tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/income-management-4420/articlesIncome management – The Conversation2020-12-10T09:00:04Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1518472020-12-10T09:00:04Z2020-12-10T09:00:04ZWho’s really behaving badly? Confronting Australia’s cashless welfare card<p>The government’s Cashless Debit Card almost fell apart on Wednesday night. </p>
<p>Senator Rex Patrick’s refusal to support the government’s plans to make the scheme permanent gave some hope that this expensive, ideological and cruel policy would end. </p>
<p>Yet in the final Senate vote, it was revealed that Centre Alliance had reached an understanding with the government. </p>
<p>The trail at four sites outside the Northern Territory would be extended by another two years and people in the Territory would be given the option of moving from the green <a href="https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/individuals/services/centrelink/basicscard">BasicsCard</a> to the silver <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/families-and-children/programmes-services/welfare-conditionality/cashless-debit-card-overview">Cashless Debit Card</a> (known searingly in East Kimberley as the “white” card). </p>
<p>Centre Alliance’s Stirling Griff <a href="https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2020/12/11/cashless-card-sterling-griff/">abstained from voting</a> in order to give the government the numbers. </p>
<p>On one hand, the government failed to make the cashless debit card permanent.</p>
<p>On the other, the government can continue to subject people to the card and use the Northern Territory as cover to continue to spend public money setting up the infrastructure needed to roll it out nationally. </p>
<p>Only <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/nov/03/cashless-welfare-card-fewer-than-10-of-senate-inquiry-submissions-back-bill">10 per cent</a> of the 132 submissions to the latest <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/CashlessWelfareContinua">Senate inquiry</a> backed the extension.</p>
<h2>Two more years of income quarantining</h2>
<p>People opposing the Cashless Debit Card have peer-reviewed research on their side finding that by limiting access to cash and restricting what people can use money for, compulsory income management can cause problems from <a href="https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/147866">hardship</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/i-dont-want-anybody-to-see-me-using-it-cashless-welfare-cards-do-more-harm-than-good-132341">stigma</a> to the reduction of <a href="https://www.lifecoursecentre.org.au/research/journal-articles/working-paper-series/do-welfare-restrictions-improve-child-health-estimating-the-causal-impact-of-income-management-in-the-northern-territory/">birth weight in babies</a>.</p>
<p>The trials underway in the East Kimberley and Goldfields regions of Western Australia, the Ceduna region of South Australia and the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay region in Queensland direct 80% of each welfare payment to a card for use on essentials such as food and clothes, leaving only 20% which can be accessed as cash. </p>
<p>The green Territory BasicsCard was introduced in 2007 as part of the Howard government’s 2007 Northern Territory <a href="https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/2106156/NT-Intervention-Evaluation-Report-2020.pdf">Emergency Response</a>, made possible by the temporary suspension of the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/sep/02/northern-territory-intervention-violates-international-law-gillian-triggs-says">Racial Discrimination Act</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/374317/original/file-20201210-18-1ox837t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/374317/original/file-20201210-18-1ox837t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/374317/original/file-20201210-18-1ox837t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374317/original/file-20201210-18-1ox837t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374317/original/file-20201210-18-1ox837t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374317/original/file-20201210-18-1ox837t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374317/original/file-20201210-18-1ox837t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374317/original/file-20201210-18-1ox837t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">The silver cashless debit card</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The silver cashless debit card came about as a key recommendation in mining billionaire Andrew Forrest’s 2014 <a href="https://www.niaa.gov.au/resource-centre/indigenous-affairs/forrest-review">National Indigenous Jobs and Training Review</a>.</p>
<p>Both compulsory income management programs <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/sep/02/northern-territory-intervention-violates-international-law-gillian-triggs-says">disproportionately target First Nations people</a>. </p>
<p>The government avoids acknowledging this by saying they are targeting places rather than people, but that doesn’t change the fact that in the East Kimberley for example, 82% of the people in trial are First Nations people.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/i-dont-want-anybody-to-see-me-using-it-cashless-welfare-cards-do-more-harm-than-good-132341">'I don't want anybody to see me using it': cashless welfare cards do more harm than good</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Real community support?</h2>
<p>Throughout the debate in the Senate, politicians campaigning for the card referred to “community support”. Senators said that the “community was consulted” and that the “community had asked for the card”.</p>
<p>The truth is that rather than being a local initiative, both cards were developed by and lobbied for by Australia’s political and business elite. </p>
<p>The Northern Territory Emergency Response was heavy handed and involved the use of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/ten-years-on-its-time-we-learned-the-lessons-from-the-failed-northern-territory-intervention-79198">military</a>. </p>
<p>The Cashless Debit Card involved power of another sort, using sweeteners of much needed funding for starved services. One community was told it might <a href="https://caepr.cass.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/Working_Paper_121_2017.pdf">miss out on funds</a> if it didn’t support the card.</p>
<h2>Decisions, then consultation</h2>
<p>The limited consultation that followed has been more like select information sessions aimed at selling the card, flying in the face of what ought to be an indigenous right to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/22/indigenous-communities-need-to-be-part-of-the-solution-top-down-measures-dont-work">free, prior and informed consent</a>. </p>
<p>Real community participation, let alone self-determination, might have led to the experiment being aborted.</p>
<p>The government picked people to speak on behalf of the communities affected and claimed their views were representative. The views of people who opposed the card or had been forced to endure it were given less prominence.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-is-the-government-trying-to-make-the-cashless-debit-card-permanent-research-shows-it-does-not-work-149444">Why is the government trying to make the cashless debit card permanent? Research shows it does not work</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It seemed disturbingly out of the settler colonial playbook – divide and conquer.</p>
<p>More than A$1 billion has been spent on compulsory income management to date without credible evidence that it works. </p>
<p>And yet the government is persisting. </p>
<p>This rubbishing of the public policy process needs to stop and the political and business elite need to get out of the way to allow genuine self-determined community development to flourish.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/151847/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Elise Klein has received funding from the British Academy and is a board member of the Institute of Postcolonial Studies.</span></em></p>Senators have granted a two-year extension to a program for which there is little supporting evidence.Elise Klein, Senior Lecturer, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1494442020-11-12T00:11:23Z2020-11-12T00:11:23ZWhy is the government trying to make the cashless debit card permanent? Research shows it does not work<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367596/original/file-20201104-23-1nmurn4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Dystopic policy in Australia is often hidden in plain sight. </p>
<p>As Curtin University Professor Suvendrini Perera <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/the-slow-violence-of-letting-children-die-in-wa-s-kimberley-20190306-p5129u.html">has written</a>, systematic failures are not necessarily “spectacular acts” but the “decisions and indecisions of bureaucratic oversights and misplaced assumptions”. And these amount to a “slow violence” over time. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-has-been-stigmatising-unemployed-people-for-almost-100-years-covid-19-is-our-big-chance-to-change-this-143349">Australia has been stigmatising unemployed people for almost 100 years. COVID-19 is our big chance to change this</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>One such failure is the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/feb/06/cashless-welfare-card-how-does-it-work-and-what-changes-is-the-government-proposing">Cashless Debit Card</a>, which has been trialled in Australia since 2016. </p>
<p>Yet, among all the measures in last month’s budget was the news the Morrison government will make the trial scheme “<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-11/centrelink-cashless-welfare-card-how-to-christmas-shopping/12751038">ongoing</a>”. </p>
<h2>What is the Cashless Debit Card?</h2>
<p>The Cashless Debit Card scheme quarantines 80% of social security payments to a cashless card, which prevents spending on alcohol, illegal drugs and gambling products. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Empty shopping trolley in supermarket aisle." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367597/original/file-20201104-13-2b821n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367597/original/file-20201104-13-2b821n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367597/original/file-20201104-13-2b821n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367597/original/file-20201104-13-2b821n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367597/original/file-20201104-13-2b821n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367597/original/file-20201104-13-2b821n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367597/original/file-20201104-13-2b821n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The card is supposed to quarantine welfare payment for essentials such as food and groceries.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It is currently being trialled in Ceduna in South Australia, the East Kimberley in Western Australia, the Goldfields in WA and Hervey Bay region in Queensland, with about <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/nov/03/cashless-welfare-card-fewer-than-10-of-senate-inquiry-submissions-back-bill">12,000 people</a> involved.</p>
<p>The card compulsorily includes a <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/families-and-children/programmes-services/welfare-conditionality/cashless-debit-card-overview">broad range of people</a> receiving support for many reasons, including payments for disability, parenting, caring, unemployment and youth allowance. The <a href="https://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/commission-submission-cashless-debit-card-bill">Australian Human Rights Commission</a> is among those who have pointed out the the card disproportionately impacts First Nations people.</p>
<h2>Research shows it does not work</h2>
<p>Peer-reviewed research has consistently shown the card, and <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.1839-4655.2016.tb01243.x">income management</a> more broadly, do not meet policy objectives. A 2020 <a href="https://theconversation.com/i-dont-want-anybody-to-see-me-using-it-cashless-welfare-cards-do-more-harm-than-good-132341">academic study</a> of multiple locations found compulsory income management “can do as much harm as good”. </p>
<p>Survey respondents reported not having enough cash for essential items, while the research found the card “can also stigmatise and infantilise users”.</p>
<p>My research examining the card in the East Kimberley shows it makes <a href="https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/147866">life more difficult</a> for people subjected to it, including making it harder to manage money. People also reported the card made it more difficult to <a href="https://128f2a8c-7e2b-db29-c5ed-c863dde6f97c.filesusr.com/ugd/b629ee_01e1002bbfc748459d2a323d278d9300.pdf">buy basic goods</a> such as medicine and groceries. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/i-dont-want-anybody-to-see-me-using-it-cashless-welfare-cards-do-more-harm-than-good-132341">'I don't want anybody to see me using it': cashless welfare cards do more harm than good</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Other research from the Life Course Centre suggests compulsory income management has been linked to a reduction of <a href="https://www.lifecoursecentre.org.au/research/journal-articles/working-paper-series/do-welfare-restrictions-improve-child-health-estimating-the-causal-impact-of-income-management-in-the-northern-territory/">birth weight</a> and <a href="https://www.lifecoursecentre.org.au/research/journal-articles/working-paper-series/the-effect-of-quarantining-welfare-on-school-attendance-in-indigenous-communities/">school attendance</a>. The majority of these children are First Nations kids.</p>
<h2>Bill before parliament</h2>
<p>A <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6608">bill</a> to make the card permanent was introduced to parliament just a day after the budget was handed down. </p>
<p>If passed, it will also transfer about 25,000 people in the <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/03_2020/im-cdc-nt-fact-sheet.pdf">Northern Territory and Cape York</a> who are on the Basics Card (an earlier version of income management) onto the Cashless Debit Card.</p>
<p>Introducing the bill to the House, Morrison government minister <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fa28c39ce-4e49-4b78-914d-ccca686a471e%2F0018%22">Trevor Evans said</a> the card was delivering “significant benefits” in the trial communities. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The program has the objective of reducing immediate hardship and deprivation, helping welfare recipients with their budgeting strategies and reducing the likelihood that they will remain on welfare and out of the workforce for extended periods.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The government <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fa28c39ce-4e49-4b78-914d-ccca686a471e%2F0018%22">also says</a> the card is used “just like an everyday bank card” and is seeing a reduction in drug and alcohol use and gambling. </p>
<h2>Senate inquiry</h2>
<p>But as highlighted above, the value of the scheme is heavily disputed by policy experts. People put on the card, community groups, lawyers and doctors <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/CashlessWelfareContinua/Submissions">also oppose</a> any expansion of the card. </p>
<p>The card’s expansion has been the subject of a brief <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/CashlessWelfareContinua">Senate inquiry</a>, which is due to report on November 17. </p>
<p>This is the sixth Senate inquiry into the Cashless Debit Card. Each one has seen submissions from across the community which <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/nov/03/cashless-welfare-card-fewer-than-10-of-senate-inquiry-submissions-back-bill">overwhelmingly reject the card</a>. </p>
<p>First Nations groups have <a href="http://www.amsant.org.au/apont/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/20201008-Why-we-oppose-the-Cashless-Debit-Card-Expansion-Bill.pdf">led the charge</a>, stating income management is not in the spirit of self-determination and the current bill would “directly contradict the recent National Agreement on Closing the Gap”. </p>
<h2>Smoke and mirrors</h2>
<p>Trials of public policy programs require, by definition, research to examine their performance and to justify any continuation. Yet, the government continues to rely on <a href="https://www.anneruston.com.au/joint_media_release_expanding_the_cashless_welfare_in_hervey_bay_and_bundaberg">anecdotes</a> and the widely criticised 2017 <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/families-and-children-programs-services-welfare-reform-cashless-debit-card/cashless-debit-card-evaluation">evaluation by ORIMA Research</a> as “proof” for the roll out of the Cashless Debit Card. </p>
<p>In 2018, the <a href="https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/implementation-and-performance-cashless-debit-card-trial">Australian National Audit Office</a> found the ORIMA evaluation was methodologically flawed and unable to provide any credible conclusions regarding the real impact of the trial. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Aerial view of Hervey Bay, Queensland." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367601/original/file-20201104-23-hldfu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367601/original/file-20201104-23-hldfu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367601/original/file-20201104-23-hldfu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367601/original/file-20201104-23-hldfu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367601/original/file-20201104-23-hldfu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367601/original/file-20201104-23-hldfu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367601/original/file-20201104-23-hldfu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The card has been trialled in the Hervey Bay and Bundaberg region since 2019.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the latest bill, the government also misrepresents the findings from a 2014 evaluation of compulsory income management into the Northern Territory, claiming the findings <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r6608_ems_291e3448-b2fb-4116-b3df-d5759b59cb05/upload_pdf/JC000186.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">were supportive of income management</a>. Yet <a href="https://caepr.cass.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/Evaluation_of_New_Income_Management_in_the_Northern_Territory_full_report_0.pdf">this evaluation</a>, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>[did] not find any consistent evidence of income management having a significant systematic positive impact. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Compelled <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/sep/11/cashless-welfare-card-to-be-introduced-in-parts-of-queensland-after-coalitions-senate-win">by the Senate</a>, the government has since commissioned the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-11/centrelink-cashless-welfare-card-how-to-christmas-shopping/12751038">University of Adelaide</a> to evaluate the scheme. This research was due to be released by the end of 2019 but is yet to be made public.</p>
<p>When asked about the report in <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/estimate/cea95c13-3990-4065-81af-9d5dfcdedeb5/toc_pdf/Community%20Affairs%20Legislation%20Committee_2020_10_28_8259.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22committees/estimate/cea95c13-3990-4065-81af-9d5dfcdedeb5/0000%22">Senate estimates last month</a>, Social Services Minister Anne Ruston said it was not about deciding whether the card would continue, but to give advice on “what what was working particularly well”.</p>
<p>Perversely, the current bill also removes any need to further evaluate the Cashless Debit Card, instead opting to rely on the department to undertake its own <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r6608_ems_291e3448-b2fb-4116-b3df-d5759b59cb05/upload_pdf/JC000186.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">desk-based research</a>. </p>
<h2>Why is evidence being ignored?</h2>
<p>The protracted life of the Cashless Debit Card in Australian public policy shows the ongoing disregard for evidence-based policy making. </p>
<p>It also shows the continued slow violence against thousands of Australians who deserve much better from elected officials and the structures set up to support them. </p>
