Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Assets Testing: Problems in Reconciling Economic, Welfare and Legal Perspectives When Defining Assets

Assets Testing: Problems in Reconciling Economic, Welfare and Legal Perspectives When Defining... Australia's assets test on pensions is designed to advance a needs policy without trenching unduly on other values. This article explores the policy tension stemming from the different perspectives of economists, lawyers and welfare workers. It is contended that the policy balance is out of kilter, and that welfare objectives have been down‐graded. This is said to be due to an over‐reliance, in the framing and administration of the test, on manipulating the concepts and definitions coined by economists and lawyers. This is illustrated by reference to the overreach of the test in potentially impacting upon residents in nursing homes. The article argues that the remedy lies in placing greater reliance on the inclusion of discretions in the law (and their creative utilization). The hardship provisions of the present legislation are advanced as good examples of the potential which exists for this to be achieved, a potential which it is suggested the Department has only partially realised to date. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Australian Journal of Social Issues Wiley

Assets Testing: Problems in Reconciling Economic, Welfare and Legal Perspectives When Defining Assets

Australian Journal of Social Issues , Volume 22 (3) – Aug 1, 1987

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/assets-testing-problems-in-reconciling-economic-welfare-and-legal-5dciYoIIAR

References (4)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
© Australian Social Policy Association
eISSN
1839-4655
DOI
10.1002/j.1839-4655.1987.tb00839.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Australia's assets test on pensions is designed to advance a needs policy without trenching unduly on other values. This article explores the policy tension stemming from the different perspectives of economists, lawyers and welfare workers. It is contended that the policy balance is out of kilter, and that welfare objectives have been down‐graded. This is said to be due to an over‐reliance, in the framing and administration of the test, on manipulating the concepts and definitions coined by economists and lawyers. This is illustrated by reference to the overreach of the test in potentially impacting upon residents in nursing homes. The article argues that the remedy lies in placing greater reliance on the inclusion of discretions in the law (and their creative utilization). The hardship provisions of the present legislation are advanced as good examples of the potential which exists for this to be achieved, a potential which it is suggested the Department has only partially realised to date.

Journal

Australian Journal of Social IssuesWiley

Published: Aug 1, 1987

There are no references for this article.