The Universal Wellbeing Payment will be paid to all residents of NSW aged 16 and over.

No, the UWP will not be means-tested. Regardless of how much you earn from wages or investments, how many assets you have or whether you get assistance from anyone else – everyone will receive the UWP. 

The UWP will not be subject to income tax if you have no other income. If you have other income, the UWP will be included in your total taxable income for federal tax purposes.

The UWP is intended as a wellbeing baseline, so will replace payments that are intended to provide a living payment, but will not replace allowances or one-off payments that provide additional financial support to people that need it. 

In all cases, you will be in either the same or a better position following the introduction of the UWP.

The Universal Wellbeing Payment will be enough to comfortably cover your basic needs. It will give you enough to put a roof over your head, to have a nutritious diet, to keep yourself warm in winter and cool in summer, and to get to and from the places you need to go.

The UWP will always be above the poverty line. Based on the cost of living as at March 2022, the Universal Wellbeing Payment will start at $615 per week for every person aged 16 and over.

However, if the cost of living gets more expensive, you will receive more. If it gets cheaper, you will receive less.

Similar to the Fair Work Commission’s role in determining minimum wages, the Universal Wellbeing Payment will be set regularly by a dedicated Wellbeing Standards Board. The Wellbeing Standards Board will meet quarterly to decide the amount of the UWP, taking into account changes to the cost of living and other relevant factors to ensure the UWP is set at a level that guarantees people’s basic needs are met.

The Wellbeing Standards Board will operate under a legislative framework which, among other things, will prescribe the composition of the Board, factors to consider when assessing the rate of the UWP and a framework for the Board’s consultation process. The Wellbeing Standards Board will be independent from government but will be directly accountable to Parliament, in a similar manner as for the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).

No. The UWP is a universal rate and will be paid to all individuals, regardless of their living arrangements. Because of this, you will not need to prove your relationship or living status to the government. Also, you can choose to share the cost of living with others without being penalised.

The UWP will provide greater financial independence for many women in particular. And if you are in a domestic violence relationship, you will have access to your UWP to more easily leave that situation and live independently.

No – the UWP is a universal rate. However, receiving the UWP will not alter your entitlement to receive existing benefits and tax concessions that you receive because you are a parent, guardian or carer.

The payment will go to the bank account you register for this purpose, paid to you weekly. If you don’t have a bank account, you will be given assistance to open one. The only stipulation is that the bank account must be in your own name.

The UWP will not be subject to income tax, although it will be considered in determining your tax-free threshold if you have other income. Further, those earning higher than the median wage will be taxed at a progressively higher rate than those on lower incomes. 

For example, assuming a UWP of $615, a person earning less than $40,000 each year could be $410-$615 per week better off. That amount would reduce until at a level of annual earnings just above the median amount, where the amount of the UWP would effectively be taxed back in full.

No, the UWP is yours with no strings attached – it gives you the autonomy to use it in whatever way you see fit. 

Unlike many existing government benefits, you will be under no obligations to turn up at Centrelink to prove your activity or explain your choices. There will also be no restrictions on purchases or expenses like a cashless welfare card. 

The UWP recognises that many in our society work for free every day, in their households or in their communities, and that work – paid or unpaid – should be valued. You may choose to parent, to seek new employment, to study, to start a new business, or to take a career break, knowing that your decisions won’t risk your access to food or shelter.

The UWP is intended as a flat rate payment to everyone, regardless of their location. However, the UWP does not preclude additional payments being made to people based in certain regions in order to encourage people to live or work in that region.

Australia’s 2022-23 minimum wage is $812.60 for a 38-hour week (or $21.38 per hour). 

Set at $615pw, the UWP would equate to approximately 29 hours of work at minimum wage. As a comparison, women with children spend on average approximately 30 hours each week in unpaid domestic work.

The minimum wage is set by reference to a number of factors, including traditional macroeconomic indicators and a goal of increasing workforce participation. The UWP will be set by reference to different considerations, including not only the cost of living but also the long-term benefits of eliminating poverty and removing the stigma associated with welfare.

The UWP will be rolled out over an initial 12-18 month period. The first step will be to replace those on benefits currently administered through Centrelink.

Ideally, the UWP concept will be adopted nationwide.

However, under our plan, NSW will be able to adopt the UWP if the federal government fails to do so. Other states and territories can adopt a similar model.

With nationwide adoption of the UWP, the costs of the UWP could be financed through a more progressive tax system and through the savings that would accrue to the federal government through the long-term lowering of demand on federally funded health and other services.

For NSW to unilaterally adopt a UWP, an arrangement with the federal government would be required in order to reflect the savings to the federal government from the UWP’s replacement of existing benefits (and connected administration costs) and in order to redirect federal taxation of UWP amounts.

There are a number of revenue-raising measures that could be instituted at a state level to assist in the payment of the UWP. For a start, a fossil fuel levy and a supplementary banking levy could be introduced, along with an overhaul of the stamp duty and land tax framework. Borrowing at a time of record low interest rates is also a sensible approach for a state to take in light of the significant social investment that a UWP represents.