<p>Whilst it is easy not to pay attention to the mundane details of policy, the Cashless Debit Card shows we must.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/an-insult-politicians-sing-the-praises-of-the-cashless-welfare-card-but-those-forced-to-use-it-disagree-123352">'An insult' – politicians sing the praises of the cashless welfare card, but those forced to use it disagree</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/149444/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Elise Klein receives funding from the British Academy, is a board member of the Institute of Postcolonial Studies and a member of the BIEN. </span></em></p>The Morrison government has introduced a bill to parliament to make the cashless debit card trial ‘ongoing’.Elise Klein, Senior Lecturer, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1323412020-02-25T19:02:28Z2020-02-25T19:02:28Z‘I don’t want anybody to see me using it’: cashless welfare cards do more harm than good<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/317003/original/file-20200225-24651-zgy5z5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4808%2C2927&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Australian government touts compulsory income management as a way to stop welfare payments being spent on alcohol, drugs or gambling. </p>
<p>The Howard government introduced the <a href="https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/individuals/services/centrelink/basicscard">BasicsCard</a> more than a decade ago. About 22,500 welfare recipients now use it, mostly in the Northern Territory. Now the Coalition government has big plans for a more versatile <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/families-and-children/programmes-services/welfare-conditionality/cashless-debit-card-overview">Cashless Debit Card</a>, trialled on about 12,700 people in four regional communities in Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland.</p>
<p>These trials aren’t complete, nor the findings compiled, but a string of senior ministers, including <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/scott-morrison-eyes-long-term-cashless-debit-card-roll-out-20190907-p52oxb.html">Prime Minister Scott Morrison</a>, have indicated they are already sold on expanding the program.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/an-insult-politicians-sing-the-praises-of-the-cashless-welfare-card-but-those-forced-to-use-it-disagree-123352">'An insult' – politicians sing the praises of the cashless welfare card, but those forced to use it disagree</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><a href="https://www.incomemanagementstudy.com/blog/hiddencosts">Our research</a>, however, <a href="https://theconversation.com/theres-mounting-evidence-against-cashless-debit-cards-but-the-government-is-ploughing-on-regardless-123763">adds to the evidence</a> that compulsory income-management policies do as much harm as good.</p>
<h2>Financial (in)stability</h2>
<p>Over the past year we have conducted the first <a href="https://www.incomemanagementstudy.com/">independent, multisite study</a> of compulsory income management in Australia. It has involved 114 in-depth interviews at four sites: Playford (BasicsCard) and Ceduna (Cashless Debit Card) in South Australia; Shepparton (BasicsCard) in Victoria; and the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay region (Cashless Debit Card) in Queensland. We also collected 199 survey responses from around Australia. </p>
<p>Proponents of compulsory income management champion its potential to “provide a stabilising factor in the lives of families with regard to financial management and to encourage safe and healthy expenditure of welfare dollars”, as the then social services minister, Paul Fletcher, <a href="https://www.paulfletcher.com.au/portfolio-speeches/speech-to-sydney-institute-welfare-personal-responsibility-and-the-cashless">said in March</a> last year. </p>
<p>Our study found some individuals experience these benefits. But most face extra financial challenges. These include not having enough cash for essential items, being unable to shop at preferred outlets, being unable to buy second-hand goods, and cards being declined even when they are supposed to work. </p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/316964/original/file-20200224-24690-153xr6u.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/316964/original/file-20200224-24690-153xr6u.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/316964/original/file-20200224-24690-153xr6u.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=264&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316964/original/file-20200224-24690-153xr6u.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=264&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316964/original/file-20200224-24690-153xr6u.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=264&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316964/original/file-20200224-24690-153xr6u.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=332&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316964/original/file-20200224-24690-153xr6u.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=332&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316964/original/file-20200224-24690-153xr6u.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=332&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Survey respondents reported a range of challenges related to compulsory income management.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Hidden Costs: An Independent Study into Income Management in Australia</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>In Playford, Jacob* told us about being on the BasicsCard, which can only be used with merchants that have agreed to not allow cardholders to buy excluded goods. </p>
<p>The limits on where he could shop made it harder for him to manage his finances. </p>
<p>“I couldn’t make decisions about saving money,” he told us. He and his wife used to catch the train to shop at the Adelaide markets, for example, but vendors there couldn’t take the BasicsCard.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167621/original/file-20170503-4096-12pb3xf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167621/original/file-20170503-4096-12pb3xf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167621/original/file-20170503-4096-12pb3xf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167621/original/file-20170503-4096-12pb3xf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167621/original/file-20170503-4096-12pb3xf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167621/original/file-20170503-4096-12pb3xf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167621/original/file-20170503-4096-12pb3xf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The 2016 Indue Cashless Debit Card.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">indue.com.au</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Cashless Debit Card is intended to overcome the limitations of the BasicsCard. It’s like a debit card except it can’t be used to withdraw cash or at businesses that sell prohibited items.</p>
<p>But Emma*, a single mother in the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area, told of her struggles to make basic purchases using the card. It often failed – even at businesses that purportedly accepted it – and her family went without. She also felt excluded from the markets and second-hand retailers where she used to shop. </p>
<p>Her greatest stress, however, was rent. Emma* said she had always been on time with rental payments until the Cashless Debit Card. She described one occasion when, two days after paying the rent, the money “bounced back” into her account. When she rang the card’s administrator (card payment company <a href="https://www2.indue.com.au/">Indue</a>), she was told: “It’s just a minor teething issue, just keep trying.” </p>
<p>The extra stress from “worrying about which payments were going to get paid” was considerable. Others shared similar experiences.</p>
<h2>Social (dis)integration</h2>
<p>Supporters of compulsory income management claim it brings people back into the community by combating addiction and encouraging pro-social behaviour and economic contribution. As federal Attorney-General <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F5d1aabc6-2984-42d1-bf5e-3f493db56d60%2F0048;orderBy=customrank;page=0;query=Cashless%20debit%20card%20SearchCategory_Phrase%3A%22house%20of%20representatives%22%20Dataset_Phrase%3A%22hansardr%22%20Speaker_Phrase%3A%22pitt,%20keith,%20mp%22;rec=1;resCount=Default">Christian Porter said in 2018</a>: “The cashless debit card can help to stabilise the lives of young people in the new trial locations by limiting spending on alcohol, drugs and gambling and thus improving the chances of young Australians finding employment or successfully completing education or training.”</p>
<p>However, our study found the card can also stigmatise and infantilise users – pushing people without these problems further to the margins. </p>
<p>One of the problems is that compulsory income management is routinely applied based on where a person lives and their payment type, and not on any history of problem behaviour. The large majority of our respondents indicated they did not have alcohol, drug or gambling issues. </p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/316963/original/file-20200224-24676-1jamv1d.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/316963/original/file-20200224-24676-1jamv1d.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/316963/original/file-20200224-24676-1jamv1d.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316963/original/file-20200224-24676-1jamv1d.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316963/original/file-20200224-24676-1jamv1d.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316963/original/file-20200224-24676-1jamv1d.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316963/original/file-20200224-24676-1jamv1d.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316963/original/file-20200224-24676-1jamv1d.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The majority of survey respondents had been managing finances well before compulsory income management.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Hidden Costs: An Independent Study into Income Management in Australia</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>But as Ray* in Ceduna explained, having the card meant others viewed him as a problem citizen.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I’m embarrassed every time I have to use it at the supermarket, which is about the only place I do use it. I sort of look around and see who’s behind me in the queue. I don’t want anybody to see me using it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This was a common experience across the interview sites. </p>
<p>Maryanne* in Shepparton told about being judged for shopping for groceries with her BasicsCard. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I got called a junkie and I said: ‘I’m not a junkie, do you see any marks or anything?’ They were like: ‘No, but you have a BasicsCard.’ I said: ‘What’s that got to do with it? Centrelink gave it to me. I can’t do nothing.’</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/316965/original/file-20200224-24664-asok53.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/316965/original/file-20200224-24664-asok53.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=208&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316965/original/file-20200224-24664-asok53.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=208&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316965/original/file-20200224-24664-asok53.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=208&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316965/original/file-20200224-24664-asok53.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=261&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316965/original/file-20200224-24664-asok53.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=261&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/316965/original/file-20200224-24664-asok53.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=261&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Stigma was a common concern among survey participants.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Hidden Costs: An Independent Study into Income Management in Australia</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<h2>A path forward</h2>
<p>The overwhelming finding from our study is that compulsory income management is having a disabling, not an enabling, impact on many users’ lives. As the policy has been extended, more and more Australians <a href="https://www.vinnies.org.au/page/Publications/National/Factsheets_and_policy_briefings/The_Cashless_Debit_Card/">with no pre-existing problems</a> have been caught up in its path. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/theres-mounting-evidence-against-cashless-debit-cards-but-the-government-is-ploughing-on-regardless-123763">There's mounting evidence against cashless debit cards, but the government is ploughing on regardless</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This does not mean a genuine voluntary scheme could not be maintained, but it would need to sit alongside evidence-based measures to tackle poverty. </p>
<p>Addressing the <a href="https://raisetherate.org.au/">inadequacy of income support payments</a>, ensuring <a href="https://theconversation.com/these-job-snob-claims-dont-match-the-evidence-121429">decent employment and training opportunities</a>, and providing accessible social services and secure and affordable <a href="https://theconversation.com/supportive-housing-is-cheaper-than-chronic-homelessness-67539">housing</a> would be a better starting point for creating healthy lives and flourishing communities.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Names have been changed to protect individuals’ privacy.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/132341/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Greg Marston receives funding from The Australian Research Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Peterie receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Phillip Mendes receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Zoe Staines receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>The first independent, multisite study of compulsory income management in Australia suggest little evidence to support political enthusiasm to extend the policy.Greg Marston, Head of School, School of Social Science, The University of QueenslandMichelle Peterie, Research Fellow, The University of QueenslandPhillip Mendes, Associate Professor, Director Social Inclusion and Social Policy Research Unit, Monash UniversityZoe Staines, Research fellow, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1237632019-11-01T01:04:31Z2019-11-01T01:04:31ZThere’s mounting evidence against cashless debit cards, but the government is ploughing on regardless<p>It would be nice if the “facts” being thrown around in the debate over the Cashless Debit Card were peer-reviewed, or even just evidence-based.</p>
<p>Instead, there are <a href="https://www.anneruston.com.au/joint_media_release_expanding_the_cashless_welfare_in_hervey_bay_and_bundaberg">anecdotes</a>. And it’s these that are being used to justify the government’s decision to spend <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/chamber/hansards/91962b64-398e-400e-ae19-98cf415623ec/toc_pdf/Senate_2019_07_31_7091_Official.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">A$128.8 million</a> over four years continuing the existing trial of the cashless debit card in five sites in Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia and extending it to Cape York and all of the Northern Territory.</p>
<p>The extension will lift the number of people on the card from 11,000 to 33,000. Most will be Indigenous people - its disproportionate targeting has already attracted the attention of the <a href="http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/b629ee_01e1002bbfc748459d2a323d278d9300.pdf">National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples and the Human Rights Commission</a>.</p>
<p>The cashless card was recommended to Prime Minister Tony Abbott in a <a href="https://www.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/Forrest-Review.pdf">report</a> from mining billionaire Andrew Forrest in 2014. He initially called it the “<a href="https://theconversation.com/healthy-welfare-card-begins-here-where-next-50756">Healthy Welfare Card</a>”.</p>
<p>It wasn’t a new idea. Some A$1 billion dollars had already been spent on income management programs in the past, many of which had <a href="https://caepr.cass.anu.edu.au/highlights/evaluating-new-income-management-northern-territory-final-evaluation-report-and-summary">failed to meet their stated objectives</a>. </p>
<h2>It’s been tried before</h2>
<p>The biggest was the Basics Card introduced as part of the 2007 Northern Territory Emergency Response (the “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Territory_National_Emergency_Response">Intervention</a>”) which was only made possible through the suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act.</p>
<p>Research published by the Australian Research Council funded <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/2020-arc-centre-excellence-children-and-families-over-life-course">Life Course</a> Centre of Excellence found its introduction was correlated with negative impacts on children, including reductions in <a href="https://www.lifecoursecentre.org.au/research/journal-articles/working-paper-series/do-welfare-restrictions-improve-child-health-estimating-the-causal-impact-of-income-management-in-the-northern-territory/">birth weight</a> and <a href="https://www.lifecoursecentre.org.au/research/journal-articles/working-paper-series/the-effect-of-quarantining-welfare-on-school-attendance-in-indigenous-communities/">school attendance</a>. </p>
<p>It points to several possible explanations, including increased stress on mothers, disrupted financial arrangements within households, and confusion about how to access funds. </p>
<p>The government has not addressed these serious issues. Instead, it now seeks to place those who have been left on the basics card for over ten years now, on to the cashless debit card. </p>
<h2>What was ‘Basics’ has become ‘Indue’</h2>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167621/original/file-20170503-4096-12pb3xf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167621/original/file-20170503-4096-12pb3xf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167621/original/file-20170503-4096-12pb3xf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167621/original/file-20170503-4096-12pb3xf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167621/original/file-20170503-4096-12pb3xf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167621/original/file-20170503-4096-12pb3xf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167621/original/file-20170503-4096-12pb3xf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The 2016 Indue Cashless Debit Card.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">indue.com.au</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The “Indue” Cashless Debit Card trials underway since 2016 direct 80% of each payment to the card (<a href="https://www.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/Forrest-Review.pdf">Forrest asked for 100%</a>) where it can only be spent on things such as food, clothes, health items and hygiene products. Purchases of alcohol and withdrawals of cash are not permitted. </p>
<p>The trials are compulsorily for everyone living in the trial sites receiving a disability, parenting, carer, unemployment or youth allowance payment. </p>
<p>My own research in the East Kimberley found it makes those people’s <a href="https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/147866">lives harder</a>. </p>
<p>Those targeted are a broad group needing support for a broad range of reasons, yet all are treated as if they have issues with alcohol or drugs or gambling.</p>
<p>Most of the people on it do indeed have a common problem: that is trying to survive on meagre payments in remote environments with a chronically low supply of jobs.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/an-insult-politicians-sing-the-praises-of-the-cashless-welfare-card-but-those-forced-to-use-it-disagree-123352">'An insult' – politicians sing the praises of the cashless welfare card, but those forced to use it disagree</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Of all the claims made for the card, the least believable is that it gets its users into jobs.</p>
<p>What it does do is limit access to cash needed for day to day-to-day living. It makes it hard to buy second-hand goods, transport and (at some outlets) food, and can make living more expensive.</p>
<p>For anyone actually struggling with addiction, it can’t substitute for treatment, a concern raised by medical specialists. </p>
<p>While the government says the trials have been community-led, in reality consultation has been limited to a small group of people not subject to the card.</p>
<p>When leaders in the East Kimberley who had agreed to the card <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/23/aboriginal-leader-withdraws-support-for-cashless-welfare-card-and-says-he-feels-used">withdrew their support</a>, the government continued with the trial.</p>
<h2>Its success has not been established</h2>
