Australian Journal of Political Science

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cajp20

Framing basic income in Australia: how the media

is shaping the debate

Leah Carroll & Susan Engel

To cite this article: Leah Carroll & Susan Engel (2021) Framing basic income in Australia: how
the media is shaping the debate, Australian Journal of Political Science, 56:4, 410-427, DOI:
10.1080/10361146.2021.1998344

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2021.1998344

Published online: 17 Nov 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 446

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cajp20
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
2021, VOL. 56, NO. 4, 410–427
https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2021.1998344

ARTICLE

Framing basic income in Australia: how the media is shaping

the debate
Leah Carroll and Susan Engel
University of Wollongong, Politics and International Studies, Wollongong, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Universal basic income is an old idea that has experienced a surge Accepted 31 August 2021
in global attention. In many countries, it is creeping up the policy
agenda as an alternative to traditional welfare. Yet, in Australia, KEYWORDS
Universal basic income;
the idea is mostly ignored by the two main political parties. Australian media; Australian
Communication scholars have long contended that the media political discourse; framing
play a role in influencing opinion and setting the policy agenda.
Using a framing approach, this study analyses how basic income
was framed in 2018 by seven Australian newspapers and
compares the results with those in countries where basic income
has solidified a position in public discourse. We found that the
mainstream media outlets in Australia are overtly hostile to the
idea, which presents a significant obstacle to a universal basic
income gaining legitimacy as a social policy.

Introduction
A Universal Basic Income (UBI) is paid unconditionally to each member of a political
community (Van Parijs 2004). This simple idea would be a radical shift away from the
particularly aggressive form of neoliberalism that has shaped the Australian welfare
system in recent decades (Mays, Marston, and Tomlinson 2016; Spies-Butcher, Phillips,
and Henderson 2020). Around the world, policy interest in the idea has increased and
trials have been conducted in Finland, Spain, Canada, India, Kenya and many other
countries.
There is extensive literature on the theoretical foundations of UBI, but less on the
pathway to implementation. Within this research, how UBI is represented in the
media has had some focus. Perkiö, Rincon, and van Draanen (2019) studied the media
framing of basic income in Canada, Finland and Spain, where the UBI has crossed
over from a theoretical idea to potential policy. Their analysis found that basic income
is generally represented positively in the media, particularly when framed as a way to
address issues surrounding automation. They argue that understanding what frames
are the most salient in the media could be a helpful tool for advocates looking for a
pathway towards implementation.
To date, no research has empirically examined how UBI has been framed in the Aus-
tralian media. This article builds on Perkiö et al.’s (2019) research to examine the

CONTACT Susan Engel sengel@uow.edu.au

© 2021 Australian Political Studies Association
 AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 411

Australian context. It has two central research questions, first, how has the basic income
debate been framed in the Australian media and, how does this compare to findings for
Spain, Canada and Finland? Second, how has Australia’s concentrated media ownership
and clear divisions into right and left-leaning media sources influenced the debate on
UBI?
Australia is an interesting case study because it has a strong tradition of ‘wage earner’
welfare built on the principle of individual responsibility. Consequently, the idea of basic
income has not generated a robust public debate in Australia, and as Klein, Mays, and
Dunlop (2019) highlight, positive framing is essential for the advocacy movement.
Understanding what frames are available to the Australian public through the media,
and how the reporting in Australia compares with countries the where the policy is osten-
sibly more popular, could help guide advocates on how to promote the idea amongst the
public, and limit, or counter, the use of negative frames, hence increasing the chances of
it securing a position on the policy agenda.
This article is structured as follows. The first section identifies the main arguments for
UBI in the literature, which informs the framing analysis. Second, the framing theory
used is briefly outlined, followed by the methodology. Third, results of the Australian
data are summarised, and compared with those of Perkiö, Rincon, and van Draanen
(2019). The conclusion summarises the impacts of media representation of basic
income and possible opportunities and challenges for advocates.

Why Universal Basic Income?

There are a range of ways to discuss UBI, including outlining evidence from trials or
studying examples from countries that have adopted variants the policy. We outline
the overarching arguments used by different actors in the UBI debate as this approach
provides a way to analyse the framing of it in the media, as we dolater in the paper. Jus-
tifications and objections largely fall into two main categories: principled and pragmatic.
There are principled advocates and objectors, with advocates using conceptions of justice
to argue basic income is an intrinsic part of a just society, while objectors vehemently
disagree. Pragmatic advocates suggest the policy is a means to specific ends, while prag-
matic objectors argue that it is unfeasible, due to financial constraints.
There are two main principled justifications in the literature; freedom-based and
justice-based. These two closely related arguments assert basic income is a part of a
fair society. Freedom-based justifications argue that UBI would give individuals the
‘greatest possible opportunity to do whatever she might want to do’ (Van Parijs 1997,
25). Justice-based arguments view UBI as a mechanism to share the commons
amongst a population, socialise inherited wealth, and reconfigure government rules
and regulations to benefit society at large rather than a few lucky individuals (Standing
2017).
Reciprocity and exploitation are two closely related principled arguments against basic
income. They are based on the idea of UBI being something for nothing, but there are
nuances between each objection. Jon Elster’s (1986, 719) reciprocity objection argued
that the unconditional aspect of basic income undermines fairness and ‘goes against a
widely accepted notion of justice: it is unfair for able-bodied people to live off the
labour of others.’ Stuart White’s (1997, 312) exploitation objection followed similar
412 L. CARROLL AND S. ENGEL

lines to Elster. He argued that non-disabled basic income recipients who choose not to
work are free-riding off the efforts of workers, and this ‘will lead to the exploitation of
productive, tax-paying citizens.’
Pragmatic proposals with defined goals tend to have a higher degree of political sal-
ience as they are more perspicuous than principled arguments (Barry 1996, 243).
Thus, many advocates favour focusing on the specific problems basic income could
solve. The alleviation of poverty is an intuitive starting point and, if paid above the
poverty line, the policy would be a direct and efficient method of addressing poverty
(Van Parijs 1997; Fitzpatrick 1999; Standing 2017). Other scholars have explored
UBI’s role in: promoting dignity and combatting the exclusion and stigma associated
with welfare (Standing 2014; Calnitsky 2016); addressing the poverty-traps associated
with means-testing (Fitzpatrick 1999); and tackling the negative impacts of the growth
of precarious work including its impact on standards of living (Standing 2014) or on
the bargaining position of low-income workers (Van Parijs 2004; Levin-Waldman 2018).
Perhaps the most prominent pragmatic objection against basic income is that it is
unaffordable. The issues raised in this debate about the strengths and weaknesses of
UBI are precisely those found in the media debate on it – issues of poverty and inequality,
automation, work incentives, and welfare and cost.

