Australian Indigenous income management
Part 1: The Case
Introduction
As the indigenous
population in Australia reaches almost 700,000 (2011 census) (Australian Bureau
of Statistics (ABS) 2011) The Australian welfare programs for the Indigenous
have seen some changes in recent years.
While many Australians enjoy world class health and education systems,
many indigenous particularly those living in remote areas live in improvised
conditions. There is substandard housing, problems with alcohol, domestic violence,
high crime rates and low school attendance. During the 2007 Howard government
intervention income management was brought into the Northern territory as a way
of helping Indigenous manage their incomes. Using social justice and human
rights frameworks this case study examines the current income management
programs in the Northern Territory
Case overview
Australia has a
significant history when it comes to the indigenous population – one of
abuse, genocide,
stolen generation and lack of human rights.
In 1883 the board for protection of aborigines was established, they
later changed their name to the aborigine welfare board (The State Records
Authority of New South Wales, 1995).
The duties of the new Board were to:
apportion, distribute and apply moneys for the relief or benefit of Aboriginal
people; or to assist them in obtaining employment; maintain them whilst
employed or otherwise to assist them to become assimilated into the general
life of the community; distribute blankets, clothing, and relief to Aboriginal
people; provide for the custody and maintenance of Aboriginal children; manage
and regulate the use of reserves; exercise a general supervision and care over
all Aboriginal people and over all matters affecting their interests and welfare,
and to protect them against injustice, imposition and fraud; arrange for the
inspection at regular intervals of each station and training school under the
control of the Board.( The State Records Authority of New South Wales,1995)
While
there has been some changes to the Aboriginal welfare board, and Aboriginal
policies including name changes, The Howard Governments 2007 intervention – close the gap strategies remain similar to the
duties carried out in 1883 (Cox, 2015;
Buckmaster & Ey, 2012).
According to Altman
and Sanders (1995) after the 1967 referendum Australian aborigines subsequently
became very dependent on welfare. Some
Authors including famous Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson describe the past
aboriginal welfare system as the downfall of aboriginal society and what has
led to a cycle of dependence on welfare, alcohol abuse, domestic violence,
unemployment, vulnerable children and irresponsibility (Davidoff & Duas,
2008). Income management came about after the report on allegations of serious
sexual abuse of children in Aboriginal communities, the report is called “The little children are scared” (Korff, 2015; Gibson, 2012). The Howard Government introduced Income
Management into the Northern Territory as a way of assisting welfare recipients
(Gibson, 2015). In order for the Howard
Government to do this the Anti-Discrimination Act had to be suspended in order
to pass policy on income management (ACOSS, 2009).
Income
management was automatically applied to all indigenous persons on Centrelink benefits
living in the Northern territory – everyone received a Basics card, where a percentage of their center
link benefits were put on the card.
(Korff, 2015). The card requires a pin number and at first could only be
used at some shops, now there is a greater range of shops the Basics card can
be used at. The Basics card cannot be used to buy alcohol, tobacco, pornography
or some takeaway foods. (Korff, 2015).
Some authors suggest
that Income management was brought into control what Aborigines in the Northern
Territory could spend their money on, (Gibson, 2012; Korff, 2015; Bielefeld,
2012). These authors suggest that Income
Management has a negative and discriminatory impact on Aboriginal peoples in
the Northern Territory (Gibson, 2012; Korff, 2015; Bielefeld, 2012).
A
second type of income management is used and is popular in some parts of the
Northern Territory, the individual arranges a certain amount of their money to
go to a particular shop each pay week, including to rental agencies or other
bills such as electricity, where they can either save it up for larger items,
such as white goods or furniture or to shops including butchers, grocery shops
or other retail outlets where they can get food and other essential items
(Gibson, 2012). This negates the need of
having a pin based card (Korff, 2015).
The
objective of income management set by the Howard Government in 2007 has been to
reduce immediate hardships by directing welfare payments to those who need
them, help people on welfare payments obtain essential items and reduce the
amount of money spent on alcohol tobacco pornography and gambling ( Buckmaster
& Ey, 2012; Korff, 2015; Dvidoff & Duas, 2008) . Income management is
also used to help people with budgeting and reduce vulnerable people on welfare
from being harassed and abused for their payments (Korff, 2015). Income management is also used to encourage
socially responsible behavior (Buckmaster & Ey, 2012; Korff, 2015; Dvidoff
& Duas, 2008).
