Income management and the Racial Discrimination Act

Parliament house flag post

Income management and the Racial Discrimination Act

Posted 21/03/2012 by Luke Buckmaster

In March 2011, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Mick Gooda, is reported to have said that it is likely that some time in the future a complaint under the Racial Discrimination Act (RDA) will be lodged with the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) in relation to income management of welfare payments on the grounds that it discriminates against Indigenous people. If any such complaint were upheld, this would be a significant test of one of the main pillars of the Australian Government’s welfare reform agenda.

This raises the question of how the AHRC—the statutory body with responsibility for resolving complaints of discrimination or breaches of human rights under federal laws such as the RDA—would be likely to respond to a complaint made in relation to income management and the RDA.

This question is examined in a recent Parliamentary Library Background Note, Income management and the Racial Discrimination Act, which considers the issues that are likely to arise if the AHRC is asked to make a determination in relation to income management and the RDA.

An important initial question is likely to be: which form of income management are we talking about? While people often speak as if income management is a single program, there are actually six different income management measures, each of which operates under different rules. The results of any challenge to income management under the RDA would potentially be different depending on the income management measures involved.

The six different income management measures are:
  • 'Participation/Parenting', applying to people in the Northern Territory who are in receipt of certain welfare payments for a period of time deemed by the Government to put them 'at risk'
  • 'Vulnerable Welfare Payment Recipients', applying to people who have been referred for income management by a Centrelink Social Worker
  • 'Child Protection Income Management', applying to people in the Northern Territory and parts of Western Australia whom a child protection officer has referred to Centrelink
  • the Cape York measure, applying to people in Cape York whom a statutory body has ordered should be subject to income management for engaging in dysfunctional behaviour
  • 'Place Based Income Management', applying from 1 July 2012 to people living in one of five targeted communities who have been referred for income management and
  • 'Supporting People at Risk', applying (should the relevant legislation pass) from 1 July 2012 to people referred for income management by particular state and territory agencies (initially Northern Territory authorities will have the power to refer people for income management for alcohol related problems).
In November 2009, the AHRC issued draft guidelines 'to provide practical assistance to Parliament and the Government in designing and implementing income management measures that protect human rights and are consistent with the RDA'. According to the AHRC, ‘while not legally binding, they provide important guidance as to the operation of the RDA and will be relevant in assisting the resolution of complaints’.

The guidelines posed three key questions in relation to whether income management measures are consistent with the RDA:
  • where the measure is established by legislation, does it ensure equality before the law (section 10 of the RDA)?
  • is the measure implemented in a way that avoids both ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ discrimination (section 9 of the RDA)? and
  • if either of the first two questions is answered in the affirmative, is the measure a ‘special measure’ (otherwise known as 'positive discrimination') (section 8 of the RDA)?
The Background Note examined the various income management measures in relation to the ACHR guidelines, particularly focusing on whether the legal framework for income management discriminates against Indigenous people, rather than whether discretionary actions under those laws are discriminatory. The paper focused on indirect discrimination because, as the AHRC has commented in its submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill 2011 and two related bills:
Due to its general application [application not based on race] the income management measure is not expressed to be intended to operate as a special measure under the RDA and does not raise issues of direct discrimination. In order to be consistent with the RDA, it only remains to identify whether it raises concerns of indirect discrimination.
So, are the various income mangement measures indirectly discriminatory? The AHRC guidelines state that if, in practice, income management has a greater impact upon people of a particular race it may be discriminatory.

Statistics from the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs suggest that overall, compulsory income management has a substantially greater impact on Indigenous people than non-Indigenous people. For example, as at 24 June 2011 (the most recent available figures), Indigenous people made up the overwhelming number of people subject to compulsory income management under the largest scheme—the Participation/Parenting measure in the Northern Territory (11 106 people, around 87 per cent).

However, the guidelines indicate that it may be permissible to limit rights in pursuit of a legitimate, non-discriminatory goal. The guidelines specify five criteria that should be met by an income management measure:
  • it should be subject to the application of the RDA and state/territory anti-discrimination legislation
  • it should not apply automatic quarantining—different options that should be considered may include allowing for a voluntary/opt in approach or a last-resort suspension approach
  • it should provide for a defined period of income management
  • it must allow for review and appeal processes, and
  • it should include additional support programs that address the rights to food, education, housing, and other forms of social support.
The Background Note found that in relation to these criteria, the Participation/Parenting measure is the income management measure that would be viewed the least favourably by the AHRC. This is because it only clearly meets two of the AHRC criteria (one and four, with five, ‘additional support programs’, possibly met but unclear). The Parenting/Participation measure clearly does not meet the criteria that it should be a voluntary/opt in/last-resort or be applied for a defined period.

This can be contrasted with each of the other measures which target specific classes of individuals whom it is considered would benefit from income management and which are applied for defined periods of time.

The Background Note concludes that while the Government has asserted that the Participation/Parenting measure is compliant with the RDA, one way of increasing the possibility that the AHRC and the courts would share this view would be to align the Participation/Parenting measure with the other targeted and time-bound income management measures.

Thank you for your comment. If it does not require moderation, it will appear shortly.

Add your comment

[Click to expand]

We welcome your comments, or additional information which is relevant to a post. These can be added by clicking on the ‘Add your comment’ option above. Please note that the Parliamentary Library will moderate comments, and reserves the right not to publish comments that are inconsistent with the objectives of FlagPost. This includes comments that are not relevant to the article, factually incorrect or politically partisan, as well as spam, profanity and personal abuse. We will close comments after three months.