The media and framing

Framing research is based on the idea that the way a story is characterised in an article
can impact the reader’s interpretation of that story. In this way, a journalist has the power
to evoke a specific reaction (Scheufele 1999). Framing has been adopted by an array of
disciplines across the humanities and social sciences (Van Gorp 2007). Due to the
broad applications of framing, the theory is conceptually diverse. For simplicity, we
adopt Entman’s (1993) widely accepted definition:
To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a
communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal
interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described.

Van Gorp (2007, 62–65) demonstrates how frames are embedded in media content as
‘frame packages.’ The three components of a frame package are first, a framing device,
such as word choice, metaphors, historical examples, arguments and visual elements.
Second, a reasoning device, which is the explicit or implicit promotion of an explanation,
justification or recommendation on an issue or event. And third, inherent cultural
phenomena that are used to interpret the frame, which is the ‘primary base to constitute
knowledge, meaning and comprehension of the world’ (Van Gorp 2007, 63). By using
implied cultural meanings, frames offer a ‘preferred reading’ that contains embedded
ideological interpretation (Tuchman 1983, 335).
The preferred reading of a frame is influenced by the hegemonic culture surrounding
the media environment in which frames are produced; this promotes an understanding
akin to Entman’s (1993) classification of frames as ‘imprints of power.’ Carragee and
Roefs (2004) argued that the production of frames and the reasoning devices used to
support them are the articulation of the hegemony that the media uses to shape public
discussion. The influence of dominant ideology is important when considering the
 AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 413

interactions between news outlets and advocacy movements that challenge the dominant
culture (Carragee and Roefs 2004). A ‘struggle over frames’ ensues when an advocacy
movement attempts to legitimise a counter-hegemonic narrative in the public’s mind,
and influence policy. Because of asymmetries in power, advocacy groups have trouble
advancing their frames in media discourse (Carragee and Roefs 2004); this was high-
lighted by the Perkiö, Rincon, and van Draanen (2019) study, which found that basic
income advocates were often in opposition to common values and norms. If frames
fail to counter the cultural ‘common sense,’ the movement itself is mostly ignored.
Researching how frames create resistance or acceptance of a movement, can help
advance the position of basic income in the broader social context.

Approach
Given the decline in legacy media, it is reasonable to question why an analysis of the
newspaper platform provides an understanding of emerging debates such as basic
income. A report by Roy Morgan (2018) indicates that 76 per cent of Australians still
read news articles online, or in print. Thus, newspapers are a significant source of infor-
mation for the public. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that in focusing on
legacy media rather than social media, this analysis is skewed towards an older cohort
of journalists and readers who might be less likely to support basic income.
The year 2018 was selected for analysis. It saw the adoption of basic income as a
policy by the Australian Greens, which was the first significant political movement
towards the policy in the country since the 1970s. Leading newspaper publications
were identified by total weekly circulation using Roy Morgan readership results for
the year ending December 2018 (RoyMorgan 2018). In total, five publications were
selected: The Australian, Daily Telegraph, Herald Sun, SMH and The Age. Next,
media bias was identified in the selected news outlets using the online resource
Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC 2020). MBFC has clear limitations; the site uses a sub-
jective methodology that is not backed by rigorous research. Nevertheless, it does
provide a guide and has been used for a similar purpose in other studies (see Mehta
and Guzmán 2018). The media outlets were categorised largely according to the
ranking system in MBFC that runs left – centre-left – least biased – centre-right –
right, but some adjustments were made.
The dataset was dominated by right-leaning News Corporation Australia (News Corp)
and Nine Entertainment Co. News Corp owner, Rupert Murdoch, dominates the media
in English-speaking nations. In Australia, News Corp accounts for more than 59 per cent
of newspapers in circulation (Griffen-Foley 2014). In relation to the US media landscape,
Fortner and Fackler (2014) argue that the right-wing media outlets of News Corp have
increasingly been used to launch attacks on a myriad of social justice issues. Many of
these issues are topical to the basic income debate, such as the role of gender, the environ-
ment, education and the working-class. Given the prominence of News Corp in both the
US and Australia, there is reason to conclude that a similar phenomenon is experienced
in both countries. Indeed, a petition by former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd,
expressing a view like Fortner and Fackler’s (2014) about the Murdoch press in Australia,
was signed by over 500,000 Australians by November 2020 (Parliament of Australia
2020).
414 L. CARROLL AND S. ENGEL

The main rival to News Corp in print and online press is Fairfax, which was merged
with Nine Entertainment Co in 2019. Its newspapers, particularly the Sydney Morning
Herald (SMH), were initially conservative papers (Tiffen 1987). The MBFC (2020) cat-
egorises Fairfax assets as centre-left leaning. However, as highlighted by Hollo (2019),
Fairfax assumes the position of the so-called ‘sensible centre’, hence we characterise
them as centrist.
To diversify the dataset, three additional sources from independent media outlets were
added. These were ABC online, Australia’s largest public broadcaster, the academic
online paper, The Conversation, and the progressive online newspaper The Guardian
Australia. Doing so, allows for a broader analysis and some more progressive media rep-
resentation. Nielsen has started reporting on online readership and notably during the
pandemic readership of both ABC news online and the The Guardian surged, with
ABC actually taking top spot from Nine.com.au for a number of months in 2020 and
Guardian moving to seventh (Nielsen 2021). However, during the period studied here
they were less well read, which is accounted for in the analysis. As per Table 1, the resul-
tant media source list for the research comprises eight sources.
The database Factiva was used to collect articles from each source by searching the
term ‘basic income’ for the year 2018. Of the five highest circulated papers, only four
had written articles on basic income – News Corp’s Herald Sun had no articles on the
topic. Several items were excluded from the dataset, including duplicates, Letters to
the Editor, book reviews and articles that referred to a ‘basic income’ outside the
context of UBI. The final dataset comprised 74 articles from seven different sources.

