From what we've seen in recent times, there are no bounds to the Coalition government's cruelty. In particular, their cruelty to those they deem not worthy, not trying hard enough, not having a go - those who are 'bludgers'. The single-minded rabidness of government to set the Cashless Debit Card trial sites into permanency recently should give us all an indication of how they see anybody who is on welfare and the direction they want people on welfare to go in. It's been a long journey to this point - from John Howard's ideological implementation to Scott Morrison's heartless condemnation of the vulnerable. And it hasn't always been partisan. Although recently the Labor party have offered a light at the end of a very long and dismal tunnel with the latest revelations from Anthony Albanese regarding scrapping the Indue-operated Cashless Debit Card, while supporting a voluntary income management system that is government run.
In 2007 legislation was introduced and passed by Howard government. The Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 was a package of enforceable measures specifically designed to address, so they said, the findings of an inquiry commissioned by the Northern Territory government into child sexual abuse in Aboriginal communities the Northern Territory. "The measures included restrictions on the consumption of alcohol and pornography, changes to welfare payments and changes to the delivery and management of education, employment and health services in the Territory"
The Northern Territory Labor government and the Human Rights Commission criticised the legislation. The Howard government used the emotive 'The Little Children are Sacred' report to justify their actions - but ultimately going against many of the recommendations in the report. The government also acted quickly - taking action just two months after the report was released - framing it as a national emergency and overriding the Northern Territory government to create "The Intervention". In the context of a national emergency, the government brought in army troops to enforce the new legislation with little to no consultation with Aboriginal communities as to it's implementation. It should be noted that this occurred just a few months out from a federal election.
Howard's Intervention also removed the Racial Discrimination Act. Many Aboriginal people were justifiably upset and angry. They felt their rights had been taken away from them and the rights of community and Aboriginal ownership had been interfered with. Many also felt that it was a concerted effort to dismantle the Aboriginal Land Rights Act (Northern Territory) 1976. Along with income management, some of the policies written into The Intervention were -
Compulsory leases of Indigenous-owned land.
Blanket bans.
Abolishing the permit system.
Offering government services in exchange for leases.
John Howard was nothing if not an opportunist and Aboriginal people were within their rights to be suspicious. The government wanted the land and used racially targeted legislation to get it. The Intervention overrode Aboriginal rights by removing them. The government were also able to set their own terms in how Aboriginal land would be 'acquired' for government purpose. If the original intention of the government was for the good of Aboriginal people - there would have been no need to create new legislation that took away the Racial Discrimination Act. The government could have simply legislated to increase much-needed services that would have addressed the problems outlined in The Little Children are Sacred report. Instead, they pushed their own agenda without consultation with the Aboriginal community, without any consideration of the issues they faced and without ongoing solutions that would have had long-term positive impacts on the them. The list of injustices perpetrated by Australian governments on Indigenous people are long, but The Intervention would be seen by Indigenous people as a 'colonial paternalism' enactment to persecute them just as they had been in the past.
Wrapped up in this new policy was the original income management that would morph into an idea for the Cashless Debit Card in years to come. The Howard government used The Intervention to change legislation, allowing them to quarantine the whole or part of welfare payments of the Aboriginal people living in affected communities in the Northern Territory. Under this arrangement, only limited goods could be purchased from a limited range of government-approved stores. There are conflicting non-government reports that the recipients of this type of welfare also received the first BasicsCard in 2007 so that they could purchase what the government deemed 'priority needs'. Government reports have stated that the first BasicsCard was issued at Katherine in the Northern Territory in 2008. Another study says it was first implemented by Rudd in 2009 following on from the Howard's income management. Suffice to say that income management in any form for Indigenous welfare recipients was about paternalistice control under the stereotypical rhetoric 'that it was for their own good'. Research pertaining to this time suggested income management negated peoples' ability to have control over their own lives, which in turn negatively impacted upon their health and wellbeing. Income management - run by the government and Centrelink under the government-approved-store approach excluded smaller retailers and cheaper stores - which also had an impact on businesses excluded from the program. The restrictive nature of the card took away the ability of recipients to manage their own financial affairs effectively and in ways they were accustomed to - which impacted on them socially, financially and mentally.
