Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
understanding of a differentiated citizenry in
which different sub-populations experience dif-
ferent sorts of social risks (such as: long-term
unemployment, poor health, and compliance or
security) to which social policy responds and ICTs
help administer (Henman, 2004).
These four ways in which ICTs and social
policy inter-relate will be used to examine ICTs
in the case study of Australia's national income
security organization, Centrelink.
sectors in the delivery of social services, such as
housing, disability support, health and educa-
tion. Increasingly government funding is used
to (partially and wholly) finance human services
provided by non-government agencies. In educa-
tion, one-third ofAustralian school students attend
non-government schools (ABS 2007). In health,
two-thirds of all hospital beds are provided by
government-owned and operated hospitals and
one-third by private hospitals (of which some
are for-profit and some church-owned, not-for
profit) (Duckett, 2007, pp. 136-140). Employment
services are now fully privatized, but remained
largely government-funded, with providers being
relatively evenly split between private, for-profit
organizations and not-for-profit organizations.
Centrelink operates within this environment, with
many of its clients also utilizing welfare services
provided by non-government agencies.
Centrelink was created in 1997 by the Federal
government as a government-owned “one stop
shop” for the delivery of a wide range of Fed-
eral Australian government welfare benefits and
services. It was created by splitting the former
Department of Social Security (DSS) into two
agencies: one focusing on policy; and one on ser-
vice delivery. Operating on a purchaser-provider
model, Centrelink is contracted by nine separate
federal social policy agencies to deliver the ben-
efits and services on their behalf to approximately
6.5 million (or about 30 per cent of) Australians.
The main focus of Centrelink is the payment of
government cash benefits, such as unemploy-
ment benefits, age pensions and family benefits,
rather than the delivery of welfare services. In
international parlance, such benefits constitute
Australia's social security system. However, it
must be noted that Australia is rare among OECD
countries in not having a social insurance system.
Instead,Australia finances its largely means-tested
benefits through general revenue. Another major
role of Centrelink is to assess the employment
service needs of unemployed persons before
referring them to private employment service
practice context
The practice context for this chapter is Australia's
national welfare delivery agency, Centrelink
(www.centrelink.gov.au). Australia is a federated
state consisting of three tiers of government: a
national, federal government; six state and two
territory governments; and approximately 700
local governments. Government responsibility
for human service policy making and delivery is
distributed across the three tiers of government
according to constitutional arrangements. States
have responsibility for the delivery of hospitals
and community health, education, child protec-
tion and police. The federal government has
responsibility for taxation and social security
benefits, and immigration. Disability services,
housing policy and indigenous affairs are shared
by both State and Federal governments under
negotiated agreements. The federal government
has the majority of revenue raising powers and
the states the responsibility for delivering the
majority of services, resulting in what is called a
“vertical fiscal imbalance”. This has meant that
the federal government has increasingly used its
funding powers to influence directions in human
service policy and services, leading to greater
centralization of social policy.
Following most liberal welfare states (Esping-
Andersen, 1990),Australia's human service sector
operates in a “mixed economy of welfare”, involv-
ing government, private for-profit, and voluntary
Search WWH ::
Custom Search