| Abstract: | Welfare schemes which require recipients of benefits to ‘give something back’ are often justified in terms of ‘fairness’ or fulfilling the ‘social contract’. The Australian Government's recent and proposed changes to unemployment benefits through the Mutual Obligation Scheme appeal to both justifications. However, insufficient attention has been paid the underlying ethical and political assumptions — a serious deficiency. given their role in legitimating harsh new penalties. There are two broad reasons the current trend to tie benefits to obligations is inappropriate. First, the unemployed have little choice about their contract. And second, there is insufficient mutuality shown towards the unemployed for the Scheme to be obligation‐generating. Rather than being a means of encouraging participation or mutuality, the Scheme is essentially punitive. |
