Investing for our Future Welfare. Peter Whiteford, ANU

Transcription

1 Investing for our Future Welfare Peter Whiteford, ANU

2 Investing for our future welfare Presentation to Jobs Australia National Conference, Canberra, 20 October 2016 Peter Whiteford, Crawford School of Public Policy

3 3 Outline Background Incomes, inequality and prosperity Social security and employment The investment approach Challenges and prospects

4 Incomes, inequality and prosperity 4

5 Trends in real mean and median household incomes in Australia, early 1980s to ( = 100) 5

6 Mexico Turkey Chile Hungary Estonia Poland Greece Portugal Slovak Republic Czech Republic Israel Spain Slovenia Japan United Kingdom Italy Ireland New Zealand Korea France Belgium Iceland Germany Netherlands Finland Sweden Denmark Austria Canada Australia United States Norway Switzerland Luxembourg Median household disposable income, US$ (PPP adjusted), 2012 or nearest year Source: Estimated from OECD Income Distribution database,

7 Change (%) in real median equivalised household disposable income, 1995 to 2012 (or nearest year) Source: Estimated from OECD Income Distribution database, 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20%

8 Level of inequality, OECD countries, Gini coefficient 8

9 Social security 9

10 10 Social spending, OECD, 2014 or nearest year (% of GDP) Spending on cash benefits Spending on Health and Services Belgium Italy Austria France Portugal Finland Spain Greece Slovenia Hungary Luxembourg Denmark Germany Poland Ireland Japan OECD Netherlands Czech Republic Sweden Norway Slovak Republic Switzerland United Kingdom Estonia New Zealand United States Canada Israel Australia Turkey Iceland Chile Korea Mexico Sweden Denmark France Finland Netherlands Germany Belgium United Kingdom New Zealand Japan Norway Australia Iceland United States Austria Italy Spain OECD Luxembourg Switzerland Czech Republic Canada Ireland Hungary Slovenia Slovak Republic Portugal Poland Greece Israel Korea Estonia Chile Mexico Turkey

11 Public spending on income-tested benefits, % of GDP, OECD countries

12 Australia s social security system is more targeted to the poor than any other OECD country Ratio of transfers received by poorest 20% to those received by richest 20% Source: Calculated from Table s 3 and 5, OECD, 2014,

13 Government spending per person 2012, $ 000 per year per person Aged care 40 Age Pension 20 Education Health Other 0

14 Per cent of working age population receiving social security benefits, 1976 to

15 Welfare receipt in Australia % of working age households receiving income support payments by period 15

16 Welfare receipt for those initially aged under 25 years % of individuals receiving income support payments by period,

17 17 Employment, unemployment and disadvantage

18 How does Australia s employment performance compare? In 2015 Australian employment rates overall were the 12 th highest in the OECD (72.2%). In contrast, employment for youth (15 to 24 years), Australia is ranked 4th highest among OECD countries. The level of part-time employment is the third highest in the OECD after the Netherlands and Switzerland. Around 29 per cent of the workforce are employed part-time. Most part-time workers are women around 72 per cent. Around 46 per cent of female employees and 15 per cent of male employees participate on a part-time basis. Temporary employment as defined by OECD is among lowest. Involuntary part-time employment 7.2% of the labour force and 30% of parttime workers is the highest in the OECD (2.9% is OECD average and 17% of PT workers). Employment rates among lone parents are among the lowest in the OECD. Total joblessness among families with children is among the highest in the OECD but may have improved in ranking terms. 18

19 Educational attainment and employment are strongly related Likelihood (%) of employment compared to person with postgraduate degree, Australia 2003

20 20 Educational attainment and mean equivalised household income, ,400 1,200 1, ,181 1, Grad. Dip./ Grad. Cert. or above Bach. Deg. Adv. Dip./ Dip. Cert. III/IV Cert. I/II Cert. n.f.d. Year 12 Year 11 Year 10 or below Total

21 Joblessness in Australia is highly concentrated in households where no one is in paid work Working age population nonemployment rate Share of working age in jobless households Ratio of household to individual joblessness UK Germany Norway Australia Denmark Sweden USA Japan Spain

22 Household joblessness is a major source of inequality in Australia In 1983, a full-time worker at the 90 th percentile earned 2.0 times as much as a worker at the 10 th percentile- this disparity increased to 2.3 in 1996, 2.5 in 2004, and 2.8 in In 1982 a working-age family at the 90 th percentile earned 112 times as much as a family at the 10 th percentile this disparity reduced to 56 times as much in 1996 and 49 times as much in

23 Who are the most disadvantaged? Per cent of group experiencing deep and persistent disadvantage, 2001 to

24 NEET are much more affected than other youth by health problems Share of individuals with poor health status in % of total population among NEETs and all youth,

25 Spending on cash benefits for unemployed, OECD countries, 2011 % of GDP

26 Net replacement rates for low paid workers in first six months of unemployment, OECD countries, 2013

27 Net replacement rates for low paid workers in sixtieth month of unemployment, OECD countries,

28 Spending on active labour market programmes, OECD countries, 2011 % of GDP 28

29 Participants (% of labour force) in ALMPS and income support for the unemployed, selected countries, 2013 Social insurance Australia - Social assistance Other ALMPs Denmark Finland France Germany Italy Netherlands New Zealand Sweden United Kingdom (2009)