Finding frames
An inductive approach was used to identify frames. First, an ‘inventory of frames’ (Van
Gorp 2007) was created based on Perkiö, Rincon, and van Draanen (2019), a literature
review of UBI (outlined above but not included in full due to space constraints), and
an initial reading of the media content. Next, a frame matrix was constructed using

Table 1. Selected Australian Newspaper Outlets by Ownership, Readership and Publications on UBI.
Cross-Platform Total number of
Readership Dec 2018 articles on Basic
Ownership Media Bias (000s) Income
Herald Sun (VIC) News Corp Australia Centre-Right 1 357 0
Daily Telegraph (NSW) News Corp Australia Right 1 104 3
The Sydney Morning Nine Entertainment Centre 991 4
Herald (NSW)
The Age (VIC) Nine Entertainment Centre 926 4
The Australian News Corp Australia Centre-Right 889 34
(National)
The Conversation The Conversation Left-Least Bias N/A 25
(Online Only) Media Trust
The Guardian (Online Guardian Media Centre-Left N/A 4
Only) Group
ABC (Online Only) Australian Centre N/A 2
Broadcasting
Network
Total Dataset: 74
Source: Authors’ compilation using MBFC (2020) and Roy Morgan (2018).
 AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 415

the frames and reasoning devices found in the articles. Each article was manually coded
against the framing matrix, allowing for identification of multiple frames in each article.
Articles were also classified as predominantly ‘negative’ or ‘positive’ regarding UBI. The
results were similar to Perkiö, Rincon, and van Draanen (2019) however, our analysis
includes both the positive and negative aspects of each frame. The data analysis in the
next section follows the structure of Table 2 with six frames identified: automation,
work incentive, welfare, equality, poverty and cost.

Data analysis
Basic income as a policy response to automation
One of the largest frames to emerge from the analysis was the relationship between auto-
mation and basic income. Eleven articles, predominantly from The Conversation but also
two articles from The Australian and one from The Daily Telegraph, framed basic income
as a possible, or necessary, response to labour insecurity as a consequence of emerging
technologies. These articles referenced increasing support for the proposal from promi-
nent figures in the technology domain, including Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Stephen
Hawking and Richard Branson. The public recognition of these figures and their central-
ity to the discussion on technology and automation helps reinforce basic income’s suit-
ability as a policy response to technological change. Along the same lines, left and centre

Table 2. Framing Matrix: Frames and reasoning devices.

Basic Income
Frames Pro-UBI Reasoning Device Anti-UBI Reasoning device
Automation . Advancing technology will cause mass . Australia has adopted technology and
unemployment unemployment is low
. Prominent technology figures support UBI . Technology is not capable of replacing
. Other countries are trialling UBI in response to human labour
automation . UBI supporters are ‘modern luddites’

Work incentives . Reduces hours worked by individuals, thus . Encourages idleness and laziness
increases attractive employment opportunities for amongst the poor
others . Disincentivises the taxpayer/reduces
revenue

Welfare . Newstart is ineffective at addressing poverty . Targeted payments ensure that only
. Reduces bureaucracy in the welfare state those who need it receive assistance
. Money is better spent building public
services

Poverty . Moral obligation to alleviate poverty . ‘Socialist’ proposals worsen poverty e.g.
. UBI trials demonstrated reduced poverty Venezuela

Equality . Automation will increase inequality . Focusing on inequality worsens poverty

. Basic income could promote gender equality

Cost . Does not cost as much as estimated . The policy is too expensive
416 L. CARROLL AND S. ENGEL

media outlets outlined how foreign governments are exploring the proposal by conduct-
ing experiments. Both The Guardian and The Conversation reported on the increasing
attention from policy officials as governments aim ‘to investigate its potential as a
response to automation’ (Le Roux 2018). By highlighting the application of basic
income in the ‘real world,’ these articles demonstrate the proposal is more than theoreti-
cal and is gathering interest from policymakers.
Three articles from The Australian and one from The Daily Telegraph framed basic
income as an exaggerated response to automation, expressing scepticism over the fears
of increasing unemployment. For instance, an article in the Daily Telegraph argued
that fears of ‘mass unemployment’ were erroneous. It argued Australia has been a ‘fast
adopter’ of technology and has ‘unemployment below 5 per cent and labour shortages
in many areas’ (Henderson 2018). Furthermore, these articles question the rapidity of
technological change. The Australian declared, for instance, ‘robots are still pretty hope-
less’ (Creighton 2018a). The same article also evoked a clichéd historical frame propos-
ing, ‘the Luddites who wanted to destroy machinery in the eighteenth century have
remerged today as proponents of a universal basic income’ (Creighton 2018b).
Overall, automation was the most dynamic frame in the dataset containing large pro-
and anti-basic income arguments. The pro-basic income frame was strongest amongst
articles from the left and centre sources, highlighting support for the idea from both tech-
nology leaders and international governments. Meanwhile, right and centre-right articles
mostly framed basic income negatively, using current employment statistics to argue
increased unemployment is not manifesting.

Work incentives
A ubiquitous frame used to discredit basic income is that ‘free money’ reduces work
incentives. In the Australian data set, a total of twelve articles, from both right and
centre sources, argued that a basic income would negatively impact work. This frame
contained two reasoning devices; the first claimed that basic income would increase lazi-
ness amongst the poor, constructing them often as the ‘undeserving.’ For instance, an
article from the ABC asserted, ‘it is good for both the economy and the people in it to
maintain a social stigma against long-term idleness’ (Foster 2018). In a more insidious
framing of the same concept, the Daily Telegraph linked the threat of idleness to indigen-
ous communities, outlining that:
our government tried UBI, paying unconditional universal basic income in remote Abori-
ginal communities for over 40 years on the premise of not enough jobs. Aboriginals called it
‘sit down money’. Telling people to rely on pensions because there’s no work fosters the very
socio-economic decline UBI is supposed to cure (Henderson 2018).

The second framing device focused on disincentives for taxpayers. The Australian argued
that high ‘tax rates would likely reduce the incentive to work considerably, potentially
undermining the tax revenues on which the policy is based’ (Creighton 2018b). Only
two articles—one in The Conversation and one from the ABC—contained a positive
counter-frame. In the ABC article, written by UBI scholar Elise Klein (2018), she high-
lights that the fixation on traditional structures of work is no longer possible as ‘there
simply aren’t enough secure dignified jobs for everyone.’ Despite the small positive
 AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 417

framing, the overall media framing on work incentive from both centre- and centre-right
sources focused on the desirability of full employment and the demonisation of the
unemployed.

