Today my article ‘Prevention or patch up? Universal Basic Income the foundation of a wellbeing budget’ was published in The Mandarin. I was invited by Dr Geoff Edwards of The Royal Society of Queensland (The Royal Societies of Australia) to contribute to their ‘Prevention or patch-up’ series. This series is part of a broader ‘Pre-conditions of Well-being project’ which aims to develop a platform of public policy measures conducive to allowing Australians to thrive.

If you are unable to access the article via the link above, it is also available below.

Prevention or patch up? Universal Basic Income the foundation of a wellbeing budget

Dr Geoff Edwards recently wrote in the article ‘Prevention or patch-up? Looking, looking, looking for bedrock in economic policy’ about the need for ‘frugal comfort’, a minimum standard or starting condition of wellbeing that all members in society should rightfully expect in order to build thriving lives. Universal Basic Income (UBI) was expressed as a policy option to achieve this objective, and this article expands on its moral, economic and practical justifications. 

Definitions of ‘basic income’ vary greatly in terms of eligibility although the lack of conditions on how individuals spend their funds is the consistent policy feature. This author presents the Basic Income Earth Network’s definition as the starting point. 

 ‘A Basic Income is defined as a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means-test or work requirement.’

UBI is a modern policy reform that will deliver a standard of reasonable and frugal comfort and empower everyone to live with dignity.

Access to income is a human right

Having transitioned away from hunter-gatherer societies with access to the commons and ability to live off the land to a market capitalist society, having access to income is a non-negotiable condition of modern survival. 

One in eight adults (3.3 million) and one in six children (761,000) live in poverty in Australia. The drivers of poverty are multi-faceted, but they are largely the result of policy choices. Welfare support in Australia is inadequate and keeps people in poverty. The JobSeeker maximum fortnightly payment for a single person with no children is $781.10 or $390.55 per week. The December quarter 2024 Henderson Poverty Line for a single person is $523.16 per week with JobSeeker payments at $132.61, which is below the poverty line. 

Australia’s welfare system is also highly conditional, imposing a complex and paternalistic set of ‘mutual’ obligations activities including submitting job applications, mandatory training and a workfare regime derogatorily named ‘Work for the Dole’.  

The Antipoverty Centre highlights the fundamental power imbalance between people imposing these requirements and those subjected to them. For this reason quotation marks are used when referring to ‘mutual’ obligations. Their 2023 report Punishment for Profit summarises the issue well. 

There is no version of ‘mutual’ obligations that isn’t degrading. There is no version of ‘mutual’ obligations that isn’t intrusive. There is no version of ‘mutual’ obligations that isn’t controlling. There is no version of ‘mutual’ obligations that doesn’t threaten starvation.’

Universal Basic Income advocates categorically reject conditionality because living a dignified life is not possible under a framework of coercion. 

Approximately $4 billion per year of public funds is spent on Workforce Australia and outsourced private companies to enforce complex ‘mutual’ obligations. And yet Australia’s conditional welfare apparatus cannot bear the weight of its own Kafkaesque rules. In early 2025 the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) revealed a series of three IT failures over 24 months which have resulted in more than 10,000 people having their income support payments wrongly cut off. During Senate Estimates officials admitted they did not have full confidence in the legality of the system which resulted in more than $1.2 million in repayments and the known deaths of ten welfare recipients. Services Australia declined to expand on whether these deaths were the result of suicide or the destitution brought about by the incorrect cancellation of welfare. After each cancellation, there is a mandatory wait of four weeks before people are able to reapply for support. 

The pursuit of the conditional welfare state not only contravenes the human right to income but administering the regime, such as attempting to repair DEWR’s bug-infested IT system, is an objectively poor investment of resources that has instead actively caused harm. It is past overdue to abolish ‘mutual’ obligations, eliminate contracts with surveillance-state employment service providers and invest in an unconditional basic income model paid at the Henderson Poverty Line. 