There
are Advantages and disadvantages to these two types of income management. Firstly it allows vulnerable people access to
money in order to buy food or other essential items when needed. (Korff, 2015)
Studies have found that there have been benefits to children women and the
elderly on income management as they have been able to access food clothing and
other essential items. The individual can control the pin number, if they have
a basics card or go to a shop their money is at, to get purchase essential items
(ACOSS, 2009)
Income management is designed
to help recipients budget and reduce the amount of cash funds for alcohol,
tobacco and gambling (Buckmster & Ey, 2012)
Disadvantages include – there was no or limited consultation with
Aboriginal people regarding this program , and income management was initially
limited to Indigenous people in the Northern Territory with a trial program in
Cape York Queensland (QLD). Recently the
government has expanded income management to other areas in QLD and to people of
all ethnic backgrounds. Income management and basics cards, or the shops that
allow Basic Card use for welfare recipients is not yet Australia wide (Bielefield,
2013; social policy research, ACOSS, 2009; Cox, 2015).
People only have access to a certain
amount of ‘cash’ money to purchase other items individuals on income management have
reported not changing what they spend their money on and feeling more shamed
and embarrassed because they are on income management. (Korff, 2015).
Key stakeholders are the Indigenous
people of the northern territory, Centrelink – which is managed under the department of human services to deliver
a wide range of services to Who provide the basics cards an income management
The
government who implemented this policy and the shop keepers that provide
facilities to have the basics card or those that sell items that cannot be
accessed by basic card holders such as tobacco and alcohol outlets. The
stakeholder are all effected in different ways by income management
Summary of
issues
Income management was
introduced in the Northern Territory by the Howard government in 2007 it
includes allocating a certain percentage of money onto the basics card, which
restricts what people can use the money for Income management can also be
allocating a certain amount of money to various shops.
The government had to
suspend the anti- discrimination act to pass the policy on income management
The objectives of income management include:
Reduce immediate
hardships
Help recipients obtain
essential items
Reduce the amount of
money spent on alcohol, tobacco and pornography
There
is some evidence that income management has aided vulnerable people
However income
management policy was not done in consultation with the indigenous and there is
evidence to suggest income management has not met all its objectives (ACOSS,
2009)
Part 2: Analysis
and possible recommendation
Welfare and
social justice considerations;
Social justice can be
described as the fair distribution of resources among the population. In Australia social justice is about making
sure all peoples have the right to choose how they live and the ability in
which to make those choices (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2014) Social
Justice is grounded in everyday life and according to the social justice
commissioner (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2014) Social justice is about
housing with running water and sanitation, the right to education, employment
and good health. For the indigenous
peoples of Australia it is also about recognising them as the original owners
of the land with a right to a distinct culture and status, the right to land
and the right to self – determination. Social
justice is up held when the rights of indigenous peoples are promoted.
(Australian Human Rights Commission, 2014; Social Justice Report 2007; Social
policy research Centre (SPRC), 2015).
People on welfare often face more
discrimination find it harder to gain education, seek employment (Murphy,
Murray, Chalmers, Martin & Marston 2011).
The shame people feel while on welfare and the social injustice they
experience is high. Income management
takes people’s ability away to manage
their income and therefore resources as they see fit.
Making
income management less obvious for those that choose to be on it
Reducing the stigma of
welfare in Australia would be beneficial to recipients
There is no doubt that
there are vulnerable people that could benefit from income management. The anti-discrimination act that had to be
suspended in order for the Howard government to put income management into
place should be reinstated
Human rights
considerations
Human rights are
rights that are inherent to all human beings regardless of culture, sex, place
of residence or any other status. Human
beings all over the world are entitled to human rights which are inherent,
invisible and interrelated without discrimination. (Almond, 1993)
In
order for the government to roll out the income management scheme in 2007 the
racial discrimination act had to be suspended (Gibson, P, 2012). In Australian
law the right to nondiscrimination is excluded on the basis of a person’s status such as homeless, on welfare or
unemployed. The United Nations states that all human beings have the right to
nondiscrimination regardless of social status (Human Rights Commission, 2014)
By implementing income
management several human rights were breached these include the right to
self-determination – the choice of how income
is managed has been taking away from people. The income management policy
interferes with the right to use personal income. Freedom of movement – when the basics card was implemented not all stores accepted the
card, and the system is not set up in other states and territory’s making it difficult for people to move around
Australia freely (Bielefeld, 2013; Bielefeld, 2012; ACOSS, 2009).
Indigenous
land rights were disregarded and 5 year leases of indigenous lands were
obtained without consultation with indigenous people.
The government when
implementing income management did so after the report – ‘The Little Children are Scared’ was released that showed children in
Aboriginal communities to be vulnerable. The objective of income management was
to reduce immediate hardships
Help recipients obtain
essential items, Reduce the amount of money spent on alcohol, tobacco and
pornography
There
are reports that many people forced to go on income management feel as if they
have no control over their lives and that having a basics card has not improved
the ability to buy or have access to essential items (Korff, 2015)
Low income earners are
more likely to experience a breach in their civil and political rights
From a human rights
perspective mandatory income management that has been introduced into the
Northern territory has breached human rights by not consulting with the people
it applies to, by not allowing freedom of movement and self- determination in
management of funds (Korff, 2015).
