Opposition mounts to Abbott Government's Cashless Welfare Card

Greens Senator Rachel Siewart has made clear her party's opposition to the Abbott Government proposal to introduce a cashless Welfare Card for Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. Her media release is below.

Legislation for a 12 month trial of  the Welfare Card in a number of locations will be introduced into Parliament this week, but can only pass with the support of Labor or at least 6 crossbench senators.

The idea for the Welfare Card was originally proposed by philanthrocapitalist and mining billionaire Andrew Forrest who recommended a cashless welfare card for all working-age Centrelink clients in his 2014 review of Aboriginal employment.

The Welfare Card aims to prevent welfare recipients gambling or buying alcohol or drugs. The intention is that the card will apply to every adult  who happens to be on welfare. It is promoted as a way to stop alcohol fuelled violence and abuse of women and children.

There are two distinct elements to the proposed Welfare Card.  Firstly, the introduction of a cashless welfare payments system, and secondly, the implementation of universal restrictions on the spending of those welfare payments (including the inability to withdraw cash).

In the trial sites the card will target Indigenous and non-indigenous people and veterans, aged pensioners and others will be able to opt into the card should they choose to do so. 

In the trial sites 80 per cent of all welfare payments will be placed onto the cashless debit card and the remaining 20 per cent will go into an ordinary cash account.

However, as Eva Cox has shown there is no evidence such programs work.  She argues that such programs start with the wrong assumptions, that the spending of income recipients is the problem.

Cox argues that they can undermine recipients’ capacities to make their own choices, costs a lot per person to administer, which could be better spent on other services, reduce the focus on external problems (such as job seekers greatly outnumbering jobs and employers' prejudices affecting work prospects) and blames the most vulnerable and reinforces hostile public views

An independent evaluation of the Northern Territory Income Management Program concluded:

The evaluation could not find any substantive evidence of the program having significant changes relative to its key policy objectives, including changing people’s behaviours.

More general measures of wellbeing at the community level show no evidence of improvement, including for children.

The evaluation found that, rather than building capacity and independence, for many the program has acted to make people more dependent on welfare.

Unsurprisingly, there is division among Aboriginal leaders, with some supporting the proposal and others opposed to it.

ACOSS's statement opposing the Welfare Card is here.

Critiques of the Welfare Card proposal are here, here, here, here and here.

Christopher Chew from Monash University analyses the proposal from an ethical perspective and concludes:

In summary, it seems that the proposal for a Healthy Welfare Card is disproportionately paternalistic, rests on controversial and elitist assumptions about welfare recipients and the nature of welfare system, and will only serve to infantilise and alienate an already vulnerable part of the Australian community. It is most certainly not empowering, will not give people complete freedom and will certainly not end paternalism. Perhaps the intent of this amazing doublethink is that “welfare recipients” will become as demonised as the ‘illegal boat people’ of election campaigns past.

The proponent of the card, Andrew Forrest has contributed to this important social policy debate by dismissing anyone who critiques the proposal  as 'useless “hand wringers and pontificators'.

**********************************************************************

Extract from media statement by Senator Rachel Siewart

"I urge the Labor party to be genuine opposition when it comes to voting on legislation that will seek to rollout the healthy welfare card trials.

“It is incomprehensible that a paternalistic thought bubble by a billionaire could materialise with the support of the Labor party, rolling out as early as next year.
  
“80% of someone’s income support forcibly quarantined to a card will make life remarkably harder for this already struggling group.

“Limiting access to cash will severely restrict the ability to budget and decision making. Whether it be at the markets, lunch money for their kids, or a bus fare – all these things add up and may not be available via card payment. 

"Most importantly people have spoken of being made to feel like second class citizens when talking about their independence and dignity.

“We know that paternalistic top down measures do not work. Income management has not worked. We know from evaluations that income management hasn’t delivered results. The healthy welfare card is just a continuation of this approach.
 
“The Government should focus its energies on a range of measures and wrap around supports; just restricting spending and access to cash doesn’t address the underlying causes and people will find other ways to buy alcohol and money for gambling.

“The Government and it appears the Opposition are desperately supporting silver bullet measures, these are complex issues that need to be addressed.