<p>In addition to relaying on anecdotes, the government continues to cite a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/sep/18/cashless-welfare-card-report-does-not-support-ministers-claims-researcher-says">widely condemned report</a> by <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/about-the-department/feature/cashless-debit-card-trial-evaluation-final-evaluation-report">Orima Research</a>. Among others, the Australian National Audit Office <a href="https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/implementation-and-performance-cashless-debit-card-trial">found this report was inadequate</a> to draw any conclusions from. </p>
<p>Profiting from the Cashless Debit Card has been <a href="https://www2.indue.com.au/">Indue</a>, a private company whose <a href="https://nationals.org.au/our-team/federal-management-committee/">deputy chairman</a> up until 2013 is now the present President of the National Party, Larry Anthony.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-cashless-debit-card-trial-is-working-and-it-is-vital-heres-why-76951">The Cashless Debit Card Trial is working and it is vital – here's why</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Indue’s involvement is helping to create a <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285590411_Is_the_Cashless_Welfare_Card_the_forerunner_to_a_Banking_Underclass">two tiered banking system</a> in which most people have a choice of financial providers, but those subject to the card are restricted to one, which provides a very different product to the others. </p>
<p>Indue is also not a member of the Australian Banking Association, and so is not bound by the consumer protection provisions of its <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-new-banking-code-looks-impressive-but-what-will-it-achieve-120582">Banking Code of Practice</a>.</p>
<p>The inquiry is due to report <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/CashlessCardTransition">next week</a>. Given the expensive and harmful consequences of the trial, it ought to find the extension is not justified. There are better ways to spend $128.8 million that would actually help vulnerable Australians.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/123763/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Elise Klein receives funding from British Academy. She is a part of the Accountable Income Management Network and holds an Order of Australia Medal (OAM).</span></em></p>The government wants to triple the number of Australians on the Cashless Debit Card in the face of scant evidence it does them any good.Elise Klein, Senior Lecturer in Development Studies, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/887702017-12-12T00:05:05Z2017-12-12T00:05:05ZAs costs mount, the government should abandon the Cashless Debit Card<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/198441/original/file-20171210-27677-12248fl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Cashless Debit Card trial disproportionately targets Indigenous people, despite what the government says.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Richard Milnes</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A Senate inquiry <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/CashlessDebitCard/Report">has recommended</a> that trials of the Cashless Debit Card be continued and expanded to new sites in other states next year. This is despite <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/CashlessDebitCard/Report/d01">Labor</a> and <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/CashlessDebitCard/Report/d02">Greens</a> senators providing separate dissenting reports that rejected the recommendation that legislation for the bill should pass.</p>
<p>The majority report’s proposal dramatically contrasts with most of the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/CashlessDebitCard/Submissions">submissions accepted</a> by the inquiry raising significant concerns and arguing against the trials. These submissions outline a variety of serious issues that have been largely overlooked.</p>
<h2>What is the card?</h2>
<p>The trials for the Cashless Debit Card began in early 2016 in Ceduna, South Australia, and the East Kimberley in Western Australia. </p>
<p>The card quarantines 80% of social security payments received by all working-age people (between the ages of 15 and 64) in the trial sites. It attempts to restrict cash and purchases of alcohol, illegal drugs and gambling products. </p>
<p>The card compulsorily includes people receiving disability, parenting, carers, unemployed and youth allowance payments. People on the aged pension, on a veteran’s payment or earning a wage are not compulsorily included in the trial, but can volunteer to take part.</p>
<h2>The issues left unanswered</h2>
<p>The trial disproportionately targets Indigenous people, despite the government claiming the card is for both <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=1fcbc7ab-effb-4092-bb42-9c743dadf7a5&subId=560832">Indigenous and non-Indigenous</a> welfare recipients. This is disingenuous, given the card was first proposed as a key recommendation in mining magnate Andrew Forrest’s <a href="https://www.pmc.gov.au/resource-centre/indigenous-affairs/forrest-review">Review of Indigenous Training and Employment</a>. </p>
<p>This recommendation followed various other forms of income management, including a program that was part of the <a href="http://caepr.cass.anu.edu.au/highlights/evaluating-new-income-management-northern-territory-final-evaluation-report-and-summary">Northern Territory Intervention</a> in 2007.</p>
<p>The Intervention required the suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act to explicitly target all Indigenous people on welfare. <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5b3af532-0d22-44e2-9967-7731d0074a6f&subId=561285">Concerns</a> about <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=1fcbc7ab-effb-4092-bb42-9c743dadf7a5&subId=560832">human rights</a> breaches continue, and most were overlooked by the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/CashlessDebitCard/Report">Human Rights Joint Committee’s commentary</a> on the Cashless Debit Card bill.</p>
<p>The trial of the card has increased hardship in people’s lives. This is not only because of the experiment’s disorganised and ill-conceived implementation, but also due to the trial’s design. </p>
<p>People are being compulsory included because there is an assumption that they engage in problematic behaviours, such as the over-consumption of alcohol, gambling, or the use of illegal drugs. But this is not the reality <a href="http://caepr.cass.anu.edu.au/research/publications/cashless-debit-card-trial-east-kimberley">for most people</a>.</p>
<p>Being put on the card has made people’s lives harder because limiting cash restricts people’s ability to undertake day-to-day activities to help their family’s wellbeing. This includes getting second-hand goods, paying for transport, and buying gifts. </p>
<p>This hardship is reflected in the <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/about-the-department/feature/cashless-debit-card-trial-evaluation-final-evaluation-report">final evaluation of the trial</a>, in which 32% said their lives were worse since being on the card (only 23% said their lives were better). </p>
<p>Further, <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/about-the-department/feature/cashless-debit-card-trial-evaluation-final-evaluation-report">48% of participants</a> reported that the card does not help them look after their children better. This is concerning, as recently completed research into income management programs indicates a correlation with <a href="https://www.menzies.edu.au/icms_docs/279201_Children_negatively_impacted_by_early_intervention_restrictions.pdf">negative impacts</a> on children – including a reduction in birth weight and school attendance.</p>
<p>Getting the assumptions wrong has pushed already vulnerable people into even more vulnerable situations. Medical specialists <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=6d4e5cc9-7d8b-4567-bf87-9d10068d25ea&subId=561286">have raised</a> concerns with the card being used to treat addiction.</p>
<p>Both crime and domestic assaults increased under the card in the East Kimberley. Superintendent Adams of the Kimberley Police District told the Senate inquiry that in the 12 months to June 30, 2016, there were 319 domestic assaults in Kununurra, but in the 12 months to June 30, 2017 (and the time of the trial), this figure had <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/CashlessDebitCard/Report/d01">increased to 508</a>.</p>
<h2>Flawed evidence</h2>
<p>The government used both the interim and final evaluations as key evidence to justify extending the trials. </p>
<p>Both evaluations have been severely criticised as being <a href="http://caepr.cass.anu.edu.au/research/publications/cashless-debit-card-evaluation-does-it-really-prove-success">methodologically and analytically flawed</a>: from the way <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/07/much-of-the-data-used-to-justify-the-welfare-card-is-flawed">interviews were conducted</a>, to having no baseline to test government claims of success, through to an over-emphasis on anecdotal improvements and discarding important issues such as the increase in crime and domestic violence.</p>
<p>The decision to implement the card was not a community decision that represents the regions’ diverse interests or population. And some have had more say than others. </p>
<p>For example, the Miriuwung Gajerrong Corporation <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=9e59ccc9-b9e6-4fad-9fb6-2a992d84fd44&subId=516467">noted</a> that, although the:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… Department of Social Services states that the Cashless Debit Card program was co-designed with local leaders in Kununurra … in reality, only four local leaders were consulted in relation to the introduction of the [card] in Kununurra. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Consultations themselves have not been about co-design, but have been tokenistic to <a href="http://caepr.cass.anu.edu.au/research/publications/cashless-debit-card-trial-east-kimberley">convince people to support the card</a>.</p>
<p>In a perverse twist, the only way people can get themselves off the trial is to get a job. Yet in both Ceduna and the East Kimberley, the biggest cause of unemployment is the lack of formal, dignified and secure jobs. Linking to unemployment, some people included in the trial are also subjected to the punitive <a href="http://regnet.anu.edu.au/research/publications/6984/modern-slavery-remote-australia">Community Development Program</a>. This compounds poverty, as the program’s nature induces high breaching rates.</p>
<p>Even if a few support the card, many more have suffered material and emotional hardship. The community has been fractured through <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=98f47f0e-ff14-4156-ba37-5f25e05b43d9&subId=561082">such heavy-handed intervention</a>. And the A$25 million spent on it has demonstrated no credible evidence of sufficient benefit to justify an ongoing rollout. </p>
<p>That the card continues to be pursued by government exposes its dogged obsession with implementing neocolonial and punitive policy for some imagined political gain at the expense of vulnerable people.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>The author would like to thank professor Jon Altman and Sarouche Razi for comments on earlier drafts.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/88770/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Elise Klein receives funding from the British Academy. She gave evidence in the Senate's inquiry into the Cashless Debit Card. She is a member of the Australian Greens. </span></em></p>That the Cashless Debit Card continues to be pursued exposes a dogged obsession with implementing punitive policy at the expense of vulnerable people.Elise Klein, Lecturer in Development Studies, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/825852017-08-23T19:30:29Z2017-08-23T19:30:29ZExpansion of cashless welfare card shows shock tactics speak louder than evidence<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182717/original/file-20170821-17116-1j4rnqe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Minderoo Foundation's video was a heavy-handed illustration of problems in some WA communities.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://vimeo.com/228824624/8ba17856b5">Screenshot/Minderoo Foundation</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The federal government last week <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-18/cashless-card-advocate-defends-scheme-in-court-wa/8821252">passed legislation</a> to expand the trial of the <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/families-and-children/programmes-services/welfare-conditionality/cashless-debit-card-overview">cashless welfare card</a> to other areas of Australia. The <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1486363324991953/">controversial</a> policy quarantines 80% of welfare payments to Indigenous Australians living in the Ceduna and East Kimberley regions of Western Australia and cannot be used on gambling, alcohol or to withdraw cash.</p>
<p>The passing of the legislation comes as an inquest into 13 Aboriginal youth suicides in the Kimberley region is <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-14/suicide-inquest-hears-concern-over-cashless-welfare-cards/8805774">hearing about the welfare card’s</a> impact. It’s also a few weeks after mining billionaire Andrew Forrest’s philanthropic organisation, the <a href="https://www.minderoo.com.au/philanthropy/">Minderoo Foundation</a>, together with regional councils and outgoing WA Police Commissioner, Karl O'Callaghan, were conveyed to Canberra to advocate for the card’s expansion. </p>
<figure>
<iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/228824624" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="" mozallowfullscreen="" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The lobbying <a href="https://vimeo.com/228824624/8ba17856b5">came in a video</a> designed to shock with emotive descriptions of child abuse and footage of children lifted by their hair and stomped on. It implied a strong link between violence against children and income management. Forrest and his supporters were strategic in <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-22/andrew-twiggy-forrest-pushes-for-expansion-of-centrelink-cdc/8463006">promoting</a> income management and showing <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-09/andrew-forrest-uses-violent-video-to-push-cashless-welfare-card/8789616">their video</a> before appealing their case to the Prime Minister.</p>
<p>While we can’t necessarily attribute the trial’s expansion to the success of the campaign, it shows evidence-based approaches, which speak against continuing the policy, have been ignored. This is another case that adds to <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2014/02/07/book-review-beyond-evidence-based-policy-in-public-health-the-interplay-of-ideas-by-katherine-smith/">growing concern</a> among researchers that evidence-based policy formulation is being <a href="https://theconversation.com/who-are-you-calling-anti-science-how-science-serves-social-and-political-agendas-74755">threatened</a> by easily-digestible, emotive campaigns.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-cashless-debit-card-causes-social-and-economic-harm-so-why-trial-it-again-74985">The Cashless Debit Card causes social and economic harm – so why trial it again?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Does income management work?</h2>
<p>The Minderoo Foundation and some community members promote the <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/families-and-children/programmes-services/welfare-conditionality/cashless-debit-card-overview">cashless debit card</a> as it cannot be used to buy alcohol, gambling products or to withdraw cash. While not a panacea, they believe it will be a <a href="http://www.skynews.com.au/news/national/wa/2017/08/09/leaders-plead-for-welfare-card-rollout.html">potential circuit breaker</a> as it “… gives community services a chance, that gives health workers a chance, that gives the police a chance”. </p>
<p>The government has long been using income management as a <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/families-and-children/publications-articles/income-management-fact-sheets/child-protection-measure-of-income-management">child protection tool</a>. Yet there is little evidence to suggest income management policies improve children’s well-being. </p>
<p>An <a href="https://aifs.gov.au/publications/family-matters/issue-97/welfare-conditionality-child-protection-tool">evaluation of income management</a> in the NT in 2014 found people subjected to child protection income management made up a small proportion (0.5%) of the overall income management population. So evaluating whether the policies worked was difficult. Instead researchers relied on interviews with child protection staff which were varied. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the <a href="https://childdetentionnt.royalcommission.gov.au/Search/Results.aspx?k=silburn">Royal Commission</a> into the Protection and Detention of Children in the NT has heard that child protection notifications, substantiations of these, as well as out-of-home placements had all more than doubled since 2007.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/more-income-management-trials-will-prove-futile-it-doesnt-work-46334">More income management trials will prove futile – it doesn't work</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>If the card’s aim is to reduce alcohol-fuelled violence in general, the evidence is again unconvincing. The NT evaluation above revealed no statistically
significant changes in the level of reported problems for either those on compulsory or voluntary income management. But it did show the direction of change was towards a relative worsening of problems due to drinking.</p>
<h2>Social determinants</h2>
<p>Dr <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/wa-news/oppressive-scheme-wa-youth-suicide-inquest-slams-cashless-welfare-card-20170814-gxw7f9.html">Elise Klein,</a> who is researching the cashless welfare card, told the inquest into the suicide of Indigenous youths it is an “oppressive scheme” representing neocolonialism and government overreach. </p>
<p>Indeed, the government has a long history of restricting an individual’s choices supposedly in their best interest. One example is the <a href="https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/acts/1902-47.pdf">Aborigines Act 1902</a>, which resulted in a Chief Protector who was “the legal guardian of every aboriginal and half-caste child to the age of 16 years”.</p>
<p>Colonisation’s <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40653-016-0117-9">damaging effects</a> across generations is an issue shared globally by most Indigenous people. The suggested reparation work is the first step in tackling the social determinants of health which are many including education, employment and income, with education being <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2017/207/1/improving-indigenous-health-through-education">the most potent</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/social-determinants-how-class-and-wealth-affect-our-health-64442">Social determinants – how class and wealth affect our health</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The next step is to tackle the <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/system/files/issues/194_10_160511/mar10460_fm.pdf">causes of the causes</a>, which will <a href="https://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12961-016-0085-4">only occur</a> if there is support from the highest political levels. In the absence of this, <a href="https://croakey.org/whose-problem-is-it-anyway-transforming-the-public-health-narrative-to-stem-the-tide-of-lifestyle-drift/">lifestyle drift</a> <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09581596.2010.520692">thrives</a> whereby policy initiatives to tackle inequalities in health that begin with a broad social determinants approach drift down in favour of blaming individuals for becoming sick as a result of their poor <a href="https://theconversation.com/dont-be-surprised-by-abbotts-comments-about-lifestyle-choices-38711">lifestyle choices</a>. </p>
<p>It is easier for governments to support <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09581596.2010.520692">healthy lifestyle</a> promotion programs despite the risk that sometimes these approaches are <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12380855">ineffective and even counterproductive</a>. In addition they can <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4423493/">increase inequality</a>. </p>
<h2>A spray-on solution</h2>