The
government has advocated that income management policies need to be evidence
based, to ensure they are meeting the objectives.
There are cases being
made by indigenous peoples and organisations for voluntary income management –Income management and the use of basics cards
needs to be in consultation with Indigenous peoples (Gibson, 2012). Other changes that can lessen the impact
income management has on people include - restrictions from basics cards
removed, giving people the right to manage their resources and the availability
of shops allowing the use of basics cards Australia Wide
Summary of
recommendations
From a welfare and
social justice perspective
•
Income management should not be
discriminatory
•
The anti-racial discrimination
act should be reinstated
•
Either all welfare recipients
should be subject to compulsory income management or no welfare recipients
should be subject to it. Income
management could be valuable to certain people and be available as a voluntary
option.
•
Public policy change to make
welfare recipients less recognizable
From a human rights
perspective
•
Income management including
basics cards should be voluntary
•
Income management policies
should be done in consultation with aboriginal peoples
•
Income management is beneficial
to vulnerable people, so should be available to those who require / wish to
have it
•
Basics cards should be less
restrictive on what is able to purchase with them
•
Basics cards should be
available to use at all stores Australia wide
Part 3: Final
recommendation
Income
management should remain an option for people on welfare as there is no doubt
that vulnerable people are taken advantage of and results show that some people
find using the basics card to access essential items beneficial, there is also
evidence that supports the view of many people finding income management
discriminatory and shameful (Buckmaster & Ey, 2012; Korff, 2015; Dvidoff
& Duas, 2008). Compulsory income management has breached human rights,
Income management should be voluntary and in consultation with the people
receiving it.
The negative views around income management
and basics card need to be removed, through de stigmatization allowing people
receiving welfare payments to have the same rights afforded to all Australians and making recipients more anonymous (Gibson,
2015). The stigma of welfare and income
management in Australia needs to be reduced this will improve human rights for
people receiving welfare, by taking a way the shame they feel, and allowing
people to access education and employment
The
anti-discrimination act should be reinstated and any income management programs
in line with the criteria outlined in the act.
The removal of the Anti-Discrimination act breached human rights and is
quite damaging to the Aboriginal peoples (Buckmaster & Ey, 2012; Korff,
2015; Dvidoff & Duas, 2008).
Total word count: 2667
Word count without quotes and references: 2280
Reference list
Almond, B 1993,
'Rights', in P Singer
(ed.), A Companion to Ethics, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 259-69.
Altman & Sanders, 1995, discussion paper 193 center for aboriginal
economic policy. Centre for Aboriginal economic policy research
Australian Human
Rights Commission 2014,://www.humanrights.gov.au/ Viewed 02/06/2014.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011, Australian
Capital Territory in focus 2002, cat. no. 1307.8, ABS, Canberra.
Bielefeld,
S 2012, Compulsory Income Management and Indigenous Australians: Delivering
Social Justice or Furthering Colonial Domination?, Sydney law Journal Vol 35 (2) p301 -315.
Bielefeld, S, 2013, Compulsory Income
Management and Indigenous Peoples- Exploring Counter Narratives Amidst Colonial
Constructions of Vulnerability, Sydney
Law Journal Vol 36 : 695 p 21-45
Buckmaster & Ey, 2012, is income management working? Social policy section: Parliament of
Australia, Department of Parliamentary Services.
Cox, 2015, Income Management, University of
Technology, Sydney.
Davidoff & Duas, 2008, income management
Gibson, P, 2012, Income management in the Northern Territory, racism is still the issue. Jumbunna Indigeous House of Learning
Korff,J, 2015, Northern territory, Emergency
Response (NTER)- “
the intervention” www.creativespirits.info
. Viewed 26/5/15
Murphy, J, Murray, S, Chalmers, J, Martin, S &
Marston, G 2011, Half a citizen: life on welfare in Australia, in Allen
& Unwin, Sydney, pp. 1-21.
Social Justice Report 2007 - Chapter 3: The Northern Territory 'Emergency Response' intervention
Social policy research Centre (SPRC), 2015,university
of new south wales and Australian Institute of family studies, evaluation
framework for new income management (NIM), prepared for the Department of
family’s, housing,
Community Services and in diagnosis SPRC,
Submission
to the National Human Rights Consultation. ACOSS, June 2009, Australian Council
of Social Service
The States records Authority of New
South Wales, 2015 Copyright the States Record Authority of New South Wales www.records.nsw.gov.au/ Viewed 01/06/2015