Income first, employment if desired, available and appropriate second

‘Mutual’ obligations are built on the fundamental logic of the welfare-to-work pipeline. It assumes that sufficient jobs are available and are automatically a good fit for those on income support payments. However, an inherent contradiction occurs with the economic policy objective of achieving the ‘Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment’ or NAIRU, which is the lowest theoretical unemployment rate an economy can sustain without triggering a rise in inflation. If we hold aside the numerous critiques of NAIRU and assume its economic policy legitimacy, the premise of forcing a targeted 4.25% of unemployed Australians to suffer inadequate income payments and poverty in service of the macroeconomy is ethically threadbare. 

Taking the welfare-to-work pipeline into consideration, poverty itself is a barrier to finding paid work. Access to secure housing, the internet, mobile phone credit, appropriate attire and transport to and from interviews are all prerequisites for preparing a high-quality job application and directly dependent upon an individual’s ‘starting condition’, that is, their level of income. A UBI would provide the foundation unemployed people need to begin their meaningful employment-search journey.  

A Universal Basic Income framework fundamentally trusts that people want to contribute to society in their own unique ways, whether within or outside of the formal labour market. For those in our communities, such as carers, artists and for anyone who is otherwise not suited or able to participate in paid work, a UBI ensures a level of frugal comfort that leaves no one behind.

Beyond the income support inadequacies and failures experienced by Australians at the very bottom of the income distribution is the growth of economic precarity driven by insecure work. The proportion of total casual employees was 13% in the 1980s and has risen to 25% in 2019. In 2018 for the first time ever the proportion of employed Australians in permanent full-time paid jobs with leave entitlements became less than 50%. For those with irregular, seasonal or otherwise ‘bumpy’ incomes, a UBI would go a long way in producing an income insurance effect and building economic resilience for Australian workers and the broader community. 

Economies depend on circularity

Universal Basic Income is not only an investment in human flourishing and dignity, it is an investment in a sustainable economic system. In evaluating the costs and benefits of implementing a UBI it is critical to foreground that one person’s expenditure is another person’s income which ensures the flows of money required for a healthy economy.

The effects of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Industrial Revolution are hotly debated with leading AI company CEOs predicting dystopian levels of mass unemployment. At the same time, other commentators lean on the widely accepted historical trend that technological change ultimately generates net new employment. Indeed, the World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025 predicts that globally by 2030 there will be 92 million jobs displaced with 170 million new jobs created leading to a net 78 million increase in roles. 

Evidently, the spectrum of predicted outcomes is vast. However, aggregate-level data can hide the human cost of structural economic shifts due to technology advancements and globalisation. The World Economic Forum’s optimistic outlook assumes a displaced worker will be able to retrain and be re-employed where they currently live. Yet only 63% of workers displaced from the mid-to-late 20th century collapse of the US’s manufacturing base were re-employed, with figures falling further to 47% and 24% for workers aged 55-64 and 64 and over, respectively. 

Regardless of one’s either optimistic or pessimistic posture on the future of work, the salient point is that we are entering an age of uncertainty at an unprecedented pace of change that is affecting blue and now white-collar workers alike. Now more than ever is the time for a Universal Basic Income to smooth over the transition and future-proof our societies no matter the predicted AI outcome. 

Implications for policy

Universal Basic Income is a policy that is neither left or right, but forward. It is remarkable in its potential broad appeal across the political spectrum. Progressives champion UBI as a vehicle for economic and social justice while conservatives are drawn to its ability to deliver individual freedom and agency within a significantly streamlined bureaucracy. Both groups align on the policy’s ability to meet people’s basic needs and allow them to live their lives with dignity. 

A UBI would profoundly help Treasurer Jim Chalmers deliver a genuine well-being budget and realise the cliché that the rising tide of the economy should lift all boats. Based on the human right to adequate income combined with the projected rise in productivity through AI, it is clear that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese must set Universal Basic Income as the bedrock of economic policy lest he fails in his promise to leave no Australian behind and prepare the country for the future ahead.

Jessica Chew is a Co-Director of Basic Income Australia and a Fellow with the Australian Basic Income Lab. The views expressed in this article are her own.