How often do you have to repeat an unsupported allegation before it’s accepted? Many times.
That seems to be the hope of Labor backbencher Justine Elliot who has launched a social media campaign claiming that the Morrison government plans to introduce a cashless welfare card for pensioners.
The MP For Richmond told her Facebook followers: “If reelected, Scott Morrison will force pensioners on to the cashless welfare card. The plan will put 80% of your pension on a card that will limit what and where you can spend your own money.”
She cites as “evidence” a statement from Senator Anne Ruston, Minister for Families and Social Services, saying the government was considering broadening use of the already highly controversial cashless debit card program (under which 80% of a person’s welfare payments is quarantined on a card that cannot be used to withdraw cash or buy alcohol or gambling products).
However, Ruston says the government has “publicly ruled out ever requiring age pensioners to use the cashless debit card” and characterises Elliot’s campaign as a “social media rant”.
So is this just unplanned freelancing, or is it a trial balloon for a new “Mediscare”?
It’s worth remembering that the original “Mediscare” was a campaign by Labor leading up to the 2016 federal election and based on a claim that a Liberal government would privatise Medicare.
An Essential Media poll late in the campaign showed 50% of voters thought it likely the Liberal Party would attempt to privatise Medicare if it won the election, 34% said it was unlikely, and 17% did not know. Of those polled, 81% said privatising Medicare — as well as changing its current form — was cause for concern.
Prime minister Malcolm Turnbull was forced to declare that “Medicare will never, ever, ever be privatised”, which Labor counted as a success. The government’s response was widely criticised for being too late and for allowing Labor to control the agenda.
So is Elliot’s social media campaign a legitimate new “Mediscare”, or simply freelancing to generate support in her electorate … and maybe earn a place in the shadow cabinet? On the evidence so far it seems to be the latter.
Labor’s original campaign was effectively planned and executed, with a very substantial budget and heavy involvement of political allies. Elliot has received support from a handful of backbenchers, along with her assertion to The New Daily: “A lot of people in my area were raising their concerns. I’ve been inundated.”
However, social media support — even when extensive — does not make a false claim true, as demonstrated by Donald Trump’s “big lie” about the US election being stolen.
In her defence, Elliot — who was parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs and trade in the first Rudd government — says she “won’t be silenced”.
But no matter how often she repeats her unsupported allegation, it seems most unlikely to have any wider impact.
Tony Jaques is an expert on issue and crisis management and risk communication. He is CEO of Melbourne-based consultancy Issue Outcomes and his latest book is Crisis Counsel: Navigating Legal and Communication Conflict.
I always get annoyed when the Mediscare trope gets rolled out. I am a in full knowledge of a taskforce set up by the liberal government at time to investigate outsourcing Medicare payments system. The fact is, given that Medicare is mainly a payment system that would amount to privatising Medicare. The scare was not based on falsehoods, but on knowledge of the intention of the Government…
Furthermore, the author of this shallow piece says ‘50% of voters thought it likely the Liberal Party would attempt to privatise Medicare if it won the election’ as if this were proof of the ‘scary’ effect of Labor’s warning. In reality, roughly that proportion of the population is ALWAYS thinking it’s likely the LNP will attempt to privatise or in some other way undermine Medicare; it’s ‘in their DNA’.
Correct..It’s well politically proven the LNP DNA is privatization of public goods n services..But i can’t see them rolling out the Indue card to a$$et rich property owning aged pensioners with disposable wealth ..it would be political suicide..the vote winner will be to roll it out to aged pensioners who rely soley on a pension to actually survive..it’s in their DNA ;-(.
There are far more poor pensioners than rich tory voting ones – unfortunately they can be just as easily fooled as any other group if the right buttons are pushed.
Meanwhile, between Rebate freezes, outsourcing of Data Management to Telstra, and cuts to the procedures you can claim on Medicare, it pretty much amounts to Privatization by Stealth. Something this pathetic hack clearly doesn’t comprehend.
Hear, hear. If a party denies something, we’re supposed to believe its denials. Sorry, doesn’t work for me.
Like the misnomer ‘‘pink batts”, Mediscare has become just another cliche used by lazy and/or ignorant wannabe journos.
While I think it unlikely that there will be an across-the-board imposition of the Indue card on all aged pensioners, this program has seen a relentless expansion and mission creep ever since it was introduced. It keeps being “trialled” in places with an easily steamrolled clientele, and the results of studies into its impact have been either concealed or misrepresented. There was nothing in this article to say what the Indue card program has done, is doing, or what it’s supposed to be doing next. The Liberal-connected entities that are apparently profiting mightily from the Indue card have been lobbying heavily, to say nothing of recycling some of their fees back into party donations. It is already being used on aged pensioners in some indigenous districts where other government payments have also been subject to controls.
I suspect the Indue card will continue to be imposed on more and more people not in a position to argue, but I expect what is far more likely, and could easily be expanded into a campaign, is a continued and expanded Robodebt-like program that will also encompass age pensioners. There will be a PR program to start dividing pensioners into “deserving” and “undeserving”.
I’m sorry, but having watched Anne Ruston’s performances in Parliament, interviews, panel shows and Senate Estimates, I wouldn’t trust her and her assurances further than I could spit. To meekly accept,
“However, Ruston says the government has “publicly ruled out ever requiring age pensioners to use the cashless debit card” and characterises Elliot’s campaign as a “social media rant”.
as an adequate rebuttal of Eliott’s suspicions would be naive in the extreme. Ruston has continuously expressed utter sneering contempt for all “customers” of Sevices Australia.
It has been proven that illegality and immorality are not impediments to this government. It has successfully relied on media collusion to simply information-manage their way forward. Publicity around the horrors of Robodebt was actually seen as a massive win by some in the government (you’ll recall that the government stayed surprisingly silent whenever there was news of the nastiness); terrorising people away from any involvement with welfare payments was always deliberate. It is the same as torturing refugee children in far-flung gulags as a PR exercise. Morrison loves this way of doing things. He planned it this way.
Has Murdoch bought Crikey? What are all these light weight LNP defending articles?
Why would he bother when the verbiage is too often indistinguishable from his rags?
Check out who he works for- a company that says ‘reduces the risk of issues becoming crisis’. Mmmmmmate, please. Not even a journalist.
Don’t for one minute think Elliot’s conclusion is a rant. Or if you would, crying wolf? Just one example: Hearing Aust. an entity in part funded by Federal Govt, refused a cash payment for renewal of an annual renewal of services. Alternative offered, attend CBA and cash payment would be accepted. I am not a client of CBA. My preference is to pay cash for all purchases in person ie Credit Card cancelled due to Provider(s) refusal to allow contact by phone. Consequence: No longer able to receive service or hearing aid batteries. Pensioners, as I am, are already under enormous pressure to abandon cash. Reason for not: Life experience. Capital cost of electronic hardware, software. Scamming a regular event. Govt-Corporate / commercial financial interests.
Exploitation of client interests by refusing client access, complaint, contact. I do have a phone. For communication. Not exploitation.
If it’s good enough for other welfare recipients, why not pensioners too?
Absolutely! And they would do it in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it.