The Rudd Government repealed the special measures that had been put in place via The Intervention to suspend the operation of the Racial Discrimination Act with the The Social Security and other Legislation amendment (Welfare Reform and Reinstatement of Racial Discrimination Act) Act 2010. The compulsory income management continued for Aboriginal people, however, also continuing the conundrum of human rights.
In 2008 the Rudd government introduced the Cape York Welfare Reform Trial. This was a welfare reform program but it was Aboriginal-led and it included a Voluntary Income Management (VIM) measure. In the same year VIM was introduced in the Kimberley region of Western Australia with a compulsory measure introduced for child protection. Income management was pushed out to different trial areas in Australia facilitating the BasicsCard.
The Rudd and Gillard governments would go on to amend the The Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 act several times. In 2012 the act was repealed and replaced with Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act 2012 which still contained some key components of the original act. Changes under this new legislation included 'the expansion of income management through the BasicsCard. In 2012 the BAWF program commenced. This consisted of Placed-based Income Management (PBIM) and targeted South Australia, Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales.
Soon after winning the election in 2013, the Abbott government commissioned Andrew Forrest to chair the Indigenous Jobs and Training Review. Forrest has always had an underlying negative view of the impact of welfare on society - that welfare did not encourage people to become independent and was exorbitant government expenditure that was increasing each year. The fact that welfare funding had decreased in the decade beforehand was overlooked. The Forrest review also referred to the cost of income management first implemented in its BasicCard form as an 'unsustainable' and that it was unsuitable for a broader application. The conclusion was that the Cashless Debit Card relied on mainstream banking - so therefore it would be cheaper to sustain. With extensive and exorbitant costs of the Cashless Debit Card rollout well over a conservative estimate of $80 million-plus since inception - I would have thought that by not implementing any income management at all and simply engaging with communities individually to determine best outcome practices would have been much more economical in the long term.
The Forrest Review went on to recommend the 'Healthy Welfare Card' - with 100 percent quarantining of welfare. In the acknowledgements of the review, Andrew Forrest thanked Marcia Langton, who worked with him on the review committee. Langton later withdrew her backing of the card, saying "It is a tragedy that the Department of Social Services, the Department of Human Services and others have not implemented the scheme in accordance with the original design and in accordance to the commitments they made to those community people, to those elders, those leaders.. It's pointless and it's brutal. I'm very disappointed."
Despite a government-commissioned evaluation of income management of the Northern Territory in 2014 before the Cashless Debit card rollout - which provided conclusive evidence that it had not made any significant difference in Aboriginal communities with over $400 million spent, the Abbott government continued to dig in. The government began to rebrand and reframe 'income management' with 'Cashless Debit Card' - moving away from the notion that failed income management in the Northern Territory had anything to do with the new welfare reform that they were attempting to implement.
Forrest's involvement in the trials would not come to an end after the review and the eventual rollouts. He remained interested in the implementation of further rollouts and the Mindaroo Foundation, of which he is chairman, often promoted the success of the cashless debit card. The Mindaroo Foundation - as Generation One in Submission 38 to the government in support of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020, offered recommendations which included:
'- Continuing the Cashless Debit Card as an ongoing income management program.
- Transitioning income management in the Northern Territory and Cape York region from the BasicsCard to the Cashless Debit Card to improve customer experience and acceptance.
- A Cashless Debit Card expansion to all Youth Allowance recipients.
- Allowing additional participants in current sites to voluntarily participate in the Cashless Debit Card program'.
In fact, to address any issues with the establishment of the card, Generation One in 2020 set up a 'Working Technology Group... jointly facilitated by the Mindaroo Foundation and the Department of Social Services in a commitment to contribute to Cashless Welfare Card progress and improvement'. It would appear that the Mindaroo Foundation are spending a lot of time, effort and money to facilitate the ongoing success of a program that has been seen to be flawed. The expansion of the Cashless Debit Card would also expand the number of providers beyond Indue and allow multiple issuers to participate. In my opinion, there is a lot of money to be made for providers of the Cashless Debit Card. As so much of the recipient's cash is quarantined in the provider's accounts - the money has the ability to generate a lot of interest - but not for the welfare recipient.