Generate a new image
Type characters from the image:

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Add | Email Print


Flagpost is a blog on current issues of interest to members of the Australian Parliament

Parliamentary Library Logo showing Information Analysis & Advice




Refugees asylum immigration climate change Australian foreign policy Parliament social security elections welfare reform welfare policy school education Australian Defence Force health financing indigenous Australians women Private health insurance higher education emissions trading people trafficking Middle East taxation Employment illicit drugs gambling health reform federal election 2010 Medicare disability Sport Australian Bureau of Statistics statistics United Nations Asia criminal law Afghanistan income management health forced labour Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency World Anti-Doping Agency United States federal budget Industrial Relations Carbon Pricing Mechanism politics dental health Australian Public Service constitution Australian Electoral Commission WADA transport aid child protection environment poker machines Australia in the Asian Century steroids National Disability Insurance Scheme detention aged care 43rd Parliament slavery health system OECD ASADA Law Enforcement Australian Federal Police Fair Work Act governance labour force people smuggling debt international relations New Zealand food Australian Crime Commission pharmaceutical benefits scheme banking International Women's Day corruption pensions public service reform children's health Aviation federal election 2013 foreign debt gross debt net debt defence capability parliamentary procedure Senate Senators and Members ALP Newstart Parenting Payment multiculturalism Youth Allowance sea farers High Court skilled migration UK Parliament election results voting mental health Federal Court terrorist groups science social media Higher Education Loan Program HECS federal state relations accountability Papua New Guinea youth paid parental leave same sex relationships coal seam gas customs planning doping crime health risks Gonski Review of Funding for Schooling sex slavery Special Rapporteur Northern Territory Emergency Response social policy firearms public policy Census Population violence against women domestic violence China ADRV terrorism transparency research and development welfare ASIO intelligence community Australian Security Intelligence Organisation carbon tax mining military history electoral reform employer employee renewable energy regional unemployment fishing by-election European Union family assistance United Nations Security Council Australian economy forestry food labelling vocational education and training Drugs welfare systems Indonesia children Constitutional reform local government codes of conduct terrorist financing homelessness Parliamentary remuneration money laundering Trafficking in Persons Report energy social inclusion human rights paternalism early childhood education Canada Financial sector national security fuel disability employment Tasmania integrity standards NATO Australian Secret Intelligence Service sexual abuse World Trade Organization Australia public health housing affordability bulk billing political parties water productivity health policy Governor-General US economy trade unions export liquefied natural gas foreign bribery question time speaker superannuation public housing expertise climate Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change leadership Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry regulation Pacific Islands reserved seats new psychoactive substances synthetic drugs UNODC carbon markets animal health middle class welfare Indigenous constitutional recognition of local government referendum consumer laws PISA competition policy royal commission US politics language education baby bonus Leaders of the Opposition citizen engagement policymaking Australia Greens servitude Trafficking Protocol forced marriage rural and regional alcohol entitlements ministries Hung Parliament social citizenship maritime Iran ANZUS regional students school chaplains federal budget 2011-12 salary Medicare Locals primary care Building the Education Revolution procurement Indigenous health e-voting internet voting nsw state elections 44th Parliament 2015 ABS Age Pension Death penalty capital punishment execution Bali nine Bali bombings Trade EU China soft power education Fiji India Disability Support Pension Antarctica Diplomacy by-elections state and territories Bills anti-corruption fraud bribery corporate ownership whistleblower G20 economic reform innovation Members of Parliament Scottish referendum Middle East; national security; terrorism social services Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013 online grooming sexual assault of minors ACT Assembly smoking plain packaging tobacco cigarettes Asia; Japan; international relations Work Health and Safety Migration; asylum seekers; regional processing China; United States; international relations fiscal policy Racial Discrimination Act; social policy; human rights; indigenous Australians Foreign policy Southeast Asia Israel Palestine asylum refugees immigration political finance donations foreign aid Economics efficiency human rights; Racial Discrimination Act employment law bullying asylum seekers Animal law; food copyright Australian Law Reform Commission industry peace keeping contracts workplace policies same-sex marriage disorderly conduct retirement Parliament House standing orders prime ministers election timetable sitting days First speech defence budget submarines workers Somalia United Kingdom GDP world heritage political engagement leave loading Trade; tariffs; safeguards; Anti-dumping public interest disclosure whistleblowing Productivity Commission limitation period universities Ireland cancer gene patents genetic testing suspension of standing and sessional orders live exports infant mortality honorary citizen railways disciplinary tribunals standard of proof World Health Organisation arts international students skilled graduate visas temporary employment visas apologies roads Italy national heritage NHMRC nutrition anti-dumping Rent Assistance obesity evidence law sacrament of confession US presidential election international days DFAT UN General Assembly deregulation Regulation Impact Statements administrative law small business Breaker Morant regional engagement social determinants of health abortion Members suspension workplace health and safety marine reserves hearing TAFE Victoria astronomy resources sector YMCA youth parliament Korea rebate Australian Greens presidential nomination Racial Discrimination Act political parties preselection solar hot water Financial Action Taskforce Horn of Africa peacekeeping piracy Great Barrier Reef Stronger futures political financing political education Social Inclusion Board early childhood National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care Murray-Darling Basin sanctions Norway hospitals republic President Barack Obama Presidential visits qantas counselling Korean peninsula Work Choices biosecurity hendra environmental law federalism federation preselection therapeutic goods Therapeutic Goods Administration plebiscites computer games pests suicide nuclear COAG Ministerial Councils floods ADHD stimulant medication advertising electricity extradition conscience votes poverty preventative health rural health coastal erosion Parliamentary Budget Office work-life balance

Show all
Show less
Back to top