Reforming welfare
The argument that basic income could improve the social security system was a small but
essential frame. In total, six articles from left and left-least-biased media and one from
The Australian discussed the possibility of basic income improving the welfare system.
The Conversation argued that Australia’s safety nets are not set at a level that prevents
people from falling into poverty: ‘social security payments for unemployed people, like
Newstart, now barely meet the necessities of life’ (Howe 2018). In addition, an article
from The Guardian highlighted how the current model stigmatises recipients (Keegan
2018). And interestingly, The Australian outlined how a basic income could create a
system that is ‘simpler and fairer’ (Uren 2018).
The means-testing aspect of the Australian welfare system was defended through a
larger frame, which contained eight articles from right and centre-right outlets. The Aus-
tralian, for instance, suggested means-testing makes Australia’s welfare system ‘one of
the most sturdy in the world’ (Morton 2018). The centrist paper The Age contained
one article written by the Centre of Independent Studies’ Simon Cowan. He argued
along a similar vein: ‘the only way to maintain a strong safety net for those truly in
need is to support stringent means-testing’ (Cowan 2018). In articles from left and
left-least-biased leaning outlets, basic income was framed as a possible measure to
address inadequacies in Australia’s welfare state. However, this frame was negated by
more articles on the right, suggesting that strong means-testing produces a sturdier
welfare system.

Lift people out of poverty

Alleviating poverty is one of the oldest justifications for basic income and a central idea in
the academic debate. In total, eighteen articles discussed poverty: fourteen from the Con-
versation, two from The Guardian, one from the SMH and one from the ABC. There were
several themes within this frame, with two articles arguing that taking measures to alle-
viate poverty was a moral imperative. The Conversation said, for example, that basic
income is ‘the right thing to do’ (Mah 2018). Additional themes included restoring
dignity to those living in poverty and that increasing ‘the resources of unemployed
and low-income workers would provide them with much-needed confidence’ (Grattan
2018). The Conversation article highlighted how a UBI could be used to promote
health, noting that the additional money would increase food security amongst the
poor: ‘evidence to date is that a basic income guarantee can be an effective strategy to
reduce food insecurity and improve health outcomes’ (Johnes 2018).
Five articles from both left and right sources countered the poverty frame, arguing
basic income would worsen poverty. The Australian suggested that the resultant high
taxation of income would plunge Australians into poverty: ‘killing profitable businesses
has been tried and failed around the world and you need only look at the levels of poverty
and riots in Venezuela’ (Baxendale 2018). The centrist paper, The Age, offered a
418 L. CARROLL AND S. ENGEL

‘progressive perspective’ in an article written by Emma Dawson from the independent

progressive think-tank, Per Capita. She argued, that poverty could be better addressed
by strengthening the social sphere and ‘building on Australia’s tradition of providing uni-
versal services’ (Dawson 2018).
A pro-basic income framing based on poverty alleviation was the most potent argu-
ment on the left side of the political spectrum and the only instance where a principled
reasoning device was used to support basic income. Meanwhile, articles from the right
and centre-right argued that it would create a ‘socialist nightmare’ increasing poverty
while, The Age, argued poverty is better addressed by focusing on the public sphere.

A bold move towards equality

Several pro-basic income articles also took on an activist tone, discussing the redistribu-
tive element of the policy as a possible way to address rising inequality in Australia. Nine
articles from left, centre and left-least-biased media sources, discussed this point, often
paired with a discussion of the larger frames of poverty or automation. An article pub-
lished by the ABC outlined basic income as a right: ‘we need to understand UBI as a
radical redistributive mechanism—one that works to redistribute wealth so all can
enjoy economic security as a basic human right’ (Klein 2018). While one article in The
Conversation discussed the potential of basic income to address gender inequality:
‘basic income might be an effective way to treat some of the symptoms of wage inequality’
(Smith 2018). Like the poverty frame, anti-UBI articles argued that policymakers should
not focus on inequality. For example, one article in the SMH, titled ‘Inequality isn’t Aus-
tralia’s issue, poverty should be our focus’ (Cowan 2018), argued policies that target
inequality divert resources away from those in poverty. This frame reaffirmed support
for Australia’s highly targeted welfare system as the promoter of fairness. This position
is upheld by government documents arguing that means-testing is a central pillar of the
‘success’ of the Australian welfare system (Commonwealth of Australia 2015).

Cannot be financed
The most frequently asked question in the articles was: can Australia afford a basic
income? In total, 22 articles from sources across centre and right sources said that the
proposal is unaffordable. The Age calculated the proposal would equate ‘to more than
$400 billion a year,’ and recommended we ‘stop the nonsense about paying money
that we can’t afford to everyone’ (Dawson 2018). Multiple articles in The Australian
and The Daily Telegraph stated that the cost would be $254 billion a year, and used
terms like, ‘self-destructive,’ ‘ruinously expensive’, ‘economic lunacy,’ ‘crippling’ or ‘liab-
ility’ to describe the policy - they used strong, derisive language to reinforce the suggested
unaffordability of basic income. There was a small counter-frame with one article each
from The Conversation, The Guardian,The Australian and the ABC suggesting that
policy could be affordable; for example, The Conversation article was titled, ‘Why Univer-
sal Basic Income costs far less than you think’ (Fouksman 2018). However, none of these
put a number on what that cost could be.
Overall, the media framing was predominately anti-basic income. The 38 articles from
sources that were identified as right-leaning had an overwhelming anti-UBI stance; and
 AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 419

89 per cent represented it negatively. The centre sources, The SMH, The Age and ABC
fared only slightly better with 60 percent negative out of a total of just ten articles. Fur-
thermore, the lack of reporting by the large centrist media is noteworthy; there were only
two articles from the ABC, with one negative and the other positive. The independent
sources had a more favourable view on basic income. The Conversation was identified
as a left-least-biased source and 79 per cent of it’s articles framed basic income positively.
The left-leaning Guardian demonstrated support for the proposal but there were only
four articles on the topic. As noted above, in 2018 the readership of the independent
news sources was small relative to News Corp and Nine, though it has since grown. In
2018, their ability to generate interest or consensus amongst a wide group of Australians
was limited and only The Conversation published a notable number of articles of the
topic. There is a dictum in the basic income scholarship which claims that the policy
is neither ‘left nor right,’ however, in the Australian media, basic income is condemned
by the right, largely ignored by the centre and marginally favoured by the left.