<p>With the <a href="http://www.nusap.net/spe/mackenbach_strategy%20failure_ssm%202010.pdf">perception</a> that truly addressing the <a href="http://www.who.int/social_determinants/resources/csdh_media/baum_iuhpe_07.pdf">social determinants of health</a> is too hard, it is understandable why the cashless welfare card is attractive. It is easier to <a href="https://academic.oup.com/cdj/article-abstract/doi/10.1093/cdj/bsx008/3572908/Community-as-a-spray-on-solution-a-case-study-of?redirectedFrom=fulltext">spray-on</a> a solution rather taking responsibility for tackling underlying <a href="https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-14-1087">public health and social policy issues</a>. However, taking the easier option is a <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09581596.2016.1184229?src=recsys">health risk</a>. </p>
<p>The principle of “<a href="http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)63069-3/fulltext">let the data do the talking</a>” to influence government polices is failing. Data can be hard to access requiring <a href="https://www.crikey.com.au/2017/08/14/rundle-forrest-forces-the-issue-on-cashless-welfare-card/">subscriptions</a> or <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0312407X.2012.708763?scroll=top&needAccess=true">payment</a>, whereas news of the Forrest campaign was readily accessible. The message was also straightforward, while researchers don’t have a well resourced foundation to assist with conveying complex concepts. </p>
<p>Researchers are rarely as <a href="https://www.forbes.com/profile/andrew-forrest/">high profile</a> with <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-22/andrew-twiggy-forrests-history-of-grand-goals-and-grand-gestures/8548134">political influence</a> and are <a href="https://theconversation.com/government-buries-its-own-research-and-thats-bad-for-democracy-60488">vulnerable</a> to having their research buried. This experience reveals the need for <a href="https://theconversation.com/academics-cant-change-the-world-when-theyre-distrusted-and-discredited-77420">academics and scientists</a> to <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25616195">better understand the policy process</a>, to step up and be more <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h81">political</a> and <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/health-inequalities-9780198703358?cc=us&lang=en&">actively involved in advocacy</a>. Forrest et al have provided a lesson on how to do it.</p>
<hr>
<p><strong><em>Read more: <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-politicians-think-they-know-better-than-scientists-and-why-thats-so-dangerous-72548">Why politicians think they know better than scientists – and why that’s so dangerous</a></em></strong></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82585/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Bret Hart is affiliated with the Social Determinants of Health Alliance as chair and is an Independent Board Director of Puntukurnu Aboriginal Medical Service and deputy chair of the Board of Wellbeing in Schools Australia.</span></em></p>The trial of the cashless welfare card, to control unhealthy spending in Indigenous communities, is being expanded partly due to emotive well-funded campaigns. Meanwhile, evidence is being ignored.Michael Bret Hart, Adjunct Clinical Associate Professor Curtin Medical School Public Health Physician, Curtin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/749852017-03-30T00:18:07Z2017-03-30T00:18:07ZThe Cashless Debit Card causes social and economic harm – so why trial it again?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161967/original/image-20170322-31203-uf3fhi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Almost half of the participants in the Cashless Welfare Card trial said it had made their lives worse.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Richard Milnes</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The federal government’s <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/families-and-children/programmes-services/welfare-conditionality/cashless-debit-card-trial-overview">Cashless Debit Card trials</a> in the East Kimberley and Ceduna were recently extended.</p>
<p>In the space of a day, the government not only released the limited <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/families-and-children/programs-services/welfare-conditionality/cashless-debit-card-trial-wave-1-evaluation-report">evaluation of the trial</a>, but used this to justify its extension. The extension is puzzling given that the trial has led to further economic and social harm among people compulsorily included.</p>
<h2>Background to the card</h2>
<p>The card compulsorily quarantines 80% of a person’s welfare benefits. It restricts purchases, with the aim of promoting <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5520">“socially responsible behaviour”</a>. Its trial was legislated with bipartisan support in 2015. This followed mining magnate Andrew Forrest’s recommendations for the <a href="https://www.dpmc.gov.au/resource-centre/indigenous-affairs/forrest-review">expansion of income management</a>.</p>
<p>But in 2014, a government-commissioned <a href="http://caepr.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/cck_misc_documents/2014/12/Evaluation%20of%20New%20Income%20Management%20in%20the%20Northern%20Territory_full%20report.pdf">evaluation of income management</a> in the Northern Territory provided conclusive evidence that the compulsory income management regime did not make a significant difference. It fell well short of meeting the trial’s objectives – despite the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/IncomeManagementOverview#_Toc328056521">A$410.5 million spent</a>.</p>
<p>The government quickly put rhetorical distance between the renamed Cashless Debit Card and the failed <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/IncomeManagementOverview">compulsory income management</a>. It simply claimed that the card was not income management. </p>
<p>While now some non-Indigenous people are on the Cashless Debit Card, the reality is that both trial sites have a high proportion of Indigenous people. Thus, it is invariably racially targeted.</p>
<h2>The evaluation</h2>
<p>The Cashless Debit Card evaluation claims the trial has led to changes in the community. But its methodology is questionable, and the authors are unable to separate their findings from other programs operating in the trial sites, such as the <a href="http://www.swek.wa.gov.au/Profiles/swek/Assets/ClientData/Document-Centre/2016_Final_Report_TAMS_Review.pdf">Takeaway Alcohol Management System</a> in the East Kimberley.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, government ministers Alan Tudge and Christian Porter <a href="http://www.alantudge.com.au/Media/Articles/tabid/89/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/947/language/en-US/Cashless-Debit-Card-extended-following-positive-independent-evaluation.aspx">have run with</a> the evaluation’s dubious conclusion that it found “proof of concept” – that is, evidence the card works. This is despite their own evaluation finding that 49% of participants said it had made their lives worse and, on average, one in five participants reported that their children were worse off. </p>
<p>It is astonishing that the government is proceeding with another trial given these findings. Successive governments have been eager to use concern for children in particular as a pretext for <a href="https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/politics/northern-territory-emergency-response-intervention#axzz4cCRB8tIP">heavy-handed intervention in Indigenous communities</a>.</p>
<p>The evaluation of the card in the East Kimberley also shows limited understanding of its negative economic and social impacts on vulnerable populations.</p>
<h2>The card’s economic effects</h2>
<p>The card’s logic is based on a distorted perception that alcohol, drug use and gambling are the primary causes of poverty.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the evaluation shows that most people on the card – and their families – did not gamble and did not report consuming illegal drugs or alcohol in excess. </p>
<p>Despite demeaning rhetoric in <a href="http://www.dpmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/Forrest-Review.pdf">reports to government</a> suggesting that welfare poverty is a choice not to seek employment, the <a href="https://kdc.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/3-Aboriginal-Wellbeing-A-Census-Analysis.pdf">Kimberley Development Commission</a> has shown the key cause of unemployment in the East Kimberley is the absence of formal jobs. This situation has deteriorated since the government abolished the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-07-26/scrapping-cdep-is-just-plain-dumb/2513782?pfmredir=sm">Community Development Employment Program</a>. </p>
<p>The government’s response was to launch a <a href="http://caepr.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/Publications/WP/16-081-WP-WORKDOLE+D(22Jun16).pdf">remote work-for-the-dole scheme</a>, the Community Development Program. It claims to prepare people for work that is simply not there. </p>
<p>So, not only are people in the East Kimberley subjected to quarantining of their welfare payments, they must also endure work for the dole with extreme punitive measures. This has led to breaches at a level 33 times higher than for the non-remote and mainly non-Indigenous <a href="https://www.employment.gov.au/jobactive">jobactive</a> program. Breaching has led to welfare payments being withheld from already struggling families.</p>
<p>The link between the card and the scheme is not examined in the evaluation. However, it warrants investigation.</p>
<p>Despite having to contend with material poverty, the trial has exacerbated economic insecurity for poor families. It limits the cash they have to pay for informal renting arrangements, second-hand goods, cash purchases of locally grown produce, and pocket money for children. </p>
<p>And when the card was introduced, many struggled to use it. The user manual was filled with technical jargon, and the mobile app was inappropriate. This is shown by the high rate of transaction errors recorded by Indue, the company contracted to roll out the card.</p>
<h2>Social effects</h2>
<p>The evaluation is silent on how socially disempowering the trial has been for many. </p>
<p>The government failed to consult, let alone obtain <a href="http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf">freely given, prior and informed consent</a> from the broad community. Instead, it engaged only a select group of like-minded individuals and their organisations to roll out the card to their communities. </p>
<p>Despite this, many of those who agreed to host the trial in the East Kimberley did so for the $1.5 million sweetener for badly needed services. </p>
<p>The clear opposition to the card expressed at public meetings, strikes and petitions has been dismissed and ignored. People on the card are subjected to a <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/families-and-children/programs-services/welfare-conditionality/kununurra-region-community-panel">community panel</a> – the amount quarantined can be reduced only after being scrutinised by fellow community members.</p>
<p>Some argued that the card would be important to curb gender-based violence. However, there are reports that domestic violence has actually increased since the card was introduced. <a href="https://www.police.wa.gov.au/Crime/Crime-Statistics-Portal/Statistics">Crime</a> has also increased, yet the government and its evaluation have overlooked such inconvenience in claiming “proof of concept”.</p>
<p>Politicians and officials have deployed the card to tackle the supposed bad behaviour of vulnerable populations. Yet a deeper review of it suggests it is the government and its poorly conceived, ideologically driven policy that needs scrutinising. Perhaps the <a href="http://rachel-siewert.greensmps.org.au/articles/greens-and-labor-secure-support-senate-inquiry-broken-community-development-program">forthcoming Senate inquiry</a> into the Community Development Program will be a good place to start.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>The author would like to thank Professor Jon Altman and Sarouche Razi for comments on earlier drafts.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74985/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Elise Klein is a member of the Australian Greens. She receives funding from British Council. </span></em></p>It’s a mystery why another trial of the Cashless Debit Card is necessary – particularly given how it has led to further economic and social harm among its participants.Elise Klein, Lecturer in Development Studies, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/507562015-11-19T02:57:39Z2015-11-19T02:57:39ZHealthy Welfare Card begins here … where next?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101983/original/image-20151116-26090-1ugsn6s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What do Ceduna and the other trial sites for the Healthy Welfare Card have in common? All are country towns with a mix of Indigenous and non-Indigenous residents.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Ceduna%2C_South_Australia.jpg">Wikimedia Commons/Nachoman-au</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Given the high profile of Indigenous disadvantage, is it a coincidence that certain welfare reforms first appear in Indigenous communities before being mainstreamed?</p>
<p>Under income management, a portion of a welfare payment is restricted in how it can be spent rather than being paid directly in cash. The Commonwealth <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/IncomeManagementOverview">first introduced compulsory income management</a> to 73 remote Indigenous communities under the Northern Territory Intervention in 2007.</p>
<p>In 2010, income management was extended to non-Indigenous welfare recipients in the territory. <a href="http://caepr.anu.edu.au/others/Report-1418859519.php">More than 90%</a> of recipients, however, were still Indigenous. </p>
<p>In 2012, the government began rolling out trials to <a href="http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/centrelink/income-management/about-income-management#a4">depressed regional centres</a> across Australia, including Bankstown, Shepparton, Logan, Playford and Rockhampton. The difference was that income management was now subject to referrals, instead of compulsory. Indigenous recipients were now in the minority – <a href="https://data.gov.au/dataset/3b1f1fb7-adb5-48ea-8305-9205df0a298c/resource/bceeda43-d289-4cf4-86ec-b82e50361dc0/download/incomemanagementsummary2january2015.pdf">more than 80%</a> were non-Indigenous.</p>
<h2>Universal policy was Forrest Review goal</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/102000/original/image-20151116-4970-zdsl02.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/102000/original/image-20151116-4970-zdsl02.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/102000/original/image-20151116-4970-zdsl02.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=851&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102000/original/image-20151116-4970-zdsl02.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=851&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102000/original/image-20151116-4970-zdsl02.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=851&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102000/original/image-20151116-4970-zdsl02.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1069&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102000/original/image-20151116-4970-zdsl02.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1069&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102000/original/image-20151116-4970-zdsl02.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1069&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Creating Parity review recommended that income management smartcards be applied to most welfare recipients.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://indigenousjobsandtrainingreview.dpmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/3838%20Forrest%20Review%20Update%20-%20Full%20Report%20-%20Complete%20PDF%20PRO1.pdf">Commonwealth</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>If the Coalition government implements the recommendations of its <a href="https://indigenousjobsandtrainingreview.dpmc.gov.au/forrest-review">Forrest Review</a>, aimed at “creating parity” between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, the same trajectory may be proposed for the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-cashless-welfare-card-trial-will-leave-us-none-the-wiser-49360">cashless smartcard</a> called the <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/indigenous/cashless-welfare-card-tackles-family-violence/story-fn9hm1pm-1227610073388?sv=97512b273a22b6d248b29dfa9a896dc2">Healthy Welfare Card</a>. </p>
<p>Although the review explicitly focused on Indigenous disadvantage, Andrew Forrest was uninhibited in making his recommendations <a href="https://indigenousjobsandtrainingreview.dpmc.gov.au/how-healthy-welfare-card-would-work">apply to all</a> “vulnerable” Australians.</p>
<p>As with the <a href="http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/centrelink/income-management/basicscard">BasicsCard</a> used for compulsory income management in NT Aboriginal communities from 2008, Forrest recommended that Healthy Welfare Cards be mandatory for all unemployed persons, carers, single parents and people with disabilities. </p>
<p>Essentially, that would be everyone except veterans and aged pensioners. Alert to the implications for the rest of Australia, the Australian Council of Social Service immediately <a href="http://www.acoss.org.au/media_release/groups_call_for_rejection_of_forrest_review_healthy_welfare_card/">opposed the move</a>.</p>
<p>The parliamentary secretary responsible for implementing the policy, Alan Tudge, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Ffd2f3451-f05d-425a-9815-471294607839%2F0009%22">has said</a> that trial sites were:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… selected on the basis of high levels of welfare dependence, where gambling, alcohol and illegal drug abuse are causing unacceptable levels of harm and there is an openness to participate from within the community.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It went unsaid that this involved sites with high numbers of Indigenous people, along with sufficient leadership and public support to back the trials.</p>
<h2>Trials involve a certain kind of town</h2>
<p>The locations first <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/indigenous/trial-communities-back-no-grog-cashless-welfare-cards/story-fn9hm1pm-1227395552860?sv=44ea10098c0cbf2cb26e8422791a9a1c">mooted for the card rollout</a> – Kununurra, Moree and Ceduna – are country towns with freehold title, with Indigenous populations roughly one-quarter to one-third of the total. These towns face serious social problems, in addition to those related to welfare reform, which demand a coordinated government response.</p>
<p>After community objections emerged, Moree <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2015/s4279891.htm">was dropped</a>. It was replaced with Halls Creek, also a rural town, but with a population that is about 75% Indigenous. After <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/indigenous-communities-against-trials-of-cashless-welfare-card/story-e6frg6zo-1227565185570">divisions</a> emerged it too was dropped. </p>
<p>Interestingly, the government appears to be choosing trial sites from the small pool of towns (roughly 50 in number) with a mixed Indigenous and non-Indigenous population (25-75% Indigenous). The vast majority of towns in Australia are either overwhelmingly Indigenous (more than 75%) or overwhelmingly non-Indigenous (less than 25% Indigenous).</p>
<p>This week the government announced that the third trial site would be <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/indigenous/hope-for-kids-in-the-welfare-cards-say-indigenous-elders/story-fn9hm1pm-1227611508691?sv=dd6c583595cc88764875c9025de23240">Wyndham</a>. Again, it’s a rural town where the Indigenous population is just over 50%.</p>
<p>If the Healthy Welfare Card is an Indigenous reform, why target these mixed country towns instead of Indigenous communities? We can think of two explanations.</p>
<p>First, the government must apply the reform equally to non-Indigenous welfare recipients to avoid accusations of targeting Indigenous people and facing charges of racial discrimination. Even in Ceduna, where only 25% of the population is Indigenous, Indigenous people still constitute <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Debit_Card_Trial/Report">an estimated 72%</a> of welfare recipients. In <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Debit_Card_Trial/Submissions">his submission</a> to a Senate inquiry into the trial, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner Mick Gooda warned:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In view of these percentages, the trial may have a disproportionate impact upon Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in these locations.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The second explanation is that the Healthy Welfare Card is not an Indigenous reform at all, but intended for all Australians. On this view, the government is using the tragic circumstances of Indigenous disadvantage to legitimise a universal reform not otherwise palatable to the public. </p>
