Beware a return to Dickensian era
SO JOE Hockey has come out of the closet with proposals for a cultural revolution ("Hockey blasts attitude of 'entitlement'," The Age, 19/4). He wants an Asian system of "filial piety" to replace Western-style "education, health, income support, retirement benefits, unemployment benefits". Isn't this front-page news? The man who will be treasurer, if present trends continue, wants to dismantle the social achievements of a century. How far back do we want to go? Workhouses? Child labour in mines?
With the onset of unregulated industrialisation in the 19th century, Britons and Europeans watched their societies disintegrate, and authors such as Charles Dickens highlighted the injustices of untrammelled capitalism. Social movements, church groups, and trade unions began campaigns for social welfare, which bore fruit in the 20th century. More money is made than ever before, but the increase is going to the 1 per cent and now their public representatives, such as Mr Hockey, are telling us we have to depend on our children to keep us in old age. "Filial piety" was big in the West, but that was in the Victorian era. It didn't work then. It won't work now.
Charles Sowerwine, Fitzroy
Blame the needy, hey?
THANKS, Joe, now we know where the Liberals stand. The West's economic woes are all the fault of the needy, the poor, the unemployed, the disabled, the elderly, the sick and families with children. Funny, I thought the GFC and its ongoing repercussions on Western economies resulted from the rich the bankers, the financial services industries, the hedge-fund cowboys, the purveyors of usury, their greed, their tax avoidance and their shameful manipulation of people who couldn't afford to pay for mortgages being lent money they could never pay back. And by all means, let's be like Asian economies with workers on pitiful wages, few rights, appalling working conditions and virtually no welfare support.
Oh, and make sure they pay most of the tax. Perhaps while you're at it you can give the top 1 per cent tax cuts, more private health insurance rebates, more ways to hide their money outside the tax system through family trusts and offshore accounts, all the while bemoaning lending costs, needing to "restructure" workforces, all the while being bailed out by dipping their snouts into the public purse. Thanks, Joe.
Nicholas Goodwin, Wheelers Hill
Just like the neighbours
SO, Joe Hockey wants Australia to have a welfare system closer to that of our Asian neighbours. Let's look at Indonesia. (a) Age pensions go only to retired military personnel and civil servants. The amount is less than subsistence-level. Everyone else is supported by their extended family. (b) A health insurance scheme is available only to government employees and the military. (c) There is no widows pension and no supporting parents benefit. (d) There are no unemployment benefits. (e) The extremely poor, with the endorsement of their village head, might qualify for a health card. (f) There is a "rice for the poor" program, but this is limited to the destitute. (g) There are no benefits for the disabled or their carers. Australians will no doubt be pleased that the shadow treasurer wants to bring us into line with others in our region.
Glen Chandler, Ringwood, and Helen Lok, Bandung, Indonesia
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
What did Joe Hockey mean by promoting 'filial piety' instead of a Western-style welfare system?
The article reports that Joe Hockey has floated the idea of replacing parts of Australia’s Western-style welfare — such as public education, health, income support, retirement benefits and unemployment benefits — with a system based on 'filial piety', where families rather than the state carry much of the responsibility for caring for the elderly and needy.
How could a shift toward an 'Asian-style' welfare model affect retirement and pensions?
According to the article’s examples, an Asian-style model can mean limited or no universal age pensions: in Indonesia, age pensions go mainly to retired military personnel and civil servants and are said to be below subsistence level, while most people rely on extended family support. The article raises concerns that adopting that approach could leave many retirees more dependent on family rather than public retirement benefits.
What examples from Indonesia does the article use to illustrate a low-welfare system?
The article lists several Indonesia examples: age pensions largely limited to retired military and civil servants (and low in value); health insurance available mainly to government employees and military; no widows’ pension; no unemployment benefits; a limited health card for the extremely poor and a small 'rice for the poor' program; and no benefits for disabled people or their carers.
Why does the article warn about a 'return to a Dickensian era' when discussing cuts to welfare?
The article draws a parallel to 19th-century unregulated industrialisation and the social breakdown Charles Dickens wrote about, arguing that dismantling a century of social achievement (education, health and welfare protections) risks recreating conditions of poverty, child labour and workhouses that welfare systems were designed to prevent.
How does the article connect the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) to arguments about the 'needy' and welfare cuts?
The article criticises the idea of blaming the needy for the West’s economic problems, noting that the GFC and its aftermath were caused by actions of the wealthy and financial sector — bankers, financial services, hedge funds, risky lending and tax avoidance — rather than by people receiving welfare.
What concerns does the article raise about inequality and tax policy in the context of welfare reform?
The article expresses worry that while ordinary people might be asked to shoulder more of the burden, the top 1% could receive more tax cuts, larger private health insurance rebates and continued opportunities to shelter wealth in family trusts or offshore accounts — increasing inequality while reducing public support for others.
What labour and workplace outcomes does the article say could result from copying low-welfare models?
The article warns that adopting low-welfare models could coincide with workers being paid pitiful wages, having few rights, facing poor working conditions and being expected to shoulder more of their own care, similar to conditions criticised in some Asian economies mentioned in the piece.
As an everyday investor, what broader social and economic signals in this article should I watch?
The article suggests watching for policy shifts toward reduced public benefits and greater reliance on family support, debates about tax cuts for higher earners and private health rebates, and public reactions to perceived increases in inequality. These social and policy trends can influence consumer spending, political risk and the long-term outlook for public services referenced in the piece.
Call 1300 880 160
Start a chat
Schedule a call
