In the supermarkets, cafes, and shops in my city neighbourhood, I am part of a demographic that spends its money on all manner of consumer items, often with little thought. While many of us may budget, our choice as to how we fill our baskets is ours alone. This choice is not, however, available to all Australians.
The Northern Territory Intervention saw the rollout of income management. Under the Basics Card scheme, welfare recipients in certain NT communities are given a card that limits the ways in which they can spend their money. They are able to use it only at approved outlets, and for approved purchases.
There is an ostensible logic behind income management. The assumption is that poverty in families living in the targeted communities arises from them spending all their welfare money on alcohol, cigarettes, and gambling instead of food and essentials. Further, income management aims to minimise the anti-social behaviour that some claim arises from expenditure on alcohol and gambling, by preventing spending on those items.
Yet such assumptions are flawed. It is the lack of job opportunities in remote communities, and not a desire to fund a life of leisure, that is a prime reason for seeking access to welfare payments. Those who are addicted to alcohol or gambling will find other ways of feeding their addiction if their funds are cut off.
In its original formulation, income management affected only Aboriginal people, in the NT and in other locations on Cape York, as part of a program there. These communities are easy targets: remote locations, large numbers of welfare recipients, few retail opportunities, and populations seen as 'other' by the mainstream and the political class. The stereotyping of residents of these communities supports the logic of income management, with little need to consider dignity and humanity.
There are complex reasons for the behaviours government seeks to modify through income management. Consider, for example, the ongoing lived legacy of dispossession, of profound family disruption through removals and stolen generations, of paternalism in all its guises, including stolen wages and rations. Redirection of welfare payments is not a solution to the complex needs of individuals and communities. It is a replication of the paternalistic policies that contributed to those problems in the first place.
Many have objected to income management, but they have been ignored in favour of the voices of those well connected to power, such as Andrew Forrest. Although proponents of the scheme claim it has cut violence in participating communities, there is other evidence to show a rise in crime. Despite this, the government proclaims the success of the program. Following further trials in WA communities and an 'independent review', income management is now to be rolled out more broadly across WA. The review though has been roundly critiqued, leaving doubt over government claims of success.
While income management may have started in Aboriginal communities, government is likely to roll it out more widely. It is part of a broader attack on welfare recipients including the recently-mooted urine testing of Centrelink clients. The purported aim of this new measure is to divert addicts to appropriate treatment. But as with income management, the underlying rationale is more ideological, invoking so-called 'mutual responsibility'. However, this is a significant misnomer.
"Human dignity is asserted through various means, including self-determination — being in a position to exercise decisions about one's own life free from government interference."
The role of government is to protect the people. Theoretically, the people give up a modicum of their personal sovereignty to government to empower it to pass and enforce laws that will enhance our lives through community. It is government's duty to serve the people. People do not serve government.
Welfare is a redistributive mechanism that serves as a safety net for those who are otherwise without. That redistribution supports the dignity of the individual within our community. Human dignity is asserted through various means, including self-determination — being in a position to exercise decisions about one's own life free from government interference.
In tying conditions to payments government is denying the self-determination of welfare recipients, counter to the very purpose of welfare. Further, it does so disingenuously identifying 'appropriate' income expenditure as the solution to difficult problems whose genesis lies elsewhere.
Solutions in these communities are difficult to see. I do believe that everyone wishes to see an improvement in the lives of those who are suffering. The reality is though, that income management is not that solution. And the so-called evidence supporting its expansion is not helping a clear-eyed view.
Kate Galloway is a legal academic with an interest in social justice.
The Senate is currently inquiring into the Cashless Debit Card Bill that will expand the program. The closing date for submission is 29 September 2017. The reporting date is 13 November 2017.