<p>Would the same public approval exist for trials in a non-Indigenous “population of high levels of welfare dependence” with “gambling, alcohol and illegal drug abuse” problems? Are the only people who fit this profile Indigenous? </p>
<p>Why not apply the trials as an extension to income management trials (Bankstown, Shepparton, Logan, Playford or Rockhampton), which already include a large number of non-Indigenous welfare recipients?</p>
<h2>So where is this policy headed?</h2>
<p>In understanding the battlefield of Indigenous affairs, it always helps to look backwards. When the Howard government launched the NT Intervention in mid-2007, it <a href="https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/racial_discrimination/publications/rda-nter/NTERandRDAPublication12%20December2011.pdf">suspended the Racial Discrimination Act</a>. That removed the possibility of a legal rights challenge.</p>
<p>Only after income management was applied equally to all unemployed citizens in the territory did the Rudd-Gillard government reinstate the act in 2010. This then allowed the <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/library/prspub/1511200/upload_binary/1511200.pdf;fileType=application/pdf">spread of “race-neutral” income management</a> to other parts of Australia.</p>
<p>Suspending the act required a huge political alignment. This was largely legitimated by the crisis of child abuse in the Northern Territory, including claims of <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/pedophile-ring-claims-unfounded-20090704-d8h9.html">paedophile rings</a>, which were later discredited. It would be very difficult for any government to achieve such moralistic bipartisan support again.</p>
<p>So does the government need a work-around by seeking out trial sites that are mixed rural towns with significant Indigenous populations? </p>
<p>The government is walking a fine line here. It must not be seen to single out Indigenous people, but, at the same time, it invokes the crisis of Indigenous disadvantage to legitimate the reform. </p>
<p>Is the Healthy Welfare Card an Indigenous reform or a universal reform in disguise? Let’s call it what it is.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/50756/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Moran receives funding from an Australian Research Council Indigenous Discovery grant.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Carroll Go-Sam receives funding from Australian Research Council Discovery Indigenous Grant. </span></em></p>Income management was first applied to Indigenous communities before being implemented more widely. The Healthy Welfare Card policy appears to be on this same path.Mark Moran, Chair of Development Effectiveness, The University of QueenslandCarroll Go-Sam, ARC Discovery Indigenous Award Researcher, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/493602015-10-22T03:21:07Z2015-10-22T03:21:07ZWhy the ‘cashless welfare card’ trial will leave us none the wiser<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/99112/original/image-20151021-32235-1yz9p3b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The government has promised increased funding for services to gain community consent for its welfare card trials.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dan Peled</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5520">legislation</a> for the “cashless welfare card” trials <a href="http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2015/10/14/cashless-welfare-card-to-be-trialed-in-sa.html">passed the Senate</a> last week with bipartisan support. The card started life as Twiggy Forrest’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-24/debit-card-for-welfare-recipients-under-fire-by-andrew-forrest/6345630">proposal</a> to control the spending of people on welfare payments under the assumption that recipients are not able to manage their finances. It will quarantine 80% of their payments and restrict users from spending anything on gambling and alcohol.</p>
<p>On the surface the bill looks reasonable. It establishes a 12-month trial program that would be evaluated. There is agreement that the communities targeted – such as Ceduna in South Australia – have serious issues that need attention. But it is unclear whether the solution is the cashless welfare card, or if there are wider issues. </p>
<p>Therefore, the trials need to be able to show the benefits or otherwise of the card. And the failure of a similar BasicsCard in the Northern Territory to <a href="http://caepr.anu.edu.au/others/Report-1418859519.php">produce clear benefits</a> raises the need for careful design.</p>
<h2>What will the trial actually achieve?</h2>
<p>A 12-month trial of the card needs to offer the clear capacity to trace cause and effect. However, the trial will not follow this path, because it also includes funds for the same trial sites to receive improved local services.</p>
<p>This additional funding has been included in response to the Ceduna community’s conditions for giving its consent for the trial. Its <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=ff92affb-a51b-4fbe-b1da-7a92e18c570c&subId=401511">submission</a> to a <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Debit_Card_Trial">Senate inquiry</a> identified local service needs as core to any improvements in rates of alcohol abuse.</p>
<p>This agreement for including services locally creates serious issues for the trial’s claimed intentions. How can any form of research determine whether any improvements that may occur over 12 months are the result of the card or of the services, or a mix of both? </p>
<p>If this legislation is to fund a proper trial of a major change for delivering payments, one that may be used for much wider reform of welfare payments, this one will not be able to do so. Such a trial needs a design that will clearly distinguish the effectiveness of the card on its own.</p>
<p>Causal connections are always a problem for reporting on outcomes. These doubts are reinforced by excessive claims quoted in the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Debit_Card_Trial/%7E/media/Committees/clac_ctte/Debit_Card_Trial/report.pdf">Senate report</a> on the bill. For example, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister Alan Tudge <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansardr/9b1d0612-2568-4a39-bfb6-9dc4c98c1222/0150/hansard_frag.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">noted that</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… there will be a detailed evaluation process which will be undertaken. It will be an independent evaluation, and by and large we will be tracking the main harm indicators in the community as well as taking some qualitative assessments.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And in its submission to the Senate inquiry, the Department of Social Serivces <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=f528a89b-719d-4496-9a21-9b5fdf3ebcba&subId=402597">said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The trial is limited in scope – a trial in the true sense – and will include an independent comprehensive evaluation considering the impact of limiting the amount of welfare funds on community-level harm. The evaluation will include qualitative and quantitative data analysis providing clear findings for government and the communities.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The above claims make no sense. On the one hand, the government says this will be a rigorously evaluated 12-month trial of the card. On the other hand, it is promising substantially increased services to deal with the same problem of alcohol addiction to gain Indigenous community consent. How do you separate the card’s effects from the benefits from the services?</p>
<p>Given that some 800-plus recipients of welfare payments will involuntarily be covered in Ceduna and surrounding areas – and maybe only 60 to 80 have drinking problems – there will be other issues to be covered. What effects does the trial have on those who lose some control over how they spend money and where? Some <a href="https://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/media/SPRCFile/Evaluation_of_New_Income_Management_in_the_Northern_Territory_full_report.pdf">evidence</a> from the NT suggests that the process may cause damage to self-esteem. </p>
<p>This was also raised in the Senate inquiry. The Australian Association of Social Workers <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=cb0e435b-7a29-496f-bccd-fb27cfd4f782&subId=402545">submitted</a> that: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Within the trial sites there will be a large number of welfare recipients who manage their scarce resources well and who do not have a problem with alcohol, illegal drugs or gambling. Their normal patterns of financial management will be disrupted yet they will gain nothing from the trial.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Not learning from history</h2>
<p>The extra services being funded as part of the deal are probably what is really needed, but it is unclear whether they will be funded after the trial. This suggests that the money involved should be allocated for services, as that is what the local communities believe is needed, before any tinkering with incomes.</p>
<p>No evidence was offered to the Senate inquiry that the welfare card’s predecessor – the BasicsCard – had produced any benefits for the acknowledged serious issues of alcohol abuse and violence in the Northern Territory. The <a href="http://caepr.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/cck_misc_documents/2014/12/Evaluation%20of%20New%20Income%20Management%20in%20the%20Northern%20Territory_full%20report.pdf">official evaluation</a> of income management:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… could not find any substantive evidence of the program having significant changes relative to its key policy objectives, including changing people’s behaviours … The evaluation data does not provide evidence of income management having improved the outcomes that it was intending to have an impact upon.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In the NT evaluations, a serious gap emerged between the results of some of the interviews with participants and the official statistics. The latter showed no attributable improvements in security, school attendance, health outcomes or other wellbeing indicators of those who had been subject to income management. </p>
<p>The existence of other changes as part of the Northern Territory Intervention also affected the results. The conclusions quoted above carefully decided that there was no reliable evidence that income management had been effective.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/49360/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eva Cox does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>How can it be determined whether any improvements that may occur as part of the 12-month “cashless debit card” trial are the result of the card or increased funding for services, or a mix of both?Eva Cox, Professorial Fellow, Jumbunna IHL, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/463342015-08-20T20:26:44Z2015-08-20T20:26:44ZMore income management trials will prove futile – it doesn’t work<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/92485/original/image-20150820-32447-h34td6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Julian Smith</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>How do you sell a policy trial when there is considerable evidence that it is not going to work? The Abbott government is facing this dilemma in its <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/cashless-welfare-card-would-reduce-alcohol-abuse-and-violence/story-e6frg6zo-1227488999069">desire</a> to implement Twiggy Forrest’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-24/debit-card-for-welfare-recipients-under-fire-by-andrew-forrest/6345630">suggestion</a> for a card restricting welfare recipients’ access to cash.</p>
<p>This is essentially an upgrade of the <a href="http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/centrelink/income-management/basicscard">BasicsCard</a> income management program. The 2015 budget allocated <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/05_2015/2015_budget_fact_sheet_-_income_management_-_final_0_0.pdf">A$146.7 million</a> to cover both the extension of income management and the introduction of the Forrest version, the <a href="https://indigenousjobsandtrainingreview.dpmc.gov.au/how-healthy-welfare-card-would-work">cashless welfare card</a>, despite a lack of evidence of the model’s effectiveness. </p>
<h2>Background to the policy</h2>
<p>“We have to do something” is a common response to questions on why the government should continue <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/IncomeManagementOverview">income management programs</a> or introduce its proposed offspring, the cashless welfare card. The first is mainly imposed on Indigenous welfare recipients. The second, slated to be trialled in 2016, will also target mainly Indigenous communities, even though both apply to some non-Indigenous welfare recipients.</p>
<p>Both cards are justified as measures to curb purchasing power and the serious levels of excessive alcohol-fuelled violence in mainly Indigenous communities. The BasicsCard <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/oct/03/welfare-quarantining-does-it-work">quarantines 50%</a> of ordinary welfare payments. The new card will generally <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/healthy-welfare-card-restricts-spending-on-alcohol-gambling-20150818-gj1hvj.html">control 80% of payments</a>. Neither card can be used to purchase alcohol. </p>
<p>The government has tried to play down the similarities, while emphasising the alcohol issue. Parliamentary secretary Alan Tudge <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/aug/19/labor-party-will-consider-cashless-welfare-debit-cards-legislation?CMP=soc_568">said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This proposal is not income management. There will be no compulsion for anyone to spend their payments in a particular way, although of course people will be encouraged to establish a budget.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Tudge pointed out that Ceduna, the only town to have formally signed up to the new card’s trial, has a rate of hospitalisation from assault that is 68 times that of the wider community – largely due to alcohol abuse.</p>
<h2>Has it solved alcohol-related issues?</h2>
<p>However, there is no evidence in the <a href="http://caepr.anu.edu.au/others/Report-1418859519.php">evaluations</a> of the Northern Territory income management programs that controlling access to cash has reduced alcohol abuse, even in communities covered by the program for up to seven years. </p>
<p>As the main differences are technicalities of access, it is highly unlikely the new program will be effective as they are very similar, despite Tudge’s claims that the card represents a:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… radical new positive approach to the distribution of welfare.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The government appears to be ignoring its funded evaluations that show the NT versions have not worked, particularly for those on compulsory income management. On alcohol-related issues, the evaluation <a href="http://caepr.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/cck_misc_documents/2014/12/Evaluation%20of%20New%20Income%20Management%20in%20the%20Northern%20Territory_full%20report.pdf">said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There has been a substantial decrease in per capita alcohol consumption from the mid-2000s. However, this decrease started well before the NTER [Northern Territory Emergency Response] and is almost certainly driven by factors other than income management.</p>
<p>The number of alcohol-related presentations to emergency departments and admissions to public hospitals by Indigenous people in the Northern Territory has increased dramatically since the mid-2000s.</p>
<p>Imprisonment rates of the Indigenous population have increased in the Northern Territory since 2002 at a faster rate than amongst the Indigenous population Australia-wide.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The report continues:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>When the data are taken as a whole, not only does it suggest that there has been very little progress in addressing many of the substantial disadvantages faced by many people in the Northern Territory, but it also suggests that there is no evidence of changes in aggregate outcomes that can plausibly be linked to income management. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>There are many more detailed analyses of the limited effects of the NT programs introduced by the Howard government and carried on by Labor. The general consensus is that controlling access to cash doesn’t work as people find ways around it, including <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/vegemite-being-used-to-make-homemade-alcohol-in-dry-communities-reports-20150808-giutpp.html">home brewing</a>. </p>
<h2>What next?</h2>
<p>The government’s assumption that upping the proportion of quarantined payments from 50% to 80% will work fails to understand that the problems that create boredom and addiction need quite different approaches. Labor too is apparently unrepentant at its failed efforts and is <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/aug/19/labor-party-will-consider-cashless-welfare-debit-cards-legislation?CMP=soc_568">leaving its options</a> open on whether it supports the bill’s passage.</p>
<p>The failure to accept the evidence raises questions as to why has there has been little serious debate – officially and generally in the welfare sector, or in the more general policymaking community – on the efficacy of these types of conditional welfare payments. Some of this can be blamed on policy bipartisanship.</p>
<p>There is also a <a href="https://theconversation.com/work-with-us-not-for-us-to-end-the-indigenous-policy-chaos-35047">case to be made</a> that the programs targeting Indigenous recipients and communities are distorted by possible anti-Indigenous prejudices that reduce the necessary level of evidence-based scrutiny. </p>
<p>The lack of <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-falling-down-on-progress-to-close-the-gap-for-indigenous-people-37466">real progress</a> in closing the gap suggests the government generally fails to follow the advice of its own experts such as the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. The AIHW has produced criteria for <a href="http://www.uts.edu.au/sites/default/files/article/downloads/JIP_16_2014.pdf">Indigenous programs that work</a>. </p>
<p>The government should follow the evidence-based advice before wasting more money on a new “trial” program that further infantilises mainly Indigenous welfare recipients and won’t work.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/46334/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eva Cox does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The government should follow the evidence-based advice before wasting more money on a new “trial” program that further infantilises mainly Indigenous welfare recipients and won’t work.Eva Cox, Professorial Fellow Jumbunna IHL, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/418162015-05-18T02:12:21Z2015-05-18T02:12:21ZA $147m budget saving missed: income management has failed<p>The expensive and extensive government-funded evaluation of income management in the Northern Territory clearly failed to find it worth ongoing funding. Note the following significant findings in the <a href="http://caepr.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/cck_misc_documents/2014/12/Evaluation%20of%20New%20Income%20Management%20in%20the%20Northern%20Territory_summary%20report.pdf">summary report</a> of <a href="http://caepr.anu.edu.au/others/Report-1418859519.php">the final evaluation report</a> on NT income management programs: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
<p>More general measures of wellbeing at the community level show no evidence of improvement, including for children.</p>
<p>The evaluation found that, rather than building capacity and independence, for many the program has acted to make people more dependent on welfare.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yet the 2015-16 budget has not only included a two-year extension of the services to 25,000 recipients, but <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/05_2015/2015_budget_fact_sheet_-_income_management_-_final_0_0.pdf">signals more expansion</a> of the basic concept. This makes no sense as most forms of income management fail to show positive outcomes, despite some individuals, mainly voluntary participants, claiming income management has benefited them.</p>