Forrest promoted himself in the review - and in life - as wanting to help Indigenous people create better lives for themselves by developing 'parity' - which appeared to be at odds with Forrest's conclusions via the report that Indigenous people needed to be organised financially via a card that would quarantine one hundred percent of their welfare income. That he saw himself as a philanthropist helping Indigenous people was incongruent with the fact that he had made a fortune out of mining in the Pilbarra with little consultation with the region's Aboriginal communities with regard to native title. A court ruling in 2017 concluded that Fortescue built its Solomon mining hub 'without agreement with traditional owners represented by the Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation'. Fortescue developed a pattern of non-payment of royalties to traditional owners while Forrest himself cared little for traditional sites and didn't believe in 'big-dollar mining welfare'.
The 'Healthy Welfare Card' came to fruition in 2016 when the Abbott government's Cashless Debit Card was rolled out to the East Kimberley region of Western Australia and Ceduna in South Australia. There was little community consultation beforehand. The Kununurra and Wyndham trials started in April 2016. Police reports have indicated that domestic violence and crime had increased in these areas since the introduction of the card. In Western Australia the Goldfields, including Kalgoorlie - the Cashless Debit Card was implemented in September 2017. There had also been no real evidence that the Cashless Debit Card was contributing to the overall intention used as the impetus for the instigation of the card in these areas.
All working-age people on income support were forced onto this card in these regions regardless of whether they could manage their finances or not and regardless of whether they had drug and/or alcohol problems or not. It was administered by the Department of Social Services who contracted Indue to deliver this new technology and services via the new card. The Cashless Debit Card quarantined 80% of the recipient's income to the card with the remainder going into the recipient's bank account.
Indue itself has a long history of connections to the National Party. Larry Anthony, former federal National Party member for Richmond until 2004, was director of Indue Ltd in 2005 and Deputy Chairman in 2008. Anthony's private lobbying company, SAS Group, of which Anthony is listed as Director, were reportedly Indue's lobbyists to the government until 2018. The SAS Group still appears on the federal government register but details of Indue as a client are absent - despite other clients going back to 2013. SAS Group are also Lobbyists to the NSW government with lobbying status for Indue as a client listed in NSW until 2016. All states list SAS Group on their Lobbyist Register. They have also appeared on the QLD Integrity Commissioner's site under 'Lobbyist' - listing SAS Consulting Group as a lobbyist for Indue in 2014 - at the time Campbell Newman was in power in Queensland as the Premier.
At this time, James Martin - Chief of Staff, Office of the Minister for Communications, Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services was the minister representing the Newman government with regard to SAS Consulting Group lobbying for Indue. The records on James Martin and his time in this position are sparsely covered on the Internet but it is clear from LinkedIn information that James Martin had links to the LNP as State Party Secretary in 2012. The Queensland Integrity Commission record is one of the few online records found that links SAS Consulting Group's lobbyist's connection to Indue.
In all cases under owner details for SAS Group/SAS Consulting Group Pty Ltd, owner details vary very little. Illalangi Pty Ltd is almost always present. In the above example, Illalangi Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Anthony Family Trust is present, along with Wentworth Communications Pty Ltd ATF The Cole Family Trust, Peter Costantini and Julie Catherine McLennan as Trustee for the PJC. We can only speculate on how many connections there are with not only Indue but other government contracts linked to trust accounts with little transparency.
Illalangi Pty Ltd is reportedly subcontracting to Indue - and Unidap Solutions, of which Larry Anthony is chairman, reportedly provides IT for Indue. While it is difficult to find links, a submission from Indue itself (submission 161) to the government regarding the Senate Inquiry into the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017 - stated that while Indue "have not received services or paid any money to Unidap since 2014 - Indue purchased a 'minor' risk management tool from Unidap Solutions as part of a normal commercial procurement process to meet a business need". While Larry Anthony certainly has links to Indue, there is no evidence to suggest that he or other members of the National Party own Indue. Indue is owned by a group of shareholders - including financial institutions such as COBA (Customer-Owned Banking Association). COBA itself is owned by credit unions, building societies and mutual banks - not all of which have Indue shares. No one institution can own more than 15% of Indue's Class A voting shares. While there is no apparent connection to shareholding, Illalangi, SAS Holdings and Unidap Solutions remain connected through the aforementioned sub-contracting, lobbying and IT implementation.