Our federal, state and territory governments have become increasingly short-term in their outlook. Their focus on 3 or 4 year budgets, combined with a focus on winning the next election, have led to governments unwilling to consider the longer-term benefits of social expenditure, and the long-term costs of neglecting people’s basic needs.

Putting in place a Universal Wellbeing Payment now will lead to a more productive, healthier and less costly population in the future. Further, existing studies show that in the long run a universal basic income such as the UWP reduces the stress on other social services provided by the government. For example, previous basic income trials have shown a decrease in hospitalisations and mental health concerns.

There is no doubt that the UWP will be a significant expense for the government. However, the benefits of eliminating poverty and providing greater autonomy to individuals cannot be underestimated. Over time, the benefits of the UWP will outweigh its expense and will provide much-needed stimulus to our economy as we emerge from COVID-19.

The Disability Support Pension will be replaced by the UWP but a new Disability Support Supplement will be introduced to recognise the additional needs of people with a disability.

If you are receiving the Carer Allowance, Childcare Rebate, Childcare Benefit, Child Disability Assistance Payment, Double Orphan Pension, Essential Medical Equipment Payment, Fares Allowance, Mobility Allowance, Parental Leave Pay, Pharmaceutical Allowance, Remote Area Allowance, Youth Disability Supplement, a Crisis Payment, or any other relevant one-off supplement, you will continue to receive an additional amount above the UWP in recognition of your particular needs.

Health Care Cards, Concession Cards and Family Tax Benefit will continue to operate.

Payments under the NDIS will be in addition to the UWP.

The UWP will replace the Age Pension.

If you are receiving the Carer Allowance, Childcare Rebate, Childcare Benefit, Child Disability Assistance Payment, Double Orphan Pension, Essential Medical Equipment Payment, Fares Allowance, Mobility Allowance, Parental Leave Pay, Pharmaceutical Allowance, Remote Area Allowance, Youth Disability Supplement, a Crisis Payment, or any other relevant one-off supplement, you will continue to receive an additional amount above the UWP in recognition of your particular needs. A new Disability Support Supplement will be introduced to recognise the additional needs of people with a disability.

Health Care Cards, Concession Cards and Family Tax Benefit will continue to operate.

The UWP will replace the Carer Payment, the Farm Household Allowance and the Parenting Payment (and ParentsNext).

If you are receiving the Carer Allowance, Childcare Rebate, Childcare Benefit, Child Disability Assistance Payment, Double Orphan Pension, Essential Medical Equipment Payment, Fares Allowance, Mobility Allowance, Parental Leave Pay, Pharmaceutical Allowance, Remote Area Allowance, Youth Disability Supplement, a Crisis Payment, or any other relevant one-off supplement, you will continue to receive an additional amount above the UWP in recognition of your particular needs.

Health Care Cards, Concession Cards and Family Tax Benefit will continue to operate.

The UWP will replace the Carer Payment. 

If you are receiving the Carer Allowance, Childcare Rebate, Childcare Benefit, Child Disability Assistance Payment, Double Orphan Pension, Essential Medical Equipment Payment, Fares Allowance, Mobility Allowance, Parental Leave Pay, Pharmaceutical Allowance, Remote Area Allowance, Youth Disability Supplement, a Crisis Payment, or any other relevant one-off supplement, you will continue to receive an additional amount above the UWP in recognition of your particular needs.

Health Care Cards, Concession Cards and Family Tax Benefit will continue to operate.

Payments under the NDIS will be in addition to the UWP.

The UWP will replace ABSTUDY, Austudy and Youth Allowance.

If you are receiving the Carer Allowance, Childcare Rebate, Childcare Benefit, Child Disability Assistance Payment, Double Orphan Pension, Essential Medical Equipment Payment, Fares Allowance, Mobility Allowance, Parental Leave Pay, Pharmaceutical Allowance, Remote Area Allowance, Youth Disability Supplement, a Crisis Payment, or any other relevant one-off supplement, you will continue to receive an additional amount above the UWP in recognition of your particular needs.

Health Care Cards, Concession Cards and Family Tax Benefit will continue to operate.

Temporary and permanent visa workers will be entitled to receive the UWP, as will people on training visas, student visas and student guardian visas. 

If visa workers and students did not receive the UWP, they would be viewed as a form of cheaper labour by employers (having less financial security and bargaining power than those receiving the UWP), which would dilute the UWP’s beneficial impact on worker pay and conditions. Further, those on visas have already been made to jump through hoops as part of the visa application process – there should be no distinction between them and other residents once that visa has been approved.

Further, the UWP will provide workers with a more level playing field when it comes to negotiating with their employers. When employees can take a break between jobs knowing they will still be able to live well, employers will be motivated to provide better pay and working conditions to retain their workers.

Further, although there will always be exceptions, previous trials of a universal basic income similar to the UWP have shown that people will be no less likely to take up paid employment simply because they are also being given unconditional payments.