<p>The included funding is for new technology and commercial involvement in the future program, which suggests the Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest version of a cashless <a href="http://indigenousjobsandtrainingreview.dpmc.gov.au/chapter-2-healthy-welfare-card">welfare card</a> is the next step. Why would the Forrest version offer better outcomes, apart from cutting administration costs by removing Centrelink? </p>
<p>The announcement below fails to acknowledge there are any questions about benefits of the program. The budget statement <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/05_2015/2015_budget_fact_sheet_-_income_management_-_final_0_0.pdf">claims</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Income Management 2015 Budget</strong></p>
<p>Income management is a tool that helps people better budget their welfare payments and ensures they are getting the basic essentials of life such as food, housing, electricity and education.</p>
<p><strong>What was announced in the 2015 budget?</strong></p>
<p>Income management will continue for another two years in all locations where it currently operates, with possible expansion to four new communities. This $144.6 million investment will build on the positive impacts of income management; giving participants more control of their welfare money, improving family stability, reducing stress and financial hardship. It will also give Government time to fully test alternative approaches to welfare payments quarantining.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Returning to the evaluation report, there are further clear statements, backed by data in the <a href="http://caepr.anu.edu.au/others/Report-1418859519.php">body of the report</a> by the Social Policy Research Centre at UNSW, that do not recommend continuing the program in any of its current forms:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Summarising the impact</strong></p>
<p>Taking the results as a whole, the conclusion is that there is no evidence of any consistent positive impacts on problematic behaviours related to alcohol, drugs, gambling, and financial harassment, in the extent to which financial hardships and stresses are experienced – for example, running out of food, not being able to pay bills, or on community level outcomes such as children not being looked after properly, school attendance, drinking, and financial harassment. (p.307)</p>
<p>Despite the magnitude of the program the evaluation does not find any consistent evidence of income management having a significant systematic positive impact. (p.317)</p>
<p>Data on spending point to continued major problems of diet and poor levels of fruit and vegetable consumption, in particular for Indigenous people living in remote communities. There is no evidence of income management having resulted in changes in spending or consumption, including on alcohol, tobacco, fresh fruit and vegetables. (p.317)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Given the report was delivered to the government last September and released publicly in December, it is puzzling that there has been no acknowledgement of the flaws. In late March, the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/healthy-welfare-card-trials-to-tackle-violence-and-alcohol-abuse-20150322-1m4uk2.html">government announced</a> that welfare recipients would be given cashless cards to stop them spending money on alcohol and drugs in a bid to combat violence against women and children. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister Alan Tudge said the government was planning trials of the cards “in a small number” of places, which were yet to be decided, later this year. </p>
<p>And now it is in the budget. This decision clearly ignores the findings of the evaluation report, which seriously undermine any government claims that quarantining incomes is effective in changing behaviour or that its new card will affect spending positively and reduce drinking. The report does not recommend continuing the program in any of its current forms.</p>
<h2>Prejudice makes it easier to ignore evidence</h2>
<p>The question arises: why does this particular policy change receive so little attention or objections? Despite the threat that controlling income may well alter the basis for general income support, the possibilities stay beneath the public debate radar. Few in the welfare sector have raised objections or questions.</p>
<p>One can only assume an element of racial and wider prejudice is operating, as the original and many ongoing recipients have been Indigenous. Income management started as part of the Howard government’s NT Emergency Response to a child sexual abuse report. </p>
<p>Originally, the income management program was targeted at all Commonwealth payment recipients in 72 Indigenous communities, controlling 50% of their spending. It required suspending the Racial Discrimination Act. There was no explanation as to how financial controls would fix child abuse.</p>
<p>When the ALP took office some months later, it expanded the numbers and set up a review. Despite the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/nt/content/2006/s2400936.htm">Yu report</a> raising some questions and doubts, the new government extended the scheme to the rest of the NT. It was de-racialised but still covers mostly Indigenous recipients in the NT, with smaller mainly non-Indigenous and Indigenous pilots elsewhere.</p>
<p>Now, eight years on and despite all the evidence to the contrary, the budget papers state clearly:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Government is investing $147 million to deliver more streamlined and cost-effective income management. Around 25,000 people will continue to benefit from this programme designed to support vulnerable Australians.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Why? How about some serious economic rationality, both to save taxpayers’ money and improve social well-being?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41816/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eva Cox does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Various studies, culminating in the final evaluation report of income management in the Northern Territory, have found such programs don’t achieve the claimed benefits. Why did the budget extend them?Eva Cox, Professorial Fellow Jumbunna IHL, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/347922014-12-18T03:24:17Z2014-12-18T03:24:17ZIncome management doesn’t work, so let’s look at what does<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/66935/original/image-20141211-6039-1gbv95q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Real and sustained engagement with Aboriginal people should be the starting point in rethinking Indigenous welfare policy.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Marianna Massey</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In recent years, <a href="http://www.tangentyere.org.au/services/social_services/research/">Tangentyere Council Research Hub</a> has undertaken data collection in Alice Springs town camps as part of a longitudinal study of income management. The final report of around 300 pages was handed to government in September and was finally <a href="http://caepr.anu.edu.au/others/Report-1418859519.php">released</a> on Thursday.</p>
<p>As a participant in the data collection we received four pages of feedback on the research. This showed that, to a large extent, income management does not achieve its stated aims. The one group of people who do gain a little benefit are those who choose to have their income managed voluntarily.</p>
<p>The report is based on administrative information from Centrelink, from stores that accept the so-called <a href="http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/centrelink/income-management/basicscard">Basics Card</a>, a survey of more than 1000 people on income management and interviews with a range of stakeholders.</p>
<h2>What has the research found?</h2>
<p>Income management quarantines 50% of a person’s welfare income, which is available for spending through the Basics Card. This card does not allow the holder to buy alcohol, pornography, tobacco and tobacco products, gambling products, gambling services, home-brew kits and home-brew concentrate. </p>
<p>In brief, the study findings are:</p>
<ul>
<li>income management does not change problems such as running out of food;</li>
<li>people do not manage their money differently – very few people save their money up and those who spent their money quickly continue to do so;</li>
<li>humbug in the community is reported to be about the same; and</li>
<li>there is no evidence of less drinking, kids going to school more or people eating better foods.</li>
</ul>
<p>Finally, there was almost no change in financial well-being among people on income management over the period of the research (2011 to 2013).</p>
<p>The question of what to make of these findings is particularly pertinent now,in light of the recent proposal in Andrew Forrest’s <a href="https://indigenousjobsandtrainingreview.dpmc.gov.au/forrest-review">Creating Parity</a> report that people receiving welfare should get a <a href="http://indigenousjobsandtrainingreview.dpmc.gov.au/chapter-2-healthy-welfare-card">“Healthy Welfare Card”</a>. Those receiving age or veterans’ pensions would be excluded, though there is no explanation for this.</p>
<p>If quarantining welfare payments does not change people’s behaviour, particularly in their ability to “manage” their money, then we need to question whether expanding this system makes sense. And if income quarantining does not work, what are the alternatives?</p>
<p>To properly answer this question we need to go back further and explore the origins of the thinking that produces “solutions” like income quarantining. Then we will be able to explore other policies that may provide different and more effective solutions.</p>
<h2>To work, policy must be just and fair</h2>
<p>In Australia (and the US and UK), a reconceptualisation of <a href="https://theconversation.com/robin-hood-and-piggy-bank-what-the-welfare-state-does-for-us-25790">what welfare was “for”</a> started to take shape around the turn of the century. Welfare was rebranded not as a “right” of a citizen, but as a benefit that people needed to “earn”. This move has underpinned the notions of <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/archive/dole">mutual obligation</a> (which has led to policies such as Work for the Dole), which are deeply embedded in welfare policy thinking today.</p>
<p>One of the interesting developments to have come from this move is that welfare recipients are no longer regarded as the best judge of their own needs; they are seen to need external control to assist them to make “good” decisions. However, one of the strong proponents of this thinking and someone many feel is responsible for leading this conversation, US poverty theorist <a href="http://politics.as.nyu.edu/object/LawrenceMMead">Lawrence Mead</a>, acknowledges that government can only do so much to foster change. That, he says, needs to start within the family. </p>
<p>Although many Aboriginal people in Alice Springs town camps are happy to stay on income management, the recurring issue people have with the measure is essentially a moral one: they see the blanket nature of the provisions as racist. Everyone was treated as if they had a problem, regardless of whether they were managing their money effectively, sending their children to school or buying healthy food.</p>
<p>For those in town camps, a more just and effective solution is one in which their agency and aspirations are taken seriously, and investment is directed toward assisting them to get meaningful employment while living in harmonious communities.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/66921/original/image-20141211-6045-1bmddyj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/66921/original/image-20141211-6045-1bmddyj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/66921/original/image-20141211-6045-1bmddyj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/66921/original/image-20141211-6045-1bmddyj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/66921/original/image-20141211-6045-1bmddyj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/66921/original/image-20141211-6045-1bmddyj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/66921/original/image-20141211-6045-1bmddyj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Under compulsory income management, everyone is treated if they have a problem.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Marianna Massey</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Engagement, not imposition, is the way forward</h2>
<p>Aboriginal researchers at the Tangentyere Research Hub and Aboriginal residents we talked with see that the key to better futures lies in working together to strengthen people’s sense of responsibility, with a prime focus being helping the people and families who need it. The difficulty with such a prescription is two-fold in the case of Alice Springs town camps.</p>
<p>First is that Aboriginal people see strengthening family in very different terms to that imagined by policymakers, who tend to assume that society is made up of individuals rather than groups. This thinking leads to the construction of solutions that target people as individuals first, rather than as members of extended social networks. </p>
<p>The practical problem with this is that it undermines the building of strength that change is predicated upon. Aboriginal people in the town camps are looking to engage with governments in ways that strengthen their knowledge and culture, which in turn produces tangible meaningful change in their lives. They reject the contradictory logic at the heart of compulsory income management in relation to who drives (and should be driving) change in their communities.</p>
<p>As the research demonstrates, taking away people’s responsibility to manage their own money does not lead to any change in the way they manage their money, or increase their ability to manage it better in the future.</p>
<p>We should be asking serious questions as to whether the proposed Healthy Welfare Card will produce the transformation desired by government. If, as this research suggests, the answer is “it won’t”, then we need to fundamentally rethink our approaches. Real and sustained engagement with Aboriginal people should be the starting point.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article has been amended since publication.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34792/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Campbell is currently the Research Coordinator at Tangentyere Council in Alice Springs. the Council received funding from Colmar Brunton to conduct the fieldwork for this research in Alice Springs Town Camps.</span></em></p>In recent years, Tangentyere Council Research Hub has undertaken data collection in Alice Springs town camps as part of a longitudinal study of income management. The final report of around 300 pages was…Matthew Campbell, Adjunct Associate, Charles Darwin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/326112014-10-07T19:07:50Z2014-10-07T19:07:50ZGovernment that ignores evidence sets up welfare policies to fail<p>The mess of federal budget negotiations has taken over the limited space for social policy debates. However, we are due to get final reports on a range of inquiries. These include the <a href="http://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/review-of-australia-s-welfare-system/a-new-system-for-better-employment-and-social-outcomes-full-version-of-the-interim-report">McClure report</a> on social security, which will take into account Andrew Forrest’s <a href="https://indigenousjobsandtrainingreview.dpmc.gov.au/forrest-review">Creating Parity</a> report on Indigenous welfare and employment. </p>
<p>The report will trigger major changes to income-support programs, so any input from related evaluations may have considerable impact. One of the ideas being touted, <a href="https://theconversation.com/forrest-report-ignores-what-works-and-why-in-indigenous-policy-30080">particularly by Forrest</a>, but also mentioned by Social Security Minister Kevin Andrews, is the extension of some forms of income management.</p>
<p>A range of pilot programs have run in various parts of Australia. However, these and the Northern Territory model show few if any clear benefits, despite extensive evaluations of controls on the spending rights of income recipients. </p>
<h2>Push to extend income controls is on</h2>
<p>The <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-07/fred-chaney-urges-caution-on-cashless-welfare-card/5794382">debate is on</a>, as indicated by coverage of <a href="http://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/families-and-children/programs-services/income-management/income-management-evaluations">two new reports</a> just posted on the Department of Social Services website. These are already being <a href="http://kevinandrews.dss.gov.au/media-releases/187">misinterpreted by the minister</a> and <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/indigenous/income-regime-helps-money-management-reduces-substance-abuse/story-fn9hm1pm-1227079564661">misreported</a> as offering encouragement to expand the program:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews welcomed the findings of the reports, which he said proved income management was helping individuals and families to budget better and stabilise their lives. ‘The reports found that the vast majority of people who volunteered for income management were positive about the initiative, reporting lower stress levels and marked improvements in their ability to manage their money,’ Mr Andrews said.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Australian article suggests that the reports support the extension of the program, with the minister going on to remind us of the McClure and Forrest contributions to this policy area. However, my more careful reading of both reports finds no clear results that would endorse imposing any form of compulsory income management on income-support categories or place-based eligibility.</p>
<h2>What did the reports find?</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/families-and-children/programs-services/income-management/evaluation-of-voluntary-income-management-in-the-anangu-pitjantjatjara-yankunytjatjara-apy-lands">One report</a> covers a voluntary version in the APY lands. This program was requested by local Indigenous communities and devised in consultation with them. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/families-and-children/programs-services/income-management/income-management-evaluations#2">other report</a> covers pilot programs in various locations. These involve a wide range of compulsory and voluntary entry and eligibility criteria.</p>
<p>The only really clear finding of both reports was that those who had voluntarily decided to participate had more positive responses to income-management programs. </p>
<p>This included most but not all in the APY scheme who saw it as meeting some local needs. The other evaluation included about half of the interviewed group who were compelled to take part, either as a category or on social worker recommendations. Their responses to income management were often negative compared to the voluntary groups.</p>
<p>To quote from the reports, the <a href="https://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/">Social Policy Research Centre’s</a> APY findings were:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The majority of community members and other stakeholders who participated in this study were positive about income management being introduced into the APY Lands. The fact that the communities had requested income management, and had been consulted about its introduction, appears to have had a major influence on the communities’ view of income management.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Responses are mixed in relation to the impact of income management on the wellbeing of the community as a whole, but overall there is a belief that it has had a positive though limited impact so far.</p>
<p>But income management has not suited everyone. A number of study participants had decided not to try it, or had tried it and decided not to continue.</p>
<p>The second report on Deloitte’s evaluations of place-based income management (PBIM) gives some measurable positive results for voluntary income management (VIM) participants. They were on the program for some time before some compulsory categories were added. The latter group showed far fewer positive responses to being deprived of control over their spending. </p>
<p>The Deloitte report observes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The short-term outcomes of PBIM noted in this report include the ability to pay bills and other payments on time and reduced stress or worry. The probability of reporting positive outcomes was increased for VIM customers between the survey point at baseline and the wave one survey. The probability of reporting negative outcomes increased among the surveyed VULN [vulnerable income management] cohort. </p>