Indue is making a considerable amount of money from government contracts with regard to the implementation of the cashless debit card. The card's costs have been estimated at approximately $10,000 per person to implement over the initial 12-month period. The costs of the debit card trials as at 2018 over the two-year period were approximately $18.9 million - and that is what is able to be accessed. As the card has been rolled out to more communities - Hinkler, Queensland in 2018 to approximately 6,700 people and Tennant Creek, Northern Territory also in 2018 - the increase in costs and profit for Indue would be considerable. In 2020 neither the government nor Indue would reveal how much the trials would cost if they were to become permanent.
On perusal of the government tender site, I was able to find some information regarding government contracts for Indue. The contract period below goes from 26 February 2016 to 31 December 2022 - all on a 'limited tender'. I note that the conditions of the limited tender - 'Prototype intended for limited trial or developed at the entity's request for a research experiment, study, original development contract'. Details of the contract are also confidential. The category is considered 'banking and investment'. Contract value is $70,340,628.60. So, in effect, we have an 'experiment' being carried out on a long-running limited tender which is essentially commodifying a group of people for truckloads of money that the aforementioned group of people will never see - while the government - without doubt - are not being entirely transparent regarding the true costings and profit of the banking and investment 'venture'.
A link to peruse just how long Indue has been procuring funding from the Australian government - and therefore, public funds - may surprise some. The early form of income management implemented via the Howard government had been difficult to manage for Centrelink. In 2009 under the Labor government the Department of Human Services issued a request for tender for an income management card to replace previous income management. This was when Indue was first contracted to implement the BasicsCard according to AusTender. In the same year, the successful tenderer, Indue, was announced to deliver a new BasicsCard contract.
The Coalition claim that the Cashless Debit Card would reduce the cycle of welfare dependency and that their implementation of the cashless welfare card via Indue has been successful in reducing the use of illicit drugs, reducing gambling and alcohol abuse. For the most part, these claims have been proven to be misleading based on independent studies that have been carried out. The government cherry pick data they feel will give their flawed and failed program some credibility - if that's possible. The federal government's own evaluation report found there was more likelihood that participants on the Cashless Debit Card see their lives as being made worse on restricted income management. The University of Queensland and Monash University study, one of the first independent studies to be carried out on the effects of the card - found that 84% of people surveyed 'had experienced stigma and shame while using the card'. Four sites were involved-
Playford , South Australia - BasicsCard
Ceduna, South Australia - Cashless Debit Card
Shepparton, Victoria - BasicsCard
Bundaberg and Hervey Bay region, Queensland - Cashless Debit Card
Researchers have found the cards unreliable and not congruent with normal day-to-day activities. It impacted on their spending habits in negative ways - restricting where they could shop and how they shopped did not allow for effective financial management. The savings people would normally make being able to control their own finances have disappeared as they have no access to areas they may normally use - such as markets, second-hand stores, street vendors, online marketplaces and Ebay. There are limitations placed the amounts that cardholders can spend and limitations placed on the transfer of cash. Administration of the card is not effective and often complaints regarding increasing cash limits can be slow to resolve while some issues often not addressed at all. Rental arrangements in differing circumstances became problematic because of difficulties in using the card to make payments. People who experienced these difficulties were at higher risk of homelessness. The consensus of some researchers was that the card was unnecessary and any extension should be blocked in the Senate - with other avenues found that would be more beneficial to help these people in their communities. The fact that there are administration problems with the Indue card did not surprise some, as Indue is not 'subject to competitive pressure to respond effectively to customer complaints'.
The initial evaluation report in September 2014 on New Income Management in the Northern Territory concluded -
'In almost all discussions there was a lack of any substantive change in outcomes as a result of income management.
There was a tendency for income management to increase dependency on the welfare system.
It should be targeted at those with particularly poor outcomes and those who wish to use it.'