The UWP is not a substitute for a jobs guarantee. In fact, the UWP complements a jobs guarantee, in which the government provides meaningful, public sector jobs, at a fair wage for every person who wants one.

Some proponents of a jobs guarantee argue that a universal income such as the UWP endorses the mistaken idea that government is limited in the amount of jobs it can provide. However, this critique misunderstands the rationale for a universal income. The UWP is not focused on eliminating unemployment – it is focused on eliminating poverty. 

Government can and should be targeting zero unemployment – that is, providing jobs for anyone who wants to take on paid work. However, government should also be targeting zero poverty – that is, ensuring a level of wellbeing for all those in society, regardless of their willingness or ability to take on paid work.

The UWP not only recognises that people contribute to society in many ways that do not currently attract payment, but also that society benefits when people are free to choose the mixture and timing of their employment. The increased creativity, productivity and happiness that results from universal income trials gives an insight into just how differently people approach their work when they can live without the threat of poverty.

The UWP, by taking away people’s reliance on employers for meeting essential needs, will help to restore better balance in the employer-employee relationship. Further, it will result in essential jobs attracting fairer payment.

Our current economy goes about ensuring sufficient workers for essential jobs, such as cleaning or collecting garbage, by leaving workers with no alternative other than poverty. With a UWP, this sort of essential work will need to be much more fairly paid in order to attract sufficient numbers of workers.

The United States ran a series of basic income trials in the 1960s across a number of states (including Seattle, Pennsylvania, Denver, Iowa and New Jersey). The results of those trials were so encouraging that 1,200 leading economists lobbied the US government to implement a universal basic income across the country. They argued that, although the costs of lifting everyone out of poverty were substantial, they were well within the capacity of the United States.

The idea of a universal basic income became so popular that by 1968, the US House of Representatives passed legislation introduced by President Nixon to implement a universal basic income for the whole of the US. Unfortunately the legislation stalled in the US Senate (and, when again passed by the House of Representatives in the early 1970s again stalled in the Senate).

The idea continued to be popular in the United States until it was finally shelved in around 1978. The concept’s popularity fell amidst the reporting of a statistic from one of the basic income trials in Seattle – a statistic that subsequently turned out to be false – showing that the rate of divorce had leapt by over 50% leading to questions from conservative elements over whether financial independence for women was in fact a good thing.

Similarly, the Canadian government ran “Mincome”, the largest basic income trial ever, in the mid-1970s. In an experiment that ran for four years, but for which research money was pulled by a new conservative government before the results could be analysed, later analysis showed the Winnipeg trial to be a resounding success. Compared to the national average, birth rates dropped, education rates increased, the total work hours reduced by only 1% for men and 3-5% for women (with those hours instead being spent upskilling, parenting or engaged in creative pursuits), domestic violence and mental health issues decreased and hospitalisations decreased by a massive 8.5%. Not only that, but the effect of the trial benefited the next generation’s income and health outcomes.

More recently, Finland ran a 2-year basic income trial with 2,000 people from 2017-19. The trial’s preliminary results were not particularly illuminating, with some criticising it on the basis that it involved unemployed people only, was not limited to a particular economic area (limiting finding regarding broader societal impact) and that it was too small in terms of numbers of people and length of time. Nevertheless, the findings were still positive – people receiving a basic income did not decide to work less or to give up looking for work, and they reported being happier.

Kenya is currently running a basic income trial (to end in 2028), and the Netherlands have just completed a trial. Iran has had a form of basic income in place since 2010. Both the Italian and Spanish governments are working on introducing a basic income.

The short answer is yes! 

In a first-of-its-kind Australian poll, conducted by YouGov for the Green Institute on 14-18 October 2020, 58% of surveyed Australians support the introduction of a Universal Basic Income (UBI). UBI was explained as a policy to ensure that, just as we can all rely on at least basic health care and education, everyone in our society should have a guaranteed minimum income they could rely on to survive. Only 18% opposed the idea.

The poll also found that 50% of Australians feel that, at least while jobseekers outstrip the number of jobs available by such a huge margin, conditions on income support should be removed. Only 24% said these conditions, such as the requirement to apply for a certain number of jobs, should be kept.

A common concern with universal income schemes is that they will result in inflation of prices and ultimately have limited net improvement on people’s ability to pay for essentials.

However, inflation is far more complicated than the impact of increasing demand vs supply. When demand for a product rises, it may or may not be matched with an increase in supply and/or an increase in competition to sell that product. Extra demand arising from poorer people having more money in their pockets may also be offset by the other benefits of introducing a UWP – for example, the entrepreneurship (and additional business competition) that a UWP would encourage. 

Research on price inflation based on forms of universal income trialled or operating in other jurisdictions confirms that universal income schemes have little to no impact on prices. To the extent prices do increase, luxury products are more likely to become more expensive than essential products.

Finally, the UWP will be reset regularly to reflect increases and decreases in the true cost of living – to the extent that prices for essential items did increase, the UWP would be reset to ensure that everyone would still be able to afford what they need.