Comparisons and discussion

This section compares the results from the Australian analysis with the Canadian,
Finnish and Spanish data from the Perkiö, Rincon, and van Draanen (2019) study.
Figure 1 shows the top six pro- and anti-UBI frames in their analysis by the percentage
of articles in each country with the Australian data added.
There were several similarities between the four countries; the most notable was the
substantial presence of the automation frame. The relationship between emerging tech-
nology and the increasing attention given to basic income has been explored in the aca-
demic literature with Standing (2017) highlighting that interest in it has been driven by
high profile converts to the technological unemployment justification and rising levels of
anxiety about automation. The dominating presence of positive automation framing in
the Australian media adds further empirical evidence to that claim. Perkiö, Rincon,

Figure 1. Top six frames from original study and data from Australian study. (Source: constructed
using Perkiö, Rincon, and van Draanen (2019) and author’s data).
420 L. CARROLL AND S. ENGEL

and van Draanen (2019) find that automation could be a ‘useful tool’ to legitimise basic
income (see also Roosma and van Oorschot 2019).
There was, though, a counter-frame identified in the Australian dataset - that the
threat of automation is exaggerated. In many ways, this reflects the broader discus-
sion on automation. There is a lack of consensus on the exact rate of job loss (see
Arntz, Gregory, and Zierahn 2016), creating instability around what is one of the
most persuasive justification for basic income in the media currently. If automation
occurs at a lower rate than expected, the strength of the automation frame could be
significantly weakened.
It is worth highlighting the problematic reasoning devices employed in the negative
frames. First, an article in the Daily Telegraph reasoned that Australia is a fast adopter
of technologies. A survey conducted by Deloitte found that Australian business leaders
categorise themselves as ‘trying to keep pace’ rather than early adopters (Deloitte
2019). In reality, Australia is only at the start of radical technological transformation,
and the pandemic is predicted to only excelerate the rate of automation, particulary in
low-skill, customer facing sectors (Chemoff and Warman 2020); thus, any assertion
that it will be ‘business as usual’ is short-sighted. Second, The Australian’s metaphorical
reasoning device of basic income advocates as modern Luddites is ultimately fearmon-
gering. As Lachney and Dotson (2018, 229) argue, ‘the Luddite fallacy is itself a
fallacy.’ Luddism is often misrepresented as technophobic destruction rather than the
dismantling of sociotechnical relationships in a transformative manner. Individuals are
rarely given any autonomy over the impact of technologies on their lives. The Luddites
were resisting not so much the technology as the dominant hegemonic structures. So,
despite the negative connotation in the media, the characterisation of basic income
support as Luddite is useful when viewed in a more nuanced way. Third, a founding
ideal of the Australian political settlement was full-time work for white, male workers.
However, Australia now has high underemployment and one of the largest part-time
employment rates at 32.1 per cent (ABS 2020). While the country weathered the
global financial crisis better than many, it had one of the largest increases in underem-
ployment, particularly amongst youth. This calls into question continued pressure to
adhere to the pursuit of the full employment narrative within an evidently loose
labour market (see also Spies-Butcher, Phillips, and Henderson 2020). Further, age is a
key indictor of UBI support, with the young more likely to favour the idea (Roosma
and van Oorschot 2019; Vlandas 2020), which my be indicative of their increasing dis-
enfranchisement with the ‘traditional’ structure of work.
The pro-UBI inequality framing was one of the smallest in the Perkiö, Rincon, and van
Draanen (2019) and our study. In Australia, it was often paired with discussions of
poverty and automation to give a multidimensional argument. Increasing inequality as
a likely outcome of automation was noted, even if mass unemployment does not
occur. And there is evidence to back that: consulting firm Mckinsey projected that,
‘without a strong societal response, automation could widen inequality’ by up to 30
per cent (Taylor et al. 2019, 17). If the gap between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ widens
by such drastic amounts, it may promote redistribution through increasing the marginal
tax rate to capture and redistribute the benefits of automation. This idea was negatively
perceived in the media, particularly The Australian. Roosma and van Oorschot (2019,
199), using extensive European Social Survey (2016) data, found ‘a strong positive
 AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 421

relation between support for BI and support for the goal to reduce income differences,’
which is important for advocates to note.
The work incentive frame was the strongest anti-basic income framing in Perkiö,
Rincon, and van Draanen (2019), particularly in Finland, though it came second to
the cost argument in Australia. Work incentive was a key focus of the Finnish basic
income trial, which wanted to investigate if removing poverty traps would increase the
workforce participation rate amongst unemployed Finns (Kangas et al. 2019). Perkiö,
Rincon, and van Draanen (2019) explored how the work disincentive idea shapes discus-
sion about the unconditional aspect of UBI, sometimes producing a free money to all
narrative about it, including the ‘undeserving.’ Distinguishing between the ‘deserving’
and ‘undeserving’ became a distinct feature of the Australian welfare system during
the 1980s (Mendes 2003). Since then, the Australian model of liberal welfare has increas-
ingly attempted to isolate those who are ‘undeserving’ by expanding work-ready require-
ments (Mays, Marston, and Tomlinson 2016; Spies-Butcher, Phillips, and Henderson
2020). This is an attitude that is exemplified by current Prime Minister, Scott Morrison’s,
mantra: ‘If you have a go, you get a go.’ Plus, it imbues the recent trials of cashless welfare
aimed at controlling how the ‘undeserving’ poor are allowed to spend their payment.
Kangas (2003) found labelling the needy as either deserving or underserving is crucial
for establishing the legitimacy of social benefits in the mind of the public. The study also
found that Australians have a ‘much harsher attitude’ towards the poor than Finns.
Indeed, there have been decades of negative media coverage of welfare ‘cheats’ in Aus-
tralia, which could have helped drive attitudes, or it reflects them, or perhaps there
has been an upward spiral in attitudes underpinned by the 25 years without a recession,
prior to Covid-19. Given these attitudes, if basic income received a higher degree of pol-
itical attention in Australia, we would see this media frame used by the anti-UBI camp as
it appears to have fertile ground (Roosma and van Oorschot 2019).
Perkiö, Rincon, and van Draanen (2019) identified a welfare reform frame, which
suggests that a UBI could help provide better economic security and reduce the costly
bureaucracy of social security. This frame was highest in Finland reflecting the context
of the ongoing debate about welfare reform in Finland and, like work disincentives, it
could be explained by the focus of the Finnish trial, which explored if basic income is
‘less complicated than the current system’ (Kangas et al. 2019, 7). It was less pertinent
in the other countries, a finding also supported by Roosma and van Oorschot (2019).
In Australia, the frame was significantly smaller and often counter-framed by defending
means-testing. Australia has the highest level of means-testing of any country in the
OECD, which is supported to varying degrees by the two major parties in Australia
and each have incrementally increased the levels of means-testing over time (Buckmaster
2009). Many articles argued that the universal aspect of basic income would divert
resources away from the needy and create an increasingly unstable welfare system.
However, the universality of the payment does not mean the rich get richer, as the
basic income received by wealthier individuals could be clawed back through adjusted
tax rates, neutralising the payment for the rich (Van Parijs 2004; Standing 2017; Wider-
quist 2017). Widerquist (2017, 1) says that analysis which does not account for the taking
and giving back transfers in basic income is ‘misleading at best and deceptive at worst.’
Furthermore, the paradox of redistribution offers a significant case against arguments
that basic income would divert resources away from the poor. The paradox occurs when
422 L. CARROLL AND S. ENGEL