Despite contrary evaluations as to the card's value and effectiveness in alleviating some of the issues that the government insisted that the card was developed for - the government used an interim evaluation from ORIMA to 'justify an extension of the Cashless Debit Card in both Ceduna and East Kimberley in 2018' and cherry picking final evaluation data to justify the extension of the trial of the Cashless Debit Card to the Goldfields in Western Australia and the Bundaberg-Hervey Bay region in Queensland (Hinkler).' The only differences in the rollout of the card in Hinkler were that the population was primarily non-Indigenous and all people were under 35 years. These people receive the Jobseeker payment, 'Youth Allowance (Jobseeker), parenting payment (single) or parenting payment (partnered) are those who receive the Cashless Debit Card.'
There are many other insurmountable problems that people face when they are forced onto the Cashless Debit Card. The card itself has been touted by the government as a debit card - and as such it has been marketed by the government to work just as effectively as a bank card. 'Interviews conducted by the University of Adelaide suggested the card was not working particularly well for people with disabilities, those with limited literacy or IT skills, older people and Indigenous people in remote communities'. Heartbreaking stories are emerging from various groups regarding the issues many people are facing when the card doesn't work in ATMs when they quite clearly have money on the card. These people are already vulnerable and struggling to get by on welfare payments that are considered to be well below the poverty line. The added strain of not being able to access their money and not being able to pay for necessities like food, shelter and utilities are driving some people to desperation.
There has been the question of whether the implementation of the card is, in fact, working outside of consumer law. During the first trial of the Cashless Debit Card, ASIC (Australian Securities and Investments Commission) granted Indue a no-action letter in 2016 with regard to Indue sending 'unsolicited cards to welfare recipients who did not ask for one' - as under Section 12DL of the Australian Securities and Investments Act 2001, sending a debit/credit card to a person who did not ask for one is considered an offence.
The no-action letter issued by ASIC pertained to the first government trial of the Cashless Debit Card. It was not intended to cover a permanent card rollout or an expansion of the card.
ASIC have justified their no-action letter as necessary and essential - so that 'trial recipients are able to access their welfare payments that are paid into the account established under this statutory scheme'. In essence, because the government are permitting the trial, working outside the ASIC framework is also permitted - legal or not. On Indue's website, they are an authorised ADI - and yet I can find no evidence that they are ePayment Code subscribers. The ePayments Code is presently a voluntary code of practice, so whether Indue are complying with the provisions of the ePayments Code is not clear. As the no-action letter was also issued in 2016, how can the government be sure that 'consumer protection policies' have been adequately addressed since then? In my opinion, the no-action letter is based on inadequate information and is not useful in addressing the current issues regarding Indue, the card and ASIC's lack of action in terms of future rollouts, expansions and permanency of the card. Their original letter no-action is, in fact, an inaction regarding a serious issue that plays down the government's deliberate attempt to breach the law. ASIC's integrity and the ongoing use of their no-action letter should be brought into question. Had the government succeeded in passing their permanent Cashless Debit Card legislation - this letter should have been considered null and void. It may well be only a matter of time before this is challenged.
From the very beginning, when the Howard govt first brought in income management to the Northern Territory, there has been manipulation of legislation. It would be reasonable to hypothesise that if a government were capable of taking away racial discrimination rights from Aboriginal people using legislation they might be capable of making the Cashless Debit Card something other than Social Security 'income management'.
Under Social Security Guide to Social Policy Law, 'The Social Security (Administration Act) states that subject to express legislative exemptions, social security payments are absolutely inalienable. This means they cannot be sold, transferred to a third party, legally charged or be subject to bankruptcy proceedings'. With this in mind, what is happening with regard to the Cashless Debit Card implementation and transactional obligations would undoubtedly considered illegal. The government are operating outside of the Social Security Act that governs the BasicsCard and are using the express legislative exemption to the Social Security Act.
It is not difficult to prove that the Cashless Debit Card works outside of the Social Security Act.
Under the BasicsCard 'the protection provided by income management legislation and laws offer a safety net. People on a BasicsCard can challenge their income-management status'. They are protected by the governing laws and the Social Security Act. The quarantine portion for the BasicsCard is generally 50%, although it can be 70% for some recipients. The BasicsCard can only be used at government-approved stores.
