Question 5: 100 words MAX Provide at least two arguments supporting the increase to Newstart, and two counter-arguments. There is currently a policy debate about whether the value of the Australian unemployment benefit (Newstart) should be increased. On the one hand it is argued that Newstart is not sufficient to cover basic living costs and thus many of those on the payment experience high rates of poverty and hardship and that it creates an incentive for recipients to seek to move onto higher rate payments. It is also argued that the level of Newstart is so low that recipients cannot afford to look for work and that it has flow-on effects in terms of a range of adverse social outcomes including homelessness and crime. On the other hand, it is argued that Newstart is designed to provide short-term financial support during periods of unemployment, that having Newstart at a substantially lower rate than other social security payments creates a stronger financial incentive to find paid employment and that the budgetary impact of raising the rate of Newstart is not warranted. Furthermore, data shows that the lower is the unemployment benefit, the quicker people will exit unemployment. This is because the lower is the unemployment benefit the less is the incentive to remain unemployed. On the other hand, however, people leaving Newstart frequently exit into temporary, casual and/or low-paid work. A further proposal is to increase Newstart but to lower the duration of time over which the benefit can be accessed. At the moment, there is no limit on the duration of Newstart. Proponents of this change argue that if Newstart were to increase but the time allowed on Newstart were to fall to six or twelve months, recipients would be highly motivated to find work. Opponents point out that if the work is temporary, casual and/or low paid, those people might easily find themselves back on a new cycle of Newstart: wouldn't it be better to allow the unemployed time to search for a better job