payments targeted at the poor become less redistributive over time. Often in targeted
welfare, the middle class, which is not a direct beneficiary, withdraws support. Conver-
sely, policies that are universal can foster widespread agreement on their value. Thus, a
‘take from all give to all’ approach can be more redistributive and better at reducing
poverty (Jacques and Noël 2018). As outlined by Spies-Butcher and Henderson (2019),
the paradox is present in Australia with the increasing stigmatisation of JobSeeker
having led to the erosion of payments and increasing conditions on recipients, though
the COVID-19 pandemic provided what seems increasingly likely be no more than a
short interruption to this in 2020. More universal payments, such as the age pension,
have a higher degree of public backing and have seen an increase over time.
There are many challenges to political support for the cost of a UBI, even if it would
address the paradox of redistribution. The UBI cannot be financed frame was notable in
Perkiö, Rincon, and van Draanen (2019) but the strongest in the Australian dataset; Ben
Phillips (2018) modelled a basic income for The Australian, estimating the total cost at
$378 billion, and that it would increase in government welfare payments by $254
billion, which was reported by the paper as the final cost. The Australian articles
ignored the key benefits highlighted by Phillips, including reducing the effective tax
rate on low-income earners and bringing Australia’s Gini coefficient in line with that
of Scandinavian countries. Phillip (2018) noted in his report that his model represents
only one possible method of funding basic income, which was left out the articles in
The Australian. A UBI does not have to be funded in one specific way (Van Parijs
2004), and the rate at which it is set can vary. The fiscal cost reflects these decisions,
and whether tax is clawed back directly through higher taxes or less directly through
the tapering out of the UBI. A 2020 Australian study modelled four additional basic
income variants and concluded there is ‘surprising compatibility between Australia’s
existing benefit system and a modified BI’ (Spies-Butcher, Phillips, and Henderson
2020, 517). The discussion of finance in The Australian was simplistic and misrepre-
sented how the basic income transfer function works. It inflated the cost, ignored the
benefits and overlooked the complexity and diversity of possible models for basic income.

Conclusion
Since the 1980s, the Australian model of liberal welfare has been shaped by hegemonic
neoliberal values distinguished by market-based approaches to social need, tangled
safety nets and a focus on work activation (Mays, Marston, and Tomlinson 2016).
Basic income would be a radical shift away from many of the punitive aspects of that
highly conditional model. Advocates contend that the policy, based on principles of
justice and freedom, could address many pragmatic issues that blight the current
model, including insecurity, poverty and inequality. In Australia, there is growing aca-
demic debate on UBI, with advocates discussing the idea’s transformative potential;
however, the proposal remains politically unexplored as the two main parties in Australia
have rejected it outright.
The purpose of this study was twofold, first, to examine how the basic income debate
has been framed in the Australian media and, in comparison to Spain, Canada and
Finland—countries where basic income has moved towards the centre of public and
policy agendas. Second, in examining the Australian framing, we aimed to analyse
 AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 423

whether Australia’s concentrated media ownership and clear divisions into right and left-
leaning media, influence the framing of UBI.
On media framing, there was a very significant difference between Perkiö et al.’s
(2019) study and the Australian case. Media framing in Spain, Canada and Finland
was generally positive, whereas, in the Australian media, it was predominately negative.
In particular, the right-leaning News Corps and centrist Nine Entertainment Co con-
tained mostly negative frames about UBI. Given the concentration of the Australian
news landscape, it was unsurprising that the articles with the largest readership tended
to favour elite and business interests and to uphold supposedly ‘common sense’ cultural
values about work ethics and targeted welfare. Conversely, the online progressive news-
paper, The Guardian, and the academic title, The Conversation, contained a more sub-
stantial portion of positive articles. However, given the small number of articles, in
The Guardian in particular, and the smaller readership, the salience of these frames
amongst the Australian public is limited.
In recent literature, automation is credited with increasing attention to the policy
(Standing 2017), and this undoubtedly could advance the debate about basic income.
Oddly though, the growing casualisation of work and work insecurity did not feature
as a media frame. The academic discussion as to the precise impact of automation is
unclear, raising questions on the longer-term stability of the automation frame,
though there is strong evidence around casualisation, which is a major concern for
young people. As demonstrated in the Australian analysis, basic income detractors are
already creating a counter-frame to automation. Thus, the pathway towards basic
income as a policy response to automation rests on the question of what level of mass
unemployment would be required to dispel the hegemonic approach to conditionality,
allowing able-bodied unemployed to be reframed as deserving, not the result of their
‘individual choices.’ In examining current responses to the persistently high rate of
part-time and underemployment and the refusal of the government to increase JobSeeker
payments to above the poverty line pre-COVID-19, the level of un-and under-employ-
ment required seems to be extreme. Still, attitudes of the public may be shifting with
one recent survey conducted for the Australian Greens showing 58 per cent of Austra-
lians somewhat or strongly support a UBI and 50 per cent strongly or somewhat support-
ing unconditional income support (Hutchens 2020) and an Anglicare Australia (2021,
24) indicating 77 per cent support for ‘all Australians to receive an income above the
poverty line.’ Though the precise questions asked in these surveys and interpretation
of them likely influenced results.
Similar ideas apply to the poverty and inequality frames. Poverty and inequality have
been growing structural problems for the last couple of decades in Australia and around
the world. However, policy responses to the poor have become increasingly punitive.
Kangas (2003) found that Australians tend to harbour harsh attitudes towards the unde-
serving poor and prefer policies targeted at those who are deemed deserving. The
exploration of issues of poverty and inequality alone may not be strong enough to
counter moral concerns about UBI creating a reduced work ethic. Attitudes towards
the ‘undeserving poor’ may soften due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which highlights
the importance of understanding public attitudes (Roosma and van Oorschot 2019), as
well as media framings.
424 L. CARROLL AND S. ENGEL

