Australian Indigenous Income Management

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