Under the Cashless Debit Card-
- People don't have the same level of protection.The program is run by Indue and the Department of Social Security and Services Australia oversee the program.
- Income management is undertaken by Indue Ltd staff and unqualified Serco contract staff.
- Human rights, consumer, banking, fiduciary and economic rights and protections are removed and heavily infringed upon.
- Quarantined income is legally owned by Indue Ltd.
- In theory, the Cashless Debit Card can be used 'like a bank card' as long as it isn't used to purchase alcohol or gambling products. Often this is not the case. The card will often decline.
- There is no formal complaints process, only access to a complaints hotline that does not record formal complaints.
(Sources: No Cashless Debit Card Australia. Say No Seven - SN7)
In 2018 the University of South Australia was commissioned by the Department of Social Services to undertake a Cashless Debit Card baseline data collection on the first three trial areas - 'Ceduna and surrounds in South Australia, East Kimberley and the Goldfields in Western Australia. It was found that the implementation of the card was having little impact on 'on the problem behaviours it was designed to target' - with very little impact on 'measures of gambling, drug and alcohol abuse'. They argued that the cost of implementing the scheme per person could be used in much more substantial ways in the community such as community counsellors, training and employment training.
While there were a small number of people who found the card useful - an overwhelming majority of over 70 percent wanted to get off the card. The three trial areas had a range of different problems to address - and offering a single one-card solution of income management would not be sufficient in addressing these issues - in fact, in some cases it often exacerbated issues such as domestic violence - which, as mentioned before, increased in East Kimberley after the Cashless Debit Card rollout.
Despite evidence that the card was not addressing the specific problems that the government were supposedly implementing it for - in 2020 the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020 was introduced in October 2020 in the House of Representatives. It's purpose was to establish the card as an ongoing - permanent program, rather than trials - in Ceduna, Goldfields, East Kimberley, Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. The government also wanted to 'transition income management in the Northern Territory and the Cape York region to the Cashless Debit Card' while also removing the current Cashless Debit Card cap of 15,000 participants. 'The majority of the interest groups making submissions to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee’s inquiry opposed the bill'. Of the few who supported the bill, one is a standout. Generation One - The Minderoo Foundation.
In December, 2020 the bill narrowly passed in the House of Representatives 62 votes to 61 with Liberal, Bridget Archer abstained from voting on the bill. Archer had recently spoken about the bill, saying her 'community could never support it'. If Archer had crossed the floor that day and voted against it and with her so-called principles, the bill would have been killed off - and the Cashless Debit Card trials would have ended on 31 December 2020. In the last three days of Parliament for the year, the bill appeared before the Senate.
The government were acutely aware of the condemnation and community rejection surrounding the legislation they were attempting to put forward even before it got to the Senate. After Senator Rex Patrick revealed he would not be supporting the government's plans to make the existing trial sites permanent, the government decided that anything was better than nothing at all. A defeat of the original proposed legislation would mean that the trials would end - and with it all the benefits that were being siphoned off courtesy of the cashless card setup. To say there were rushed amendments in an attempt to get a 'rescripted' bill across the line would be an understatement. They pushed ahead in desperation because of the cut-off date of the trials. The government flagged amendments that would effectively 'extend the trials until the end of 2022'. This wasn't about what was good for a section of the community. It wasn't even about improving people's lives through better financial management - it was about continued implementation of a 'program' that had thus far paid big dividends to investors and operators. People on the Cashless Debit Cards were a commodity to be exploited. There was little consultation with the Senate - the Senate weren't even allowed to examine or investigate the findings of the University of Adelaide report the government had been sitting on since October. Ruston hadn't even bothered to review the evaluation before introducing the bill.
The Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020 didn't end up as it started out. The original version of the bill to implement permanency and extension of the trial sites, now called programs, would have been defeated in the Senate. The amended version passed instead for the trial sites to be extended for another two years. The bill passed 34 votes to 33 - after midnight on Thursday, 10 December 2020 - the last day of sitting for the year. Stirling Griff abstained from voting on the bill - giving the government the votes it needed. There was speculation that backroom deals had been done with the crossbench to secure the votes.