<p>The level of tobacco and alcohol consumed by VIM customers decreased significantly over the period between baseline and wave one compared with the change for the comparison group. This suggests a positive impact of PBIM on these behaviours. No such significant impact was observed in the short term for VULN customers, who were less likely to engage with these behaviours at baseline than VIM customers. </p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Consent is the key to benefits</h2>
<p>The above findings are obviously limited. They certainly do not offer clear endorsements of any forms of compulsory income management, only support by those who voluntarily joined it.</p>
<p>Many of these people were reported as already using the Centrepay system for housing etc. The question arises whether this voluntary system should be expanded rather than continuing the income management program, which is linked to compulsion and costly administration.</p>
<p>Even former Liberal Indigenous affairs minister Fred Chaney has <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-07/fred-chaney-urges-caution-on-cashless-welfare-card/5794382">warned against</a> compulsory income management. There is a signal lack of serious evidence in the many other earlier studies of income management that compulsory controls on benefit spending create general benefits.</p>
<p>Some recipients have indicated they like being managed. Yet seven years of NT official data covering the communities that started the program under the Howard government have produced no independent evidence of improved outcomes.</p>
<p>At this stage of policy changes, we need to note the repeated reports of failed programs that were supposed to assist Indigenous people with “Closing the Gap”. These failures often come from the inclination of ministers and advisers to follow their political beliefs instead of evidence. They fail to make effective use of any professional, rather than political, expert advisers, including impartial <a href="http://www.aihw.gov.au/closingthegap/">advice and evidence</a> from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.</p>
<p>It is interesting to note that the original income-management trials were part of the so-called emergency NT Intervention. Although the program was de-racialised under the ALP, its original and still majority application to the NT Indigenous population has resulted in little public scrutiny of the basic assumptions of the right to control welfare support.</p>
<p>The Forrest view of generalising it to all welfare recipients obviously echoes government beliefs that they need paternalistic controls. In times when budget cuts in welfare are touted, it is strange that the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-31/welfare-income-management-costs-report/4494054">expense of the administration</a> of social control, estimated at up to $4,000 a year per person, is not a disincentive. </p>
<p>We can only hope the government, which claims to want change, does not continue to fund <a href="https://theconversation.com/creeping-spread-of-income-management-must-be-challenged-24560">expensive but ineffective</a> programs. That will lead to cries that “nothing works” in welfare as well as Indigenous policies.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/32611/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eva Cox does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The mess of federal budget negotiations has taken over the limited space for social policy debates. However, we are due to get final reports on a range of inquiries. These include the McClure report on…Eva Cox, Professorial Fellow Jumbunna IHL, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/288392014-07-08T20:18:16Z2014-07-08T20:18:16ZWhen job seekers outnumber jobs 5 to 1, punitive policy is harmful<p>The prime object of welfare reform should be to increase the well-being of people rather to <a href="http://kevinandrews.dss.gov.au/media-releases/142">reduce public expenditure</a>. Good policy should be able to achieve both goals over the longer term. Too many current proposals, however, are likely to cause damage that increases costs and affects social cohesion.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/welfare-review-fails-to-understand-australias-labour-market-28587">Proposed policies</a> in the budget and McClure report that focus on cutting income support or tightly controlling recipients’ spending are highly unlikely to achieve either of the above goals. Instead, they will create a subgroup of people with no income and/or suffering further stigma because they are denied control over basic decisions.</p>
<p>The Australian’s post-budget <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/australias-intractable-welfare-state-of-mind/story-e6frg71x-1226924545128?nk=4002e994c4d2fb13fdb83940be7944f3">editorial</a> echoes the official view on welfare, but this approach disregards the factual evidence of whether this is likely to produce effective policy:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>As Mr Hockey has argued, welfare is meant to provide a safety net, not become a cargo net. Australians know that our most vulnerable will be looked after; governments should help the poor and disadvantaged, but those who can work or provide for themselves should not be discouraged to do so.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The proposals are a further move away from the postwar consensus on the need for a welfare state. That derived from the political damage done by high unemployment and inequalities in the lead-up to the Second World War. In a time when inequality is again alarming <a href="https://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2014/052714.htm">even the International Monetary Fund</a> (IMF), we need to examine whether the risks of introducing both savage cuts and spending controls exceed the possible benefits. </p>
<h2>A false assumption of blame</h2>
<p>The welfare policy shift seems to be based on a more individualised view of unemployment rather than a social or structural analysis. The faults are seen as being on the supply side of labour, not with the lower demand for labour generally. Unemployment is assumed to be the result of problematic job seekers who fail to get a job and/or live disordered lives.</p>
<p>Policy makers should be aware that there are, at least, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/head-east-for-the-jobs-new-data-reveals-20140626-3awgl.html#ixzz35zU1eg2x">five unemployed job seekers for every official job vacancy</a>. The official Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) count excludes job changers or non-active seekers willing to take one, so the ratio of job competitors to jobs could be twice as high. This means the chances of success are very limited, particularly for those who are not well qualified, lack recent experience or encounter employer prejudices.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/53160/original/qf3dm2gj-1404714983.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/53160/original/qf3dm2gj-1404714983.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=291&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53160/original/qf3dm2gj-1404714983.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=291&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53160/original/qf3dm2gj-1404714983.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=291&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53160/original/qf3dm2gj-1404714983.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=366&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53160/original/qf3dm2gj-1404714983.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=366&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53160/original/qf3dm2gj-1404714983.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=366&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Australia’s 146,000 job vacancies amount to barely a fifth of the total of 717,000 people recorded by the ABS as unemployed.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6354.0">Australian Bureau of Statistics, May 2014 Job Vacancies, Australia (cat. no. 6354.0) </a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Heavying those who are unlikely to succeed in such circumstances is pointless and punitive. Yet proposed “reforms” clearly assume that younger people need their welfare income cut because they are not properly trying to find paid work. </p>
<p>The clear example is the budget proposal of a six-month wait for unemployment benefits for those under 30. Less known is a proposal before the Senate to cut payments for those who miss appointments with job agencies or are seen as not pursuing a job deemed suitable by Centrelink. These often futile processes are difficult to negotiate and <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/comment/centrelink-is-designed-to-fail-the-most-vulnerable-20140706-zsuvj.html">often totally unproductive</a>.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r5275_ems_ec0c3bac-7d58-4e74-a43c-af3d769345d5/upload_pdf/394955.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/ems/r5275_ems_ec0c3bac-7d58-4e74-a43c-af3d769345d5%22">explanatory memorandum</a> to that legislation shows the lawmakers’ view on rights. It states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Article 6 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) recognises the right to work. This includes the right to the opportunity to gain a living by work which the person freely chooses or accepts and is considered an inherent part of human dignity.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That sounds good but further down the tone changes as the right to work becomes an obligation:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The imposition of an eight-week non-payment for refusing an offer of suitable work does not unreasonably restrict the right to freely choose or accept work … </p>
</blockquote>
<p>People long out of work may have many reasons for failure to comply but the possibility of these being considered is now limited and <a href="http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/alarming-jump-in-centrelink-breaches-20110418-1dl6c.html">extra employment is not the outcome</a>.</p>
<h2>Policy bereft of supporting evidence</h2>
<p>Another aspect of this punitive approach is income management (IM). Despite the lack of any evidence of its benefits, as well as high administrative costs, ideological beliefs of recipient incompetence are pushing expansion.</p>
<p>While the above changes cut spending costs, in this case an expensive program is being expanded. The budget allocated A$100 million to extend income management for the next 12 months with suggestions of further expansion. </p>
<p>Administration costs amount to over $3500 per person for the 28,000 current recipients. The costs come from policing the spending of more than 50% of their income support. This expensive option relies on assumptions about the incompetence of the recipients. </p>
<p>The reasoning <a href="http://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/06_2014/dss006_14_exec_summary_26_june_2014_tagged.pdf">is described</a> in the McClure report:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Consideration should be given to incorporating income management as part of a package of support services available to job seekers who need to stabilise their circumstances and develop a pathway to work or study. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Little clear evidence exists to justify this program. A <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook44p/IncomeManagement">parliamentary briefing note says</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Income management has been a controversial welfare reform. While conditions have always been applied to eligibility for welfare payments, restrictions on how payments may be spent are a new development, criticised by some as paternalist and stigmatising. Income management is also relatively expensive to administer, with an estimated cost up to 2014–15 in the range of $1 billion. </p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/53162/original/nhkbccyc-1404716222.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/53162/original/nhkbccyc-1404716222.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53162/original/nhkbccyc-1404716222.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53162/original/nhkbccyc-1404716222.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53162/original/nhkbccyc-1404716222.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=536&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53162/original/nhkbccyc-1404716222.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=536&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/53162/original/nhkbccyc-1404716222.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=536&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Seven years after its first roll-out, the evidence for income management is weak at best.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Centrelink</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Other reports find little evidence of benefits. A government-funded evaluation of the seven-year-old Northern Territory versions of IM <a href="http://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/families-and-children/programs-services/income-management/evaluating-new-income-management-in-the-northern-territory-first-evaluation-report">failed to show clear outcomes</a>, as in many earlier reports.</p>
<p>At best, some participants said they have had good experiences. Many others reported seriously negative experiences. The report concluded:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There are few, if any, strong and consistent impacts of NIM; rather, there have been diverse outcomes. This is reflected in the wide and inconsistent range of views and experiences of income management. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>On the basis of these and other similar reports, it is hard to justify an extended version, let alone its continuation.</p>
<h2>Focus on structures not the individual</h2>
<p>The evidence is that long-term non-employment is more about social and physical barriers than the character of the job seeker, so the justification for punitive approaches becomes less convincing. The potential damage to those on the receiving end of extra cuts and controls may well create greater costs in the longer term.</p>
<p>If we had a welfare program based on assumptions that society has failed most of those who need income support, it would look very different. Stigmatising the many recipients because a few may not be enthusiastic seekers of non-existent jobs does not justify wholesale cuts. </p>
<p>Similarly, infantilising income recipients because a few need or want help with financial issues is wrong. They could be offered cheaper voluntary assistance through Centrepay, without losing the right to control their spending. </p>
<p>Policy proposals need to be tested against solid criteria. There is no evidence that reducing and controlling spending capacity are effective remedies for the unemployed. </p>
<p>Blaming the victims may be <a href="https://theconversation.com/safe-seats-are-more-likely-to-have-a-work-for-the-dole-pilot-27914">politically useful</a> but obscures the real issues. These include a shortage of jobs and barriers to work created by employer prejudices. The risks include damaging the vulnerable by encouraging hostile public responses to their needs and reinforcing their lack of self-worth.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/28839/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eva Cox does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The prime object of welfare reform should be to increase the well-being of people rather to reduce public expenditure. Good policy should be able to achieve both goals over the longer term. Too many current…Eva Cox, Professorial Fellow Jumbunna IHL, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/245602014-03-27T03:27:01Z2014-03-27T03:27:01ZCreeping spread of income management must be challenged<p>One of the bizarre bipartisan policy overlaps between the Coalition and Labor is in the area of income support known as welfare payments. Labor has been seen as the party that cared about the poor and disadvantaged, but the former ALP government adopted and extended a range of the Howard government’s paternalistic and punitive measures. </p>
<p>Now, social services minister Kevin Andrews <a href="http://m.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/coalition-to-extend-income-management/story-fn59niix-1226855184298">wants to extend</a> significantly the costly but currently limited surveillance and control policies of income management.</p>
<p>Howard’s <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook43p/welfaretowork">“welfare to work”</a> strategies reduced income levels and increased surveillance of some recipients. <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/howard-welfare-expert-asked-back-ro-reform-system/story-fn59niix-1226751592006#mm-premium">Building on the earlier McClure report</a>, the Coalition tightened eligibility for disability payments and cut off sole parent benefits when children turned eight.</p>
<p>The ALP went on to remove the the higher sole parent payment from <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201213/ParentingPayment">grandfathered recipients</a>, further <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/disabled-not-rorting-the-support-pension-disability-discrimination-commissioner-graeme-innes-hits-back-20140312-34ldu.html">tightened disability support pension</a> criteria and work tests and failed to increase the <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/shorten-slammed-over-low-newstart/story-fn59noo3-1226500280745">very low Newstart payment</a>. Labor also extended income management, a policy that <a href="https://newmatilda.com/2013/06/21/nt-intervention-six-years">began with the Northern Territory intervention</a>.</p>
<p>These measures were speciously framed as inducing recipients to find paid work by cutting entitlements. Such arguments ignored the lack of evidence that earlier cuts had produced higher workforce participation. The underlying ideological beliefs are that those who fail to find a job are flawed, disorganised or lazy and need coercive controls to make them responsible.</p>
<h2>Policy expansion defies evidence</h2>
<p>This provides the platform for social services minister Kevin Andrews to use the budget to further cut the incomes of some of our most vulnerable people. He intends to turn the highly limited income management program into mainstream policy. This is despite a singular <a href="https://theconversation.com/income-management-more-evidence-free-policymaking-18818">lack of evidence</a> that the policy makes a significant positive difference to the lives of people in the program.</p>
<p>Why then would Andrews expand a program that per person cost more than half the value of the dole to administer last financial year? The Australian National Audit Office <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-31/welfare-income-management-costs-report/4494054">found the scheme cost</a> between A$6600 and A$7900 a person, equal to 62% of the $246-a-week Newstart payment. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/IncomeManagementOverview#_Toc328056521">parliamentary summary</a> of the policy stated:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Income management has been a <a href="http://blogs.crikey.com.au/thestump/2010/03/31/will-caucus-allow-unproven-dangerous-changes-to-income-management-to-go-through-how-do-you-balance-expert-evidence-and-personal-communications-and-opinions/">controversial</a> welfare reform. While conditions have always been applied to eligibility for welfare payments, restrictions on how payments may be spent are a new development, criticised by some as paternalist and stigmatising. Income management is also relatively expensive to administer, with an estimated cost up to 2014–15 in the range of $1 billion.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Income management currently covers fewer than 24,000 people nationally, mostly Indigenous people in Northern Territory. Citing small pilot programs in Western Australia and five relatively recent non-Indigenous versions in Bankstown, Rockhampton, Shepparton, Logan and Playford, Andrews has announced plans to extend the policy. This suggests that categories of payees will be included over the whole nation – for example, all under 21 on youth allowance.</p>
<p>In a time when Andrews’ portfolio is seeking savings, expanding a cost-heavy program for unproven benefits is irrational. Despite running for nearly seven years, a wide range of evaluations has failed to find any clear data that show valid benefits for a significant number of those covered by income management. </p>