“The Australian Greens will not be supporting the healthy welfare card in the House of Representatives or the Senate. We will move to send this measure through to a Community Affairs inquiry so that it can be further scrutinised.

“We must abandon top down approaches that have failed in the past and will fail again. We must work closely with community members to address disadvantage."

Neoliberalism, market fundamentalism and the colonization of Aboriginal policy

"Neo-liberalism is a hungry beast and this 21st Century strain of capitalism is shaping the agenda for control of Aboriginal lands...........Australian Government policy is heavily influenced by neo-liberalism through its extraordinary emphasis on managing access for mining companies to resources on Aboriginal lands. This involves controlling what is still perceived as ‘the Aboriginal problem’ and forcing a social transition from traditional values and cultural practice to ‘mainstream’ modernism of a particular brand. It also involves displacing many Aboriginal people from their traditional lands and concentrating them in ‘growth towns.......To make any sense of the aggression behind most current Indigenous policy in Australia you need to study the impact of neo-liberalism around the globe"  

Jeff McMullen

The Australian journalist, writer and social justice campaigner Jeff McMullen has written two cogent and articulate critiques of the colonization of Aboriginal policy making in this country by the cancer of neo-liberalism (or what others call market fundamentalism). 

One of Jeff McMullen's articles The New Land Grab is available on line here (in The New Internationalist blog). The second piece is a book chapter titled Dispossession- Neoliberalism and the Struggle for Aboriginal Land and Rights in the 21st Century which appears in a new book In Black and White: Australians at the Cross Roads (edited by Rhonda Craven, Anthony Dillon & Nigel Parbury). This article is available here on Jeff McMullen's own website

In drawing on the work of David Harvey and others, and incorporating the voices of Aboriginal people, McMullen makes the case that neoliberalism is a key driver of the agenda for the control of Aboriginal lands and assimilation of Aboriginal people in Australia.  

Neoliberalism, McMullen argues is the ideological underpinning of a uniquely Australian strain of state-corporate capitalism that aims to control Aboriginal communities to enable exploitation of the land and mineral wealth on Aboriginal lands. McMullan argues that the real goal here is the upward redistribution of land and mineral wealth.

McMullen demonstrates the way that successive Federal and State Governments have used the coercive powers of the state to impose an agenda of modernization, control of Aboriginal lands and assimilation and assault on Aboriginal rights and culture.

Drawing on David Harvey's book A Brief History of Neoliberalism, McMullen identifies 4 essential features of the neoliberal agenda and analyses the extent to which they are manifest in Aboriginal policy making in this country:

1. Privatization and commodification of public and community goods. This has occurred through the privatization of Aboriginal lands, via policies that open up Aboriginal land to resource exploitation and attempts to override community land ownership and impose private property ownership rights.
2. Financialization to treat good or bad events as opportunities for economic speculation.
3. Management and manipulation of crises to establish a neoliberal agenda. This includes using the  Northern Territory Intervention as justification for  exerting greater control over Aboriginal communities to enable market and corporate exploitation of the minerals and resources on Aboriginal lands and the use  of 'military style campaigns to exert control and challenge Aboriginal sovereignty
4. State redistribution of wealth, not to the poor but to the rich and powerful.

Analyzing Aboriginal policy through the lens of neoliberalism as McMullen does, helps us to understand what drives social policies such as the Northern Territory Intervention and the social engineering to control Aboriginal people still living on traditional lands, as well as the aggressive land grab by mining and resource companies, aided and abetted by Federal and State Governments, which divides Aboriginal communities, and even Aboriginal families.  He writes:

'Neoliberalism connects the agendas of modernising Aboriginal culture and allowing mining companies to vigorously exploit and minimal cost the mineral treasures on Aboriginal lands'.

McMullen points to the divide and conquer tactics of mining companies and governments in the Kimberley and Pilbara in Western Australia, across the Northern Territory, on Cape York and in parts of NSW and South Australia, as manifestation of these neoliberal agendas.

McMullen is scathing about the role played by influential Aboriginal leaders, such as Noel Pearson, Marcia Langton and Warren Mundine who have become influential advocates and brokers for neoliberal policies and have gathered adherents and supporters in both political parties and corporate Australia.