The University of South Australia's report on the Cashless Debit card was eventually released to the public - many months after it had been made available to the federal government.
Anne Ruston has indicated that while the government have succeeded in extending the Cashless Debit Card for another two years - they will be continuing to work with parliament to achieve their original goal of permanency and extension of the card. "Our commitment to this program is on a permanent basis. But we recognise we have more work to do in the future to convince the parliament they should support this program on a permanent basis, too." We should all be concerned about this statement. If the government succeed in winning another election, there is no doubt that they will push ahead with plans to extend the Cashless Welfare Card into permanency. While they deny at present certain groups who won't be targeted as a card recipient, such as people on the aged pension, there is evidence to suggest that there are people receiving the aged pension who are also recipients of the card.
The Social Security Guide have a list of 'trigger payments' for the Cashless Debit Card - which is and 80 percent 20 percent split. Trigger payments are payments that will automatically activate (trigger) participation in the Cashless Debit Card trial who live in the trial area.
Trigger payments
- Abstudy
- Austudy
- Parenting payment (partnered)
- Bereavement allowance
- Carer payment
- Disability support pension
- Jobseeker
- Parenting allowance (other than non-benefit)
- Partner allowance
- Pension PP (single)
- Sickness allowance
- Special benefit
- Widow allowance
- Youth allowance
The restrictable payment on the Cashless Debit Card is 100 percent portion on the card - no cash. The list is extensive and includes pensioner education supplement, newborn allowance, pharmaceutical allowance and energy supplement.
The number of people on the Cashless Debit Card as listed on government data summary as at June 2021:
Ceduna, South Australia total participants 1082
- Abstudy/Austudy - less than 5
- Disability support pension 176
- Jobseeker 602
- Parenting payment (partnered) 48
- Parenting payment (single) 137
- Youth Allowance 74
Of the recipients 75 percent are Indigenous.
East Kimberley region, Western Australia total participants 1900
- Abstudy/Austudy - less than 5
- Carer payment 74
- Disability support pension 347
- Jobseeker 954
- Parenting payment (partnered) 78
- Parenting payment (single) 315
- Special benefit less than 5
- Youth allowance 125
- Other payments less than 5
Of the recipients 82 percent are Indigenous.
Goldfields region, Western Australia total participants 4105
- Abstudy less than 5
- Austudy 5
- Carer payment 184
- Disability support pension 602
- Jobseeker 2191
- Parenting payment (partnered) 128
- Parenting payment (single) 749
- Special benefit less than 5
- Youth allowance 238
- Other payments less than 5
Of the recipients 47 percent are Indigenous.
Bundaberg and Hervey Bay region, Queensland total participants 7480
- Jobseeker payment 3360
- Parenting payment (partnered) 546
- Parenting payment (single) 2028
- Youth allowance 1546
Of the recipients 18 percent are Indigenous.
Cape York region, Queensland total participants 126
NB: Participants in the Cape York region were transitioned from Income Management onto the Cashless Debit Card based on referral arrangements managed by the Family Responsibilities Commission (FRC). Cape York Income Management (CYIM) is a community-based form of income management for Indigenous ppl and while it is considered separate from other forms of management the Cape York region became a Cashless Debit Card area on 17 March 2021.
- Carer payment 6
- Disability support pension 12
- Jobseeker 70
- Parenting payment (partnered) 10
- Parenting payment (single) 11
- Other payments 17
Northern Territory total participants 25
NB: Income Management (BasicsCard) participants in the Northern Territory are now able to transition to the Cashless Debit Card if they choose to do so.
- Disability support pension less than 5
- Jobseeker 22
- Parenting payment (single) less than 5
Of the recipients 40 percent are Indigenous.
Despite what the government says regarding not extending their latest income management model to the aged pension, there are people on the BasicsCard who are on the pension, disability support pension and service pensions. For people in the Northern Territory who are on the BasicsCards - there is good reason to believe that they would have been included in the Cashless Debit Card rollout if the government had been able to get their original legislation through the Senate. There are already people on the Cashless Debit Card who are on the disability support pension and carer payment.
There are approximately 30,000 people on the BasicsCard in Australia. A portion of these recipient payments are administered as voluntary income management.
