Welfare controls: Solution or stigma?
Lynne Bell
I admit my heart sank a little bit when my dear editor suggested the topic for his week's debate. However, after researching the issue, I have to admit that it is timely and relevant-both important factors to consider anytime you write for a newspaper-and especially if you live in a country where a federal election is looming.
Kelly-who has spent time in Australia and New Zealand-brought me a copy of a story that ran in 2014 in an Australian national newpaper, in which recommendations were made to the then-Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott regarding a proposal to issue welfare recipients with a card that would ensure they used their state-issued benefits for necessities like food and clothing and effectively preventing them from using their payments to gamble or to purchase alcohol, cigarettes, home brew kits and/or pornography.
My initial reaction was one of distaste and discomfort. After all, it's probably hard enough to ask for government assistance without having one's dignity and privacy compromised further. But reading on, I discovered that the recommendations were not entirely ill-advised or mean-spirited.
The controversial proposal called for “All welfare payments to all Australians, other than (old) age or veterans' pensions (to be) paid into a savings account, which could be accessed by a 'health welfare card.' It would be fully redeemable at any Australian shop that accepts Visa and MasterCard with electronic payment facilities.” The intention was to direct spending towards sustaining and supporting a healthy lifestyle for welfare recipients and their families, with the hope that any surplus money would remain in recipients' savings accounts for larger purchases.
Predictably, the scheme had a lot of supporters and detractors, possibly in part because Australian mining magnate Andrew Forrest was the author of the proposal. However, the idea of the “healthy welfare card” came about, in part, due to what one official called: “The absolute destruction which alcohol is causing in some communities.”
One of these communities, the South Australian town of Ceduna, will be the site of a trial run for the card in 2016.
The agreement to test the cards was reached after consultation with members of the community and local leaders.
The town's mayor, Alan Suter says, “We're very happy to support what we think will be a huge improvement for our community generally. The principal concern we are trying to address was the very sad situation where a very small minority of people are spending the bulk of the benefits they receive on the purchase of alcohol or gambling services.”
According to the Australian federal government, Ceduna has a hospitalization rate from assault which is 68 times the national average, most of which is due to widespread alcohol abuse within the community. In addition, this town of 4,000 people racked up 4,500 admissions to one alcohol treatment centre within one year.
The upcoming pilot project proposes that 80 percent of all welfare payments will be placed onto debit cards and the remaining 20 percent will be placed into each individual's bank account.
Critics have argued that these types of income controls stigmatize the poor, are costly to set up, and ultimately, have a detrimental effect on peoples' decision-making.
However, if this project was combined with financial education and other forms of assistance designed to educate people with the intent of breaking the cycle of addiction and dependency-it may prove to be an investment in the future.
Time will tell, but as Ceduna's mayor says, “We're hoping this will be one of a series of steps to break the cycle.”
Cashless welfare card doesn’t see full picture
By Kelly Running
I came across an interesting article the other day about an Australian cashless welfare card.
The topic has been presented in the House of Representatives in Australia last week. It would allow the government to put 80 percent of a welfare recipient’s dole money into a special account. This account could only be accessed via a debit card. Cash could not be taken out and the cards would not be allowed to be used for purchases such as gambling or buying liquor.
The creation of the card by the Australian government is to attempt to address the alcohol, drug, and gambling abuse amongst people receiving welfare.
However, not everyone is in favour of the change. Mining magnate, Andrew Forrest, was the first suggested the card and some are leery of whether it will actually benefit people.
It is said that most people will receive $60 to $150 cash still, while the remainder of the monies will be placed in the special account.
Speaking against the card was the Greens’ spokeswoman, Rachel Siewert, who said, “Limiting access to cash will severely restrict the ability to budget and decision-making. Whether it be at the markets, lunch money for their kids, or a bus fare – all these things add up and may not be available via card payment.”
Before simply implementing the card, the Australian government has three trials being set up in different locations across their country to see how it will work.
What others are concerned about, is that the card, comes from the belief that people who are receiving welfare are irresponsible and limitations must be placed on them.
Focusing on alcohol, however, is being looked at by some as not being the root of all problems. Instead people are arguing that the real issues are much larger than limiting how much one can spend on alcohol. Instead the issues surround people without an education, who have trouble transitioning into the workforce, and who are unable to manage their money because of lack of know-how.
Ceduna Aboriginal Community Leader, John Isgar, said in 2013, “I mean, if you got up in the morning and had nothing to do, why wouldn’t you go and have a grog?”
The card is therefore seen as a being restrictive and paternalistic, a bandage, a solution that treats the symptom, but fails to address the larger issues within the Australian society.
It doesn’t help people escape from a cycle of hopelessness or help educate them to make better choices. In fact an article, “Cashless Welfare Card – an insult to all Australians,” written by Eva Cripps says, “The cashless welfare card is nothing but a restrictive, paternalistic sledge-hammer response to dealing with problems that do not stem from alcohol or drug abuse at all. It is a Band-Aid solution to treat a symptom of a failed society. The cashless card does nothing to address the lack of hope, lack of opportunity, and lack of pride in self and community. It does nothing to empower the most vulnerable and marginalised people to make their own good decisions and choices.”
“The majority of people on welfare are not chronic drug abusers, alcoholics or gambling addicts. But many people on welfare are vulnerable, disadvantaged, and facing discrimination. They are facing outright hostility from the Abbott Government and his ministers, with labels of ‘leaners’ and ‘bludgers’. The cashless welfare card is a blatant attempt to further shame and demonise welfare recipients. It perpetuates the idea that the poor are sucking the nation dry with their dependency on the rich… which works against a fair, inclusive and supportive society.”
So, to some it is a way to try and combat alcoholism, yet to others it doesn’t address the real issues.
