Australian Greens Dissenting Report
The Australian Greens are very concerned at the very quick
time frame of this inquiry, given the very short time of the inquiry, moving
the reporting date forward has only made it more difficult for stakeholders to
participate. The small number of submissions should not be taken as a sign that
this issue is not highly contested.
The application of income management in Cape York is quite
widespread. While income management is meant to be applied as a measure of last
resort, 25% of those living in the welfare trial sites had been subject to it
by December of 2011. And although an income management order is meant to be
between 3 to 12 months, the average length of time on the Basics Card is 16.8
months.[1]
Clearly the income management orders are applied frequently and often extended
beyond the original time period.
While the Australian Government argues that income
management has been instrumental in improving 'school attendance, care and
protection of children and community safety',[2]
there has not yet been any objective analysis of income management in Cape York
that has shown that it is has delivered these outcomes.
The continued application of a highly coercive program such
as income management needs to be justified before the Australian Greens would
support extending it in any guise. This justification has not been provided
through the committee inquiry process.
The majority committee report points to subjective measures
of wellbeing, obtained by surveying the community attitude towards Income
Management as evidence of the program's success.[3]
However, it is the view of the Australian Greens that this should be supported
by empirical evidence as perceptions are very different to real outcomes.
The major source of information about income management in
Cape York is the evaluation report commissioned by the Australian Government.[4]
This report is unable to demonstrate conclusively that income management in
Cape York had met its stated aims.
Only three of the four communities demonstrated a reduction
in the number of times that people were reported to the Family Relationship
Council, and only then was there a 10% reduction in reports per person.[5]
The evaluation report goes on to say that,
The reduction in breaches may not be a function of income
management alone, as it is possible that the fact of being repeatedly brought
before the FRC conferences encourages individuals to comply.[6]
The evaluation found that there had been improvements in
areas such as school attendance and reductions in crime.[7]
However, income management is just one of a number of measures that have been
implemented by the Cape York Welfare Reform Trial, which contributes to these
changes.
Furthermore, two of the report’s authors, Ilan Katz and
Margaret Raven, have noted in the Indigenous Law Bulletin that it is difficult
to draw conclusions from this given that ‘many other Indigenous communities in
Queensland had also shown improvements’.[8]
This is reflected in the submission from St Vincent de Paul
Society, states,
There seems to be limited evidence to suggest that these
positive outcomes are a direct result of compulsory income management, as
opposed to a range of new social services being rolled out in Cape York...
there is no particular reason to think that income management is the sole driver
of the positive changes, with so many programs operating simultaneously.[9]
The majority report, 'acknowledges the support of the
Queensland Government, one of the partners in CYWR, for the extension of income
management'[10]
but fails to acknowledge that the Queensland Government originally withdrew
funding for the programs in March 2013, with Queensland Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Affairs Minister, Glen Elmes stating,
It is an extraordinary amount of money and the fear I have is
that a very large amount of money is going into those four communities ... The
other Indigenous communities—not only in Cape York—but places like Woorabinda
and Cherbourg and other parts of the state are missing out on what should be
their share.[11]
Although the Queensland Government has subsequently agreed
to extended the trial until the end of 2014 (one year less than this Bill seeks
to extend the trial for), it is clear that the Queensland Government is not
unambiguously supportive of the program.
The evaluation report also notes that there is some
community dissent about income management and the Basics Card, including
concern about the 'inability to use it in some stores and the paternalistic
nature of the intervention,'[12]
which echoes the concern that have been associated other forms of income
management such as the NT Trials and the Place-Based Trials.
The evaluation report of the Northern Territory 'New Income
Management' Trials found the program to be disempowering, while being unable to
pinpoint any measurable improvements in community wellbeing or personal
responsibility.[13]
Similarly, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
included the 'new income management trials' in their assessment of the Stronger
Futures regime. Their report found that there was evidence of ‘equally
significant adverse aspects' to counter any benefits of the regime. The
Committee also noted the fact that income management intrudes on personal
freedom and autonomy.[14]
While there are differences between the Northern Territory
and Queensland application of income management, the negative impact on human
rights and personal dignity is common to both and should not be dismissed.
There have also been no assessments to date about how income
management has changed purchasing habits in Cape York. However, again looking
to other assessments from the Northern Territory for insight, the Menzies
Institute research found virtually no change to tobacco or fresh food purchases
under income management,[15]
while a study conducted by the Equality Rights Alliance of more than 180 women
with direct experience of Income Management found that 85% had not changed what
they buy and 74% felt discriminated against.[16]
On the weight of the evidence, the Australian Greens believe
that income management is a failed and expensive policy that the Government is
persisting with in the absence of any real justification. There are a number of
other programs, which are not coercive in nature, such as Centrepay that can be
used to help people manage their money better.
The Greens support a direct investment in programs and
communities that address the underlying causes of disadvantage people are
facing rather than income management which is expensive to implement.
The money being spent on income management around Australia
would be better invested directly into communities in order to provide
specialist, direct programs to address things like financial management,
education, better access to fresh food, a reduction in alcohol and drug abuse
and better support for parents and people looking for work.
Recommendation 1
The Australian Greens recommend that the Senate not pass
the measure contained in Schedule 2 of the Social Security and other
Legislation Amendment Bill 2013.
Recommendation 2
That the funding associated with Schedule 2 be directed
towards other programs of support that are not coercive in nature.
Senator Rachel Siewert
Australian Greens
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page