***************
It is difficult to find any positives to argue for the administration of the Cashless Debit Card or the BasicsCard - apart from the voluntary income management aspect of the BasicsCard. From the very beginning in 2007 from The Intervention to the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020, various evaluations and studies regarding the implementation and effectiveness of the card that have been undertaken. There have been few positive points in these studies, including the ORIMA evaluation and the University of South Australia evaluation. The government, however, continued to push the Cashless Debit Card out after the first trials based on the ORIMA report by simply ignoring the data as a whole and cherry picking information that would give justification to expansion and continuation.
It would appear from this point of view that the government's position isn't based on studies or data - but is an ideological position. For many years the government has pushed the mantra that welfare expenditure is exorbitant and the government must look to employ cost-cutting measures to enable the services to continue successfully. It is a fact that welfare expenditure only makes up a smaller part of total government expenditure when you factor in the billions of dollars spent in the defence sector, private school education, private health subsidies, propping up franking credits and propping up the fossil fuel industry with subsidies - not to mention the government's continued propensity to privatise and contract out what where once public services. The amount of money flowing through AusTender is mind boggling.
The government have also pushed the false narrative that people on welfare are essentially lazy and can't manage their money because they are spending their welfare on drugs and alcohol. Anne Ruston, minister for Social Services is guilty of spreading false and misleading information regarding people on welfare with her comment 'an increase to the unemployment benefit Newstart would end up in the hands of drug dealers and pub owners'. The Morrison government, for their part, continue to vilify the unemployed through the media and the draconian mutual obligations people on welfare must adhere to or chance lose their benefits.
Morrison's 'fair go' fixation isn't about a fair go for everybody - but a reframing of Labor's 'fairness for all' belief and a direct hit on those on welfare. His comment during the 2019 election campaign - 'I believe in a fair go for those who have a go, and what that means is part of the promise that we all keep as Australians is that we make a contribution and don’t seek to take one' - is aimed at two groups of people - one at the expense of the other. By 'having a go' you are employed, productive and making a contribution to society and should be reaping the benefits of that. By vilifying the unemployed as those who are 'not having a go', Morrison is also inferring they are not making a contribution - therefore taking from those who are 'making a contribution to society'. This comment deliberately seeks to create division in society and this strategy has worked well for many years for the government. Welfare recipients, apart from refugees, are some of the most vilified people in the community.
That the beginnings of income management manifested itself in Aboriginal communities with Howard's Intervention and continued to target these communities is apparent in the percentages that have been affected by the Cashless Debit Card and are still affected by the BasicsCard. It is a stereotypical affront to First Nations people who have been victimised since colonial times via a single-minded belief that they are not able to manage their own affairs. After criticism that the card was specifically targeting Indigenous populations - it was expanded to Hinkler and only targeting to those who were under 35 years. But as we have seen via expansions, extensions and a malignant attempt by this government to legislate for the permanency of the cashless welfare card and transition many thousands of people who are on the BasicsCard to the Cashless Debit Card - we should know that they are merely biding their time to make this a reality for a large percentage of people on welfare across Australia.
The government will undoubtedly leave this issue on the backburner for the moment, as an election is looming and it would be another disaster reminiscent of Howard's WorkChoices fallout. They will attempt to move away from any references to permanent Cashless Debit Card rollouts in their election campaign and concentrate on attacking the opposition instead.
The Cashless Debit Card is not a 'one size fits all'. It is stigmatising and does not address the multitudes of issues that have been outlined in evaluations. It is also not financially viable while there are many other cost-effective and commonsense options available. The Cashless Debit Card will not fix the majority of these problems - it was never meant to. It is just another avenue to privatisation and profit that has been engineered to use vulnerable people as commodities and create a new source of wealth using public funding.
The heartlessness of government has created a new normal for vulnerable people living in poverty dependent upon welfare - the Cashless Debit Card. It is not right, it is not legal and it should not be allowed to continue.
Special thanks to Amanda Smith (Say No Seven) for her insight and research. Resources
Facebook: No Cashless Debit Card Australia
***************
https://cdn.minderoo.org/content/uploads/2019/02/05182238/CDC-Recommendations_171121_FNL_Digital.pdf