Report card on Australia's progress in adressing Aboriginal disadvantage

This week saw the the release of the Federal Government's Third Close the Gap Report on its efforts to address Aboriginal Disadvantage.

Despite important progress in some areas, the Report highlights the continual failure of Federal, State and Local Governments (and now the corporate sector) to "close the gap".

Unsurprisingly the report has quickly disappeared from public discourse and political and media media commentary.

Rather than acknowledge the failure of successive Governments to address Aboriginal disadvantage the Prime Minister pushed the responsibility back on Aboriginal people, demanding that they take greater responsibility for overcoming the problems their communities face.

As Greens Senator Rachel Siewart pointed out it was breathtakingly hypocritical of the Gillard Government to demand that Aboriginal people take greater responsibility, while simultaneously restricting how they spend their income.

Responding to the Report's release Eva Cox questions the evidence base upon which some of the Report's findings are based.

In this piece from the ABC Drum Unleashed Aboriginal leader Bev Manton offers a sustained critique of the Gillard Government Report Card:

So it is with heavy cynicism that I greet the third annual Closing the Gap report.

Rudd made the promise to deliver a statement on the government’s progress on closing the gap shortly after he won the election. The first two statements, both belated and both short of substance were a disappointment.

But Gillard’s latest delivery is even more of a let-down, and a continuation of the failures of Rudd’s unfinished business.

While she touches on “improvements” in many of the six targets federal Labor has set for eliminating Indigenous disadvantage - without providing a shred of evidence to back her claims - a key part of her statement was a call for “individual responsibility”.

“Closing the Gap means change in people’s lives. And Indigenous people know that when the child starts attending school… when the drinker stops abusing alcohol… when the adult takes the job that is there… then change begins,” she said.

“And Indigenous people know these decisions are not made by governments. They are made by people. The job of government, of communities is to support decisions.”

This is an old cliché. A dangerous and outrageous cliché, made even more dangerous and outrageous by the fact it was uttered by our nation’s leader.

It does not reflect the barriers that have been placed on generations upon generations of Indigenous people and undermines the willpower of thousands of Aboriginal Australians who battle against these barriers.

It also does not reflect the reality of life for many Aboriginal people.

The child will start attending school, when the school is built. And when the lessons are relevant, and delivered in a language they understand.

The drinkers will always abuse alcohol, just like white drinkers do. They’ll stop the drinking when they have the support in place to do so, and for the record, Aboriginal people are more likely to be tee-totallers than non Aboriginal people.

And Aboriginal people will take jobs when there are jobs to take. Prime Minister Gillard might like to explain to the nation how her party destroyed the economies of many communities when they pulled apart CDEP.

These barriers - and more - are wholly government-constructed.

A key example of this is the blanket coverage of income management on Aboriginal residents living in prescribed areas under the Northern Territory intervention.

There is scant evidence that this compulsory form of welfare quarantining is working. In fact, there is a growing body of research showing the precise opposite - that it is undermining the Government’s attempts to close the gap. It is having an adverse effect on nutrition and demonises Aboriginal people who largely spend their money wisely.

Yet this Labor Government has committed to rolling out this dog of a policy across the nation. It will be in NSW soon.

Another example is the disastrous Strategic Indigenous Housing Infrastructure Program (SIHIP), which has blown hundreds of millions of dollars on administration and still continues to waste money while communities cry out for more houses.

Many of these communities are not eligible for SIHIP funding. None of my communities in NSW - many of which are desperate for housing - qualify either.

Last year, I visited the remote communities of Irrultja, east of Alice Springs. Despite the billion-dollar NT intervention, the people of Irrultja still live in tin humpies.

They are strong people. They are courageous people. They are people who are proud in their culture and tied to their homelands.

But the Rudd government didn’t commit funds to build houses. Instead, they were given funds for electricity meters, to ensure their humpies are powered. They were denied the opportunity by the government of a first-world nation to lift their conditions from third world.

Should the people of Irrultja take responsibility for the failure of government, like Julia Gillard seems to be suggesting?

And should those affected by income management take responsibility for the failure of an evidence-light policy?

