This article examines the extent to which the Australian and UK social security systems meet their legal obligations to provide basic relief to citizens in need. Conditionality and “mutual obligation” are at the core of both the UK and Australian social security systems and are based on the concept of moral hazard, the goal being to ensure that claimants do not consider living on benefits to be preferable to engaging in paid work. Yet, we argue that the element of “mutuality” is missing in both systems; welfare claimants are subject to myriad conditions and obligations, whilst the state operates free of any legal responsibility to provide even basic relief to those in need, to prevent or alleviate extreme poverty and destitution. We outline the extent to which Australian and UK social security laws require governments to relieve destitution, examining both domestic and human rights law. We conclude that legal protections are weak and that both systems fail to meet the basic conditions of humanity toward their citizens. On this basis, we argue that such failings demonstrate a lack of integrity which undermines the standing of both the UK and Australia to invoke a claim of moral hazard to defend claimant conditionality.

中文翻译：

---

有条件的道德风险：恢复社会保障法的完整性

本文研究了澳大利亚和英国的社会保障体系在多大程度上履行其法律义务，为有需要的公民提供基本救济。附带条件和“相互义务”是英国和澳大利亚社会保障体系的核心，并基于道德风险的概念，目的是确保索偿人不认为靠福利生活比从事有偿工作更可取。但是，我们认为两个系统中都缺少“互助性”元素；福利索赔人要遵守各种条件和义务，而国家则没有任何法律责任为需要帮助的人提供甚至基本的救济，以防止或减轻极端贫困和贫困。我们概述了澳大利亚和英国的社会保障法在多大程度上要求政府减轻贫困，审查国内法和人权法。我们得出的结论是，法律保护薄弱，两个体系都无法满足人类对其公民的基本条件。在此基础上，我们认为此类失败表明缺乏诚信，这损害了英国和澳大利亚援引道德风险主张以捍卫主张人的附加条件的地位。