The largest challenge working against basic income is the perception of its cost. Basic
income is framed as increasing government expenditure beyond sustainability or desir-
ability. The cost analysis in the media exaggerates the final figure of a basic income.
Nevertheless, the cost of a basic income makes it politically difficult in Australia,
though proposals like that from Spies-Butcher, Phillips, and Henderson (2020) open
up this debate. Given the strength of this frame, advocates might need to be flexible
on the universal or adequacy aspects of basic income to advance the policy forward.
As highlighted by Van Parijs (2004, 24), basic income policy is ‘no game for purists
and fetishists but for tinkerers and opportunists.’ If appropriate compromises are
made to counter some of the strongest objections, such as cost, there is a real opportunity
to advance it up the political agenda.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributors
Leah Caroll complete her First Class Honours in International Studies at the University of
Wollongong.
Susan Engel is an Associate Professor in Politics and International Studies at the University of
Wollongong. She lectures in the areas of development, international politics and political
economy. She has a 2021 co-authored book with AR Bazbauers on The Global Architecture of
Multilateral Development Banks: A System of Debt or Development? (Routledge), a 2010 book
on the Word Bank in Southeast Asia and over 30 journal articles and chapters.

References
ABS. 2020. “Labour Force, Australia.” Australian Bureau of Statistics. Accessed 20 March. https://
www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/employment-and-unemployment/labour-force-australia/sep-
2020.
Anglicare Australia. 2021. Valuing Every Contribution: What a Basic Income Would Mean for
Australians. Ainslie, ACT: Anglicare Australia Ltd.
Arntz, Melanie, Terry Gregory, and Ulrich Zierahn. 2016. “The Risk of Automation for Jobs in
OECD Countries: A Comparative Analysis.” OECD Social, Employment and Migration
Working Paper. Accessed 10 April 2020. https://futuroexponencial.com/wp-content/uploads/
2018/02/OECD.pdf.
Barry, Brian. 1996. “Real Freedom and Basic Income.” Journal of Political Philosophy 4 (3): 242–
276.
Baxendale, Rachel. 2018. “Let’s Have Welfare for All, says Di Natale.” The Australian, 3 April.
Buckmaster, Luke. 2009. “Money for Nothing? Australia in the Global Middle Class Welfare
Debate.” Parliament of Australia. Accessed 2 April. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_
Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp0809/09rp31.
Calnitsky, David. 2016. ““More Normal Than Welfare”: The Mincome Experiment, Stigma, and
Community Experience.” Canadian Review of Sociology 53 (1): 26–71.
Carragee, Kevin, and Wim Roefs. 2004. “The Neglect of Power in Recent Framing Research.”
Journal of Communication 54 (2): 214–233.
Chemoff, Alex, and Casey Warman. 2020. Covid-19 and Implications for Automation.
 AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 425

Commonwealth of Australia. 2015. “A New System for Better Employment and Social Outcomes.”
Commonwealth of Australia. Accessed 6 May. https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/
documents/02_2015/dss001_14_final_report_access_2.pdf.
Cowan, Simon. 2018. “Inequality isn’t Australia’s Issue - Poverty Should be our Focus.” The Sydney
Morning Herald, 1 September.
Creighton, Adam. 2018a. “Greens in Push to Slug Rich to Boost the Dole.” The Australian, 30
April.
Creighton, Adam. 2018b. “‘Greens’ Income Plan to Cost Extra $254bn a Year.” The Australian, 5
April.
Dawson, Emma. 2018. “Universal Basic Income Ignores the Value of Work.” The Age, 6 April.
Deloitte. 2019. “Future in the Balance? Insights from Deloitte’s State of AI in the Enterprise.”
Deloitte. Accessed May 3. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/lu/Documents/
public-sector/lu-global-ai-survey.pdf.
Elster, Jon. 1986. “Comment on van der Veen and Van Parijs.” Theory and Society 15 (5): 709–721.
Entman, Robert. 1993. “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.” Journal of
Communication 43 (4): 51–58.
Fitzpatrick, Tony. 1999. Freedom and Security: An Introduction to the Basic Income Debate. United
Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fortner, Robert, and Mark Fackler. 2014. The Handbook of Media and Mass Communication
Theory. Somerset: John Wiley & Sons.
Foster, Gigi. 2018. “Finland’s Basic Income Trial Exposes Timeless Welfare Reform Dilemma.”
ABC, 1 May.
Fouksman, Elizaevta. 2018. “Why Universal Basic Income Costs Far Less than you Think’.” The
Conversation, 14 August.
Grattan, Michelle. 2018. “Greens Urge a Publicly Owned ‘People’s Bank’ as Part of a Big-
Government Platform.” The Conversation, 3 April.
Griffen-Foley, Bridget. 2014. A Companion to the Australian Media. Melbourne: Australian
Scholarly Publishing.
Henderson, Elizabeth. 2018. “Robots Still a Long Way Off.” Daily Telegraph, 18 May.
Hollo, Tim. 2019. “Finding a Political Strategy for a Basic Income in Australia.” In Implementing a
Basic Income in Australia, edited by Elise Klein, Jennifer Mays, and Tim Dunlop, 129–145.
Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
Howe, Brian. 2018. “Australians Support Universal Health Care, So Why not a Universal Basic
Income?” The Conversation.
Hutchens, Gareth. 2020. “A Majority of Australians would Welcome a Universal Basic Income,
Survey Finds.” ABC News. Accessed 21 March. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-11/
survey-says-most-australians-welcome-universal-basic-income/12970924.
Jacques, Olivier, and Alain Noël. 2018. “The Case for Welfare State Universalism, or the Lasting
Relevance of the Paradox of Redistribution.” Journal of European Social Policy 28 (1): 70–85.
Johnes, Geraint. 2018. “Robots Could Make the UK’s North-South Divide Even Worse’.” The
Conversation, 1 February.
Kangas, Olli. 2003. “The Grasshopper and the Ants: Popular Opinions of Just Distribution in
Australia and Finland.” The Journal of Socio-Economics 31 (6): 721–743.
Kangas, Olli, Signe Jauhiainen, Miska Simanainen, and Minna Ylikännö. 2019. “The Basic Income
Experiment 2017–2018 in Finland Preliminary Results.” Accessed December 10. https://
julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/handle/10024/161361.
Keegan, Matthew. 2018. “The Cities Trying out Universal Basic Income.” The Guardian, 27 June.
Klein, Elise. 2018. “Universal Basic Income Should be Seen as a Rightful Share of Society’s Wealth.”
ABC, 14 May. Accessed 17 February 2021.
Klein, Elise, Jennifer Mays, and Tim Dunlop eds. 2019. Implementing a Basic Income in Australia:
Pathways Forward. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lachney, Michael, and Taylor Dotson. 2018. “Epistemological Luddism: Reinvigorating a Concept
for Action in 21st Century Sociotechnical Struggles.” Social Epistemology 32 (4): 228–240.
426 L. CARROLL AND S. ENGEL