Lack of progress in addressing Aboriginal disadvantage in the NT

Jon Altman and Eva Cox have written excellent articles presenting the case against the "non-evidence based" policies of the Federal Government with respect to the Northern Territory Intervention in 72 Aboriginal communities and the compulsory Income Quarantine Scheme which has just been extended to non-Aboriginal welfare recipients in the NT (and is being piloted in Western Australia).

Jon Altman's piece in Crikey reviews the third anniversary of the National Emergency Intervention in 73 prescribed Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory. The intervention was an initiative of the Howard Government but has been expanded and extended by the Rudd/Gillard Government.

The intervention suspended the basic liberties of Aboriginal people in the prescribed communities and imposed a paternalistic "state" run program of "improvement", all in the name of assisting and protecting children. Altman argues that despite the attempts by the Federal Government and the responsible Government Departments to portray the impact of the NT intervention in an overly positive light, there is, on a range of indicators, no clear evidence that the Intervention has improved the circumstances of Aboriginal children and Aboriginal people. In some areas- housing, land tenure and employment- Altman argues that things have got worse.

Altman makes the critical point that non-Aboriginal interests are the ones really benefiting from the millions being spent on the NT Intervention and Income Management. This includes what he calls private sector intervention entrepreneurs, private business, public sector agencies and mainstream non-Aboriginal NGO's. Processes of "mainstreaming" and "normalization" of services and programs for Aboriginal people are leading to a high proportion of resources earmarked for Aboriginal services, programs and development being syphoned off to external non-Aboriginal interests.

The situation that Altman describes is very real here in WA. It's an issue that colleagues and I have highlighted in a number of consultancy reports undertaken to map human services provided to Aboriginal people in regional WA. This situation is of great concern to Aboriginal people and Aboriginal controlled agencies, but not an issue that government, the private sector and the mainstream non-Aboriginal NGO's want to acknowledge (or change).

Altman also argues that the to-down paternalistic approach of the Intervention is creating greater dependence on the state.

In the Crikey piece and another piece Altman, like Cox, argues that there is no evidence of the efficacy of income management.

Eva Cox argues in a piece in New Matilda that there is no evidence that income management actually works. She cites evidence from recent studies that shows no significant improvements of life after 2 years of income management and evidence that they cause harm. Cox cites a report from the Indigenous Doctors Association which found that:

" the Intervention would potentially lead to profound long term damage, and that any potential benefits to physical health were largely outweighed by negative impacts to psychological health, social health and wellbeing, as well as cultural integrity."

Compulsory Income Management: Evidence based" social policy that ignores the evidence

The Rudd Government and the responsible Minister Jenny Macklin continue to claim that compulsory income management delivers substantial benefits for all Aboriginal people subject to it, despite mounting evidence to the contrary.

A number of recent reports, cited in this piece by Eva Cox, show there is little hard evidence for the benefits claimed by the Minister and in fact, signs of potential long term harms for many people. Eva Cox cites a study published today in the Medical Journal of Australia that challenges a central tenet of compulsory income management- that people's spending habits will be modified in a positive way with mandatory restrictions on expenditure alone. The study led by researchers from the Menzies School of Health Research found that income management is not associated with healthier food and drink purchases and may be having no effect on tobacco sales The researchers write:

"However, in contrast to the government report, we found that spending on food and drinks and fruit and vegetables did not change with income management. Soft drinks sales increased.

The one time during income management that spending went up for all store commodities was when people actually had more money: at the time of the government stimulus payment.

Telling people of low income how they can use 50% of their income may make no difference to their spending, but giving a lump of cash does".

The researchers view is that Government's claims of improved food choices, specifically more fresh and more healthy food being purchased, are linked to the new licensing of stores in these communities -- not income management.

The negative effects of compulsory management income for Aboriginal people are documented in a report by the Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning. The reports summarises the types of problems being experienced on the ground, including lack of pathways out of compulsory income management, no evidence that compulsory income management has resulted in better nutrition, no improved financial capacity and reduced investment in social services. The report also describes human rights violations, lack of quantitative data, failure to meaningfully engage Aboriginal communities, problems with implementation and associated costs.