal and professional development. However, the growing number of migrants and refugees introduced new challenges for the system and outlined the need for its reconsideration. The current debates show that it is vital to use innovative methods and approaches to provide access to income sources and employment for individuals from vulnerable groups. For this reason, future alteration of the system towards its enhanced flexibility might be required. It will help to protect all citizens and provide them with fundamental freedoms and benefits.
References
Au, M., Anandakumar, A.D., Preston, R., Ray, R., & Davis, M. (2019). A model explaining refugee experiences of the Australian healthcare system: A systematic review of refugee perceptions. BMC Int Health Hum Rights 19. Web.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2021). Migration, Australia. Web.
Australian Red Cross. (2022). Refugee and asylum seeker facts. Web.
Australia refugee statistics 1965-2022. (2022). Macrotrends. Web.
Cain, P., Daly, A., & Reid, A. (2021). How refugees experience the Australian workplace: A comparative mixed methods study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(8), 4023. Web.
Carson, E., & Kerr, L. (2017). Australian social policy and the human services. Cambridge University Press.
Cobbold, T. (2022). Millionaires who pay no tax rob the poor. SOS Australia. Web.
Fenna, A. (2004). Australian public policy (2nd ed.). Pearson Education Australia.
Megalogenis, G. (2004). Indigenous development. In P. Dawkins & M. Steketee (Eds.), Reforming Australia: new policies for a new generation (pp.60-73). Melbourne University Press.
Mendes, P. (2017). Australia’s welfare wars: The Players, the politics and the ideologies (3rd ed.). NewSouth.
Pierson, C. (1998). Beyond the welfare state?: The new political economy of welfare (2nd ed.). Polity Press.
Raper, M. (2000). Examining the future of the welfare state and the need for innovative approaches to service delivery. Canberra.
Refugee Council of Australia. (2021). Recent changes in Australian refugee policy. Web.
Saunders, P. (2002). The ends and means of welfare: Coping with economic and social change in Australia. Cambridge University Press.
Romanis, J. (2021). Barriers to employment for migrant engineers: Research report. Engineers Australia. Web.
Smyth, P. (2006). The historical, international, and changing context for action: Changes and challenges. In A. McClelland & P. Smyth (Eds.), Social policy in Australia: Understanding for action (pp. 133-141). Oxford University Press.
Stilwell, F. (2000). Work, wages, welfare. In A. McMahon, J. Thomson & C. Williams (Eds.). Understanding the Australia welfare state: Key documents and themes (2nd ed.) (pp. 23-47). Tertiary Press.
Stokes, G., Boreham, P., & Hall, R. (2004). Political ideas, institutions and policies: A critical overview. In P. Boreham, G. Stokes & R. Hall (Eds.), The politics of Australian society: political issues for the new century (2nd ed.) (pp. 1-15). Pearson Education Australia.
Zepezauer, M. (2004). Take the rich off welfare. South End Press.
Ziguras, S. (2006). Australian social security policy: doing more with less? In. A. McClelland & P. Smyth (Eds.), Social policy in Australia: Understanding for action (pp. 161-177). Oxford University Press.