30 Trends in the number of lone parents and those incapacitated or without participation requirements on Newstart/Youth allowance (other), 2007 to 2015 Year Temporary ill or incapacitated No participation requirement or in Disability Management Services Lone parents Total Number on Newstart or Youth Allowance (other) ,008-12, , ,162 59, , ,362 64, ,869 (2014) 849,164

31 The investment approach 31

32 32 The investment approach The development of an investment approach was one of the recommendations of the McClure review of Australia s welfare system. The New Zealand government originally developed the investment approach in response to a review on welfare dependency, which was specifically asked to look at the insurance industry for ideas on reform. The government has subsequently commissioned four actuarial valuations in 2011, 2012, 2013 and The Baseline Evaluation report released in September 2016 was an initiative of the budget, when the government allocated A$33.7 million to establish an Australian Priority Investment Approach to Welfare based on actuarial analysis of social security data. Groups identified by the approach will receive support from current programs and from new and innovative policy responses to be developed through the A$96.1 million Try, Test and Learn Fund, which was announced in the budget.

33 33 The Baseline Valuation Report, /baseline_valuation_results_report_accessible_versio n_12_july_2016_2pwc._2.pdf The report estimates the lifetime costs of the social security system as close to $4.8 trillion.

34 34 How do we get to $4.8 trillion The report takes the population of Australia in Then, on the basis of past patterns of receipt of payments, it projects the amount of money the population will be paid over the rest of their lives and converts this into the present value of this lifetime spending, with a discount rate of 6% reflecting the fact a dollar is worth more today than in the future given the capacity to earn interest. The population modelled in the report includes: around 5.7 million people currently receiving various income support payments (of whom 2.5 million are age pensioners); 2.3 million people not receiving income support payments but who receive other payments (mainly families receiving the Family Tax Benefit); around 3.9 million who were previously receiving payments; and just under 12 million people who are not receiving any payments currently or have not in the past. The lifetime valuation is about 44 times the total amount of payments in (A$109 billion). But it also includes people s future age pension entitlements. Given the average age of the total population is 39 and that on average Australians can expect to live into their 80s, it is not surprising the estimated lifetime cost is more than 40 times the current level of spending on cash benefits.

35 What does $4.8 trillion mean More than half the total estimated lifetime spending will be on age pensions. The average lifetime cost per current client is made up of A$150,000 in age pensions and A$115,000 in all other benefits. For previous clients, the corresponding figures are A$114,000 in age pensions and A$60,000 in other payments. For the balance of the Australian population it is A$88,000 in age pensions and A$77,000 in all other benefits. For people of working age who are currently receiving benefits it is these other payments that figure larger than age pensions. This is particularly the case for people receiving parenting payments, where the age pension is only around one-quarter of their total lifetime costs. New Zealand s actuarial model does not include family payments. And nor does it include national superannuation their equivalent to the age pension as it is provided free of any income test to people aged 65 and over. By including both age pensions and family payments, the Australian report produces significantly higher lifetime costs relative to the size of the economy. 35

36 36 Groups with poor outcomes and high costs The report highlights three groups of people who are expected to have very-high average lifetime costs and poor lifetime outcomes: For 11,000 young carers, it is expected, on average, they will access income support in 43 years over their future lifetime; for 4,370 young parents it is expected, on average, they will access income support in 45 years over their future lifetime; and for 6,600 young students it is expected, on average, they will access income support in 37 years over their future lifetime. These projected future histories will involve lifetime costs for these three groups of between A$2 billion and A$4 billion. In all of these cases, however, a substantial part of their estimated costs relates to years to be spent on the age pension.

37 37 Assessing the investment approach Very early days! The principle of early intervention is admirable Focus should be on sustainable improvements in outcomes Rigorous evaluation is essential and government seems to have committed to this, but there are complexities Who has responsibility to intervene possible cost shifting and blame

38 38 Future challenges A significant proportion of the working age population continue to rely mainly on benefits for their incomes it is desirable for equity reasons and sustainability to reduce this, but we should also be concerned that further reforms really do improve equity in outcomes. Australia escaped a major economic downturn from the Great Recession. This is a very major advantage in facing future challenges. But real wage growth since 2013 has been minimal. Population ageing will soon start to have a much more significant impact on the costs of the system. The Grattan Institute (2013) estimates that on current trends there would be a deficit of 4% of GDP by 2023 (2.5% at the Federal level). There are significant needs with reforms to introduce greater support for disability services, for aged care and nursing homes, for dental care and to improve equity in the education system. These reforms need to be properly funded. Indexation provisions for unemployment payments are inadequate as are benefit levels. Similar risks to future family payments. We are residualising the poor are we introducing the concept of deserving and undeserving? Because the Australian system is the most targeted to the poor of any rich country, cutting social security benefits would increase inequality more than any other OECD country. All proposals involve complex trade-offs and genuinely difficult choices, which will require detailed public discussions and consultation and (hopefully) consensus.