Le Roux, Daniel. 2018. “Many South African Jobs Could Soon be Automated, and the Country
Isn’t Prepared.” The Conversation, 17 July.
Levin-Waldman, Oren. 2018. “The Inevitability of a Universal Basic Income.” Challenge 61 (2):
133–155.
Mah, Catherine. 2018. “Basic income: A No-Brainer in Economic Hard Times.” The Conversation,
2 August.
Mays, Jennifer, Greg Marston, and John Tomlinson. 2016. Basic Income in Australia and New
Zealand: Perspectives from the Neoliberal Frontier. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire:
Palgrave Macmillan.
MBFC. 2020. “Media Bias/Fact Check.” Accessed 19 October. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/.
Mehta, Rohit, and Lynette DeAun Guzmán. 2018. “Fake or Visual Trickery? Understanding the
Quantitative Visual Rhetoric in the News.” Journal of Media Literacy Education 10 (2): 104–122.
Mendes, Philip. 2003. “Australian Neoliberal Think Tanks and the Backlash Against the Welfare
State.” Journal of Australian Political Economy 51: 29–56.
Morton, Rick. 2018. “Richard Di Natale is Flying the Hindenburg with his Welfare Policy.” The
Australian, 4 April.
Nielsen. 2021. “Digital Playbook: Australia’s Independent Digital Audience Measurement
Solution.” Accessed 10 September. https://www.nielsen.com/au/en/solutions/digital-playbook/.
Parliament of Australia. 2020. “Petitions EN- Royal Commission to Ensure a Strong, Diverse
Australian News Media.” Parliament of Australia.
Perkiö, Johanna, Leire Rincon, and Jenna van Draanen. 2019. “Framing Basic Income: Comparing
Media Framing of Basic Income in Canada, Finland, and Spain.” In The Palgrave International
Handbook of Basic Income, edited by Torry Malcolm, 233–251. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave
Macmillam.
Phillips, B. 2018. Modelling a Basic Income for Australia-Simple Example of a Universal Pension Funded
by Increasing Personal Income Taxation’. Canberra: Centre for Social Research and Methods.
Roosma, Femke, and Wim van Oorschot. 2019. “Public Opinion on Basic Income: Mapping
European Support for a Radical Alternative for Welfare Provision.” Journal of European
Social Policy 30 (2): 190–205. doi:10.1177/0958928719882827.
Roy Morgan. 2018. “Four Out of Five Australians Continue to Read Newspapers.” Roy Morgan.
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/7687-roy-morgan-australian-newspaper-cross-platform-
readership-audiences-june-2018-201808090431.
RoyMorgan. 2018. “Roy Morgan Readership Result for the Year Ending December 2018.” Ray
Morgan. Accessed February 3. http://www.roymorgan.com/industries/media/readership/
readership-archive.
Scheufele, Dietram. 1999. “Framing as a Theory of Media Effects.” Journal of Communication 49
(1): 103–122.
Smith, Mark. 2018. “Is a Basic Income the Solution to Persistent Inequalities Faced by Women.”
The Conversation 7 March.
Spies-Butcher, Ben, and Troy Henderson. 2019. “Stepping Stones to an Australian Basic Income.”
In Implementing a Basic Income in Australia, edited by Elise Klein, Jennifer Mays, and Tim
Dunlop, 163–178. Cham: Springer.
Spies-Butcher, Ben, Ben Phillips, and Troy Henderson. 2020. “Between Universalism and
Targeting: Exploring Policy Pathways for an Australian Basic Income.” The Economic and
Labour Relations Review early view: 1–22. doi:10.1177/1035304620964272.
Standing, Guy. 2014. A Precariat Charter: From Denizens to Citizens. London: Bloomsbury.
Standing, Guy. 2017. Basic Income: And how we Can Make it Happen. London: Penguin.
Taylor, Charlie, Jules Carrigan, Hassan Noura, Sexkin Ungur, Jasper Van Halder, and Gurneet
Dandona. 2019. “Australia’s Automation Opportunity: Reigniting Productive and Inclusive
Income Growth.” McKinsey and Company. Accessed May 2. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/
media/mckinsey/featured%20insights/future%20of%20organizations/australias%20automation
%20opportunity%20reigniting%20productivity%20and%20inclusive%20income%20growth/
auo%20automation-summary.pdf.
 AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 427

Tiffen, Rodney. 1987. “Quality and Bias in the Australian Press: News Limited, Fairfax and the
Herald and Weekly Times.” The Australian Quarterly 59 (3): 329–344.
Tuchman, Gaye. 1983. “Consciousness Industries and the Production of Culture.” Journal of
Communication 33 (3): 330–341.
Uren, David. 2018. “Wealth Tax a Spur to Enter Workforce.” The Australian, 9 October.
Van Gorp, Baldwin. 2007. “The Constructionist Approach to Framing: Bringing Culture Back in.”
Journal of Communication 57 (1): 60–78.
Van Parijs, Philippe. 1997. Real Freedom for all: What (if Anything) Can Justify Capitalism?
Oxford: University of Oxford.
Van Parijs, Philippe. 2004. “Basic Income: A Simple and Powerful Idea for the Twenty-First
Century.” Politics Society 32 (1): 7–39.
Vlandas, Tim. 2020. “Political Economy of Individual-Level Support for the Basic Income in
Europe.” Journal of European Social Policy 31 (1): 62–77.
White, Stuart. 1997. “Liberal Equality, Exploitation, and the Case for an Unconditional Basic
Income.” Political Studies 45 (2): 312–326.
Widerquist, Karl. 2017. “The Cost of Basic Income: Back-of-the-Envelope Calculations.” Basic
Income Studies 12 (2): 18–107.