<p>The most recent publicly available <a href="http://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/families-and-children/programs-services/income-management/a-review-of-child-protection-income-management-in-western-australia">review of child protection income management</a> in Western Australia concludes with the warning:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This review relies mainly on qualitative data that provides rich descriptions of the perceptions and experiences of income management of both recipients and intermediaries. As with all qualitative studies, care should be taken in drawing conclusions, as the findings cannot be generalised; nor can those who were involved in the review be seen as a representative sample of recipients or intermediaries.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Andrews apparently based his decision on a recent evaluation report on the place-based pilots, which has not been made public. This seems premature as most of the 2000 or so participants in these five areas were recently added, very young recipients of youth allowance. It is hard to see how the early data could justify a major expansion.</p>
<p>The NT program is now old enough to show some clear results. The Commonwealth’s recent <a href="http://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/families-and-children/programs-services/income-management/evaluating-new-income-management-in-the-northern-territory-first-evaluation-report">first evaluation</a>, like many other reports, failed to find any. At best it found some participants who said they had good experiences of income management. Others reported seriously negative experiences. </p>
<p>The report stated:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There are few, if any, strong and consistent impacts of NIM; rather, there have been diverse outcomes. This is reflected in the wide and inconsistent range of views and experiences of income management.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In the NT, where compulsory income management was applied to most working-age recipients of payments since 2010, and others in mainly remote areas since 2007, official statistics do not show positive changes. The data on school attendance, violence and child protection are not good.</p>
<p>Many participants’ reported experiences suggest that the relatively few with some financial issues could have been helped by less-interfering programs like <a href="http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/centrepay">Centrepay</a> without losing the right to control their spending.</p>
<h2>Major change demands debate</h2>
<p>This substantial shift in welfare policy has never been seriously debated because it started with Aboriginal recipients and added other outgroups. On top of the lack of evidence that quarantining at least half people’s income support improves their lives, some evidence suggests it may cause harm via shame and infantilising dependency.</p>
<p>Income management is therefore wrong on many levels:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>It starts with the wrong assumptions, that the spending of income recipients is the problem.</p></li>
<li><p>It can undermine recipients’ capacities to make their own choices.</p></li>
<li><p>It costs a lot per person to administer, which could be better spent on other services.</p></li>
<li><p>It reduces the focus on external problems - such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/an-800-000-plus-jobs-gap-between-welfare-to-work-and-reality-22226">job seekers greatly outnumbering jobs</a> and employers’ prejudices affecting work prospects.</p></li>
<li><p>It blames the most vulnerable and reinforces their lack of self-worth and hostile public views, both social determinants of ill health.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Still, Andrews wants to make the policy mainstream. The policy has been under the radar because it has been bipartisan; it never became a public or election issue. Income management needs solid challenges as it fails any good policy tests.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/24560/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eva Cox does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>One of the bizarre bipartisan policy overlaps between the Coalition and Labor is in the area of income support known as welfare payments. Labor has been seen as the party that cared about the poor and…Eva Cox, Professorial Fellow Jumbunna IHL, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/188182013-10-03T02:38:55Z2013-10-03T02:38:55ZIncome management: more evidence-free policymaking?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32326/original/b3w6yry4-1380697840.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It seems the Coalition will expand the compulsory income management scheme, which has little evidence backing up its worth.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dan Peled</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>For a brief moment, it looked as though the Coalition would be better than the ALP on welfare policy. It appeared that the new government would listen to evidence for policy changes in its newly retitled Social Services portfolio. </p>
<p>In a previous positive sign for evidence-based policy, new social services minister Kevin Andrews had <a href="http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/single-mums-priority-in-welfare-overhaul/story-e6frfkp9-1226727933747">suggested</a> that he would increase the pay rates for sole parents, who, since 2006, have been <a href="http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/plea-to-spare-sole-parents-from-disturbing-newstart-push-20120506-1y7co.html">dumped onto Newstart</a> when their youngest child turns eight. As there is no evidence that putting them on lower payments increased their workforce participation and there is evidence the changes made them poorer, our research called on the ALP to reverse the changes. </p>
<p>However, hope for evidence-based policy reform has been dashed by Andrews’ <a href="http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/coalition-bid-to-expand-welfare-quarantining/story-e6frfkp9-1226730353663">recent announcement</a> of the expansion of compulsory income management - a policy which is extremely expensive and shows no clear evidence of benefit.</p>
<h2>What is income management?</h2>
<p>The first version of an <a href="http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/centrelink/income-management/about-income-management">income management policy</a> was targeted to 72 Aboriginal communities covered by the NT intervention, but then morphed into a non-race based, location-directed program. From 2011, the scheme compulsorily covered all NT recipients of benefits, and offered some other variants, including a “voluntary” version.</p>
<p>The previous government also funded another five sites outside the NT as pilot programs to decide whether to further expand the program to other benefit recipients. This has been very limited and the figures do not suggest success.</p>
<p>In most cases, those who have their income managed lose control of over 50% of their benefit income and 100% of lump sum payments such as the baby bonus. There are a few forbidden purchases: grog, gambling and porn, for instance; while other costs, like rent and power, can be paid directly by Centrelink. </p>
<p>For most, other purchases such as food and clothing can only be made via a BasicsCard that holds the balance of their money. It does not control the quality or details of other purchases, but does limit the purchases to registered suppliers, often big chain supermarkets. It does seriously limit access to markets, wholesalers and second-hand shops. </p>
<h2>Towards evidence-based policy</h2>
<p>A current - but not often discussed - shift in welfare policies has been the increasing move away from entitlements to conditional welfare payments. The current emphasis on economic participation and productivity has spawned a shift towards blaming the unemployed for their lack of earnings and making their access to payments more punitive and controlled. </p>
<p>While this approach is usually part of conservative tendencies, both the Coalition and Labor have pursued “meaner” payment policies. Despite little evidence that low payments and harsh conditions increase workforce participation, the trend continues.</p>
<p>Doubts have already been raised about the value of compulsory income management, which suggests that this part of the program should be abandoned - not expanded. </p>
<p>The most recent relevant data is in the first stage of an <a href="http://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/11_2012/nim_first_evaluation_report.pdf">evaluation report</a>, commissioned by the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (now the Department of Social Services), which covers the bigger NT versions of income management. The very thorough review drew on both survey data and official data to look for evidence of the effects of the programs.</p>
<p>In part, the report concluded:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>…these findings point towards the conclusion that income management may assist a proportion of those on income support to cope with particular issues they face. At the same time the program has been applied to many who do not believe that they need income management and for whom there is no evidence that they have a need for, or benefit from income management. Income management has led to widespread feelings of unfairness and disempowerment. </p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.jumbunna.uts.edu.au/researchareas/newmedia/JIP12online2011.pdf">Evaluators of the policy</a> have not been able to find evidence of positive benefits from the data they collected. They noted that some positive responses that came from some recipients were not supported by any external data on improved community safety, child nutrition or school attendances, although these were the policy’s core aims. They also reported negative responses, particularly from those on the compulsory version that may outweigh the positives.</p>
<p>There is also the issue of costs. The Australian National Audit Office is reported to have found that the scheme costs between A$6600 and A$7900 per person per year to administer, equal to 62% of the $246-a-week Newstart payment. Even if costs can be cut in more urban areas, these costs suggests an excessive administrative burden on both benefit recipients and the taxpayer. An existing program, Centrepay, already offers a bill payment system to beneficiaries without stigma and unnecessary policing.</p>
<p>So, why is Andrews suggesting an expansion of the compulsory version? One can only assume that punitive conservative ideology is overriding the evidence that this approach doesn’t improve lives and instead damage them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/18818/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eva Cox does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>For a brief moment, it looked as though the Coalition would be better than the ALP on welfare policy. It appeared that the new government would listen to evidence for policy changes in its newly retitled…Eva Cox, Professorial Fellow Jumbunna IHL, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/111142012-12-10T19:17:20Z2012-12-10T19:17:20ZGovernment remains deaf to the data on income management<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/18505/original/9zsqkr7x-1355111356.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">There's no evidence to suggest that the government's income management program is working. So why is it being expanded?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>If Finance Minister Penny Wong is serious about delivering budget savings to Australians, perhaps she should rethink the government’s commitment to its contentious income management program. </p>
<p>By cutting income management, the government could save at least $100 million a year for administering and possibly harming the 20,000-plus welfare beneficiaries who lose control over half their payments. The <a href="http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/income-management">New Income Management</a> (NIM) program in the Northern Territory has now been evaluated by the Social Policy Research Centre. Its <a href="http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/node/17196/">report</a> raises serious questions on whether it delivers any significant benefits. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, the federal government’s response so far suggests the opposite will occur. Despite the conditional welfare program offering no clear evidence of its efficacy after five years in operation, the program is expanding. The report, stage one of three, was delivered some months ago but was only <a href="http://jennymacklin.fahcsia.gov.au/node/2170">posted on the FAHCSIA website</a> in the last week of November. The media release showed official government responses failing to recognise or address either problems with the program or its failure to show significant benefits.</p>
<p>On November 29, the federal government announced <a href="http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/our-responsibilities/families-and-children/programs-services/income-management/evaluating-new-income-management-in-the-northern-territory-first-evaluation-report">improvements</a> to the delivery of income management in the Northern Territory in response to findings from the interim evaluation report.</p>
<p>The government claims income management helps families ensure their welfare payments are spent in the best interests of children. It ensures that money is available for life essentials, and provides a tool to stabilise people’s circumstances and ease immediate financial stress. The data does not support this claim. </p>
<p>The interim report by the Australian National University, Australian Institute of Family Studies and the Social Policy Research Centre at the University of New South Wales found no clear benefits. The best the government media release could find to quote were the following claims: among indigenous people on income management in the Northern Territory, there was a statistically significant <em>perception</em> (emphasis added) of an improvement in their ability to afford food; and income management <em>may</em> make a contribution to improving wellbeing for some, particularly those who have difficulties in managing their finances or are subject to financial harassment. </p>
<p>And that was it! Despite the evaluation’s signalling of widespread negative responses from recipients, the government’s media release does not acknowledge these findings at all. In fact, two new categories of income recipient were added for income management: under 16-year-olds, and those emerging from jail. </p>
<p>The dilemma remains of how to encourage the government to make policy with its own data rather than prejudices. This report is not the first to question benefits and raise possible damage, so the official response further suggests that the government is impervious to evidence that does not support existing policies.</p>
<p>This report needs to be read in context. The results reported are neither all new nor surprising, as they reflect other data and recommendations provided over at least four of the five years that income management has been operating in the Northern Territory. Whether compulsory income management is beneficial was raised in the <a href="http://www.nterreview.gov.au/report.htm">Yu report</a> in 2008, which was commissioned by the current government. The possibility of harm was raised by the <a href="http://www.aida.org.au/viewpublications.aspx?id=3">Australian Indigenous Doctors’ Association (AIDA) report</a>.</p>
<p>Using methodology endorsed by the World Health Organisation, the AIDA report 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.</p>
<p>The survey by the <a href="http://www.equalityrightsalliance.org.au/projects/womens-experience-income-management-northern-territory">Equal Rights alliance</a> also suggested many of those covered felt shamed by using the <a href="http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/centrelink/income-management/basicscard">BasicsCard</a>. The government has offered, as alternative data, other responses that welcomed the compulsion to justify its continuation. However, this is the first evaluation — apart from the Equal Rights Alliance study — that records widespread negative experiences of recipients who take part in the income management scheme. </p>
<p>The Social Justice report, tabled in the same week as the SPRC one, by Mick Gooda suggests that aspects of the Intervention, including income management, could be affecting the rising self-harm and suicide rates in the Northern Territory. His report was written before these data sets were released, so the possibility of connections should now be at least examined.</p>
<p>The evidence suggests the imposition of unwanted income controls can undermine people’s sense of agency and self control, which is essential for good health and wellbeing. This concept comes from research by epidemiologist Michael Marmot in the World Health Organisation’s <a href="http://www.who.int/sdhconference/resources/wcsdh_report/en/index.html">Social Determinants of Health report</a>. He suggests that lack of a sense of control is one of the major barriers in remedying health inequalities.</p>
<p>There is little (if any) evidence of overall improvements in affected Northern Territory communities. Often there is deterioration in indicators such crime statistics, self-harm injuries and suicides, school attendance and NAPLAN results, child protection or other possible wellbeing statistics that appear in a wide range of official NTER reports and NT statistics. The few good changes are more clearly attributable to increased policing, more services, better shop management and other funded programs than income management. These results suggest that the NTER, as an overall top-down imposed program, has not achieved many clear improvements to indigenous wellbeing in the Northern Territory.</p>
<p>There are few visible benefits of participating in the income management programme. Apart from some reporting of reduced humbugging and apparent approval of the program by some participants, the evaluation shows a lack of data to support the benefits of the program. Government responses are that some people claim to like imposed IM. These particular responses often raise methodological doubts as respondents have been paid to answer the surveys, and positive responses may involve possible gratuitous compliance. People may often claim a program does them good, despite other evidence it does not. The evaluation itself offers examples of respondents reporting local improvements that are not backed up by valid data.</p>
<p>The government’s response that it is too soon to see results is also questionable, as SPRC results show that individual length of time on income management does not show any statistical differences of responses of those on for five years and the more recent recipients.</p>
<p><strong>Costs of the program</strong></p>
<p>The program is expensive. One wonders why it is being expanded at a time that the government is looking for savings. Costs are estimated to be about <a href="http://acoss.org.au/media/release/wrong_way_go_back_communities_seek_a_change_of_direction_on_income_manageme">$80 a week</a> to provide administration and infrastructure per person.</p>
<p><strong>Conclusions</strong></p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=clac_ctte/index.htm">Senate Community Affairs Committee</a> inquiry that preceded the new income management legislation noted the lack of data for benefits of the prior version of the program and recommended the current evaluation to provide that evidence. Now we have the report and there remains no valid evidence that any forms of income management — compulsory or voluntary — are making a positive difference.</p>
<p>This is a similar conclusion we came to at Jumbunna in 2010. In 2011, the analysis we did appeared as the Journal of Indigenous Policy 12, (<a href="http://www.jumbunna.uts.edu.au/researchareas/journals/specialissue.html">http://www.jumbunna.uts.edu.au/researchareas/journals/specialissue.html</a></p>
<p>In February 2011, I <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/02/10/whatever-happened-to-evidence-based-policy-making/">expressed my concerns</a> about the evaluation, given that the government members were then ignoring all the current evidence. I questioned whether the evaluation would not be used to inform decisions but to legitimate further bad decision-making. Unfortunately, my predictions were accurate, and the program was expanded on July 1 2012 and again later. </p>
<p>The latest media release suggests more groups will be added at will. Even though some newer versions outside the NT have not included the wide compulsory IM for total populations, they still target ‘vulnerable’ groups for compulsion as judged by Centrelink or others, and often those on so called voluntary measures have been pressured to join them.</p>
<p>The challenge to academics and advocates is whether we can use the data in the SPRC report to influence changes in government policies, or whether it will continue to be used to legitimate bad decisions.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/11114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eva Cox does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>If Finance Minister Penny Wong is serious about delivering budget savings to Australians, perhaps she should rethink the government’s commitment to its contentious income management program. By cutting…Eva Cox, Professorial Fellow Jumbunna IHL, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.