Question to minister Jenny Macklin, senators Trish Crossin, Claire Moore, et al: since when did feminism condone compulsory loss of rights for categories of women, for example a sole parent, because some of them may have needed “protection”?
This paternalistic (maternalistic) policy making undermines the idea that women are full citizens with equal rights. Women who are in need of protection have the right and obligation to decide, maybe collectively, whether they hand over their rights to others. Please don’t use women’s needs as an excuse for bad policy as it sounds a bit like Philip Ruddock wearing his Amnesty badge while persecuting asylum seekers.
Why would a senate committee of four women and one man manage to hear completely different “evidence” in an inquiry into Bills designed to extend aspects of the NT Intervention to non-Aboriginal welfare recipients? Could it be that the senators were trapped between reinstating the Racial Discrimination Act and not embarrassing a cabinet and factional colleague? Given the legal complexities of the former, confusion is possible, but the different perceptions of the benefits or damage of extending income management are harder to understand.
The report of the Community Affairs Committee was tabled last week with a predictable party split: the ALP supports the Bills as they are, the coalition opposes them as do the Greens, for opposite reasons. The coalition senators are predictably defending the “emergency” they established even without evidence that the measures had reduced child s-xual abuse and violence, the stated reasons for removing the rights of the prescribed communities.
However, the government senators’ rationale for supporting the Bills can only be explained by assuming they had marching orders from on high to do so. The Greens looked carefully at the evidence and opposed the changes on that basis.
What is particularly concerning is this was done by a female-dominated committee, under a female minister who claims to be doing this to protect women. This sets up some dilemma for feminists who must oppose extending compulsory income control because:
- It is primarily a women’s issue because women do the household shopping and control the money, especially in low-income households.
- Sole parents on parenting payments and Newstart will have half their income being controlled unless they can prove they are good mothers
- It will affect good shoppers by limiting cards to big chains and approved shops and undermine bargain hunting, markets and second-hand goods.
- It will seriously distress women from ethnic backgrounds, particularly those recently arrived as refugees, by increasing the complications of, settlement.
- It will be very hard for those with disabilities on Newstart, who may have many difficulties with literacy or authority
- It implies always that women are incompetent money managers who have to prove they are not.
How the ALP members justify their decisions on the basis of the evidence put before them, is hard to determine in the report. They sat through seven hearings, at which 26 out of 28 community groups failed to support the changes. Of the 90-plus submissions they received, at least 85 failed to support either the changes or continuation of the existing compulsory income management.
Their decisions were apparently based on two who supported the government’s view and the bureaucrats who had to support government policy. Opposition came from NT affected communities, other community groups, academics, lawyers, land councils, women’s groups, church groups and other religious organisations, child abuse and domestic violence groups.
The consensus from submission on income management, with the exceptions above, was that IM should become voluntary except where there was evidence of financial problems misconduct. Many submissions raised serious problems in consultations and the data used, yet bureaucrat verbal denials were taken as proof that these submissions were wrong.
These were on message that the government had made the policy decisions ergo they must have had the necessary data on which to make decisions. Where this was obviously not so, they said any problems were being fixed and data gaps would be filled after the law was passed. Trust me? On what basis?
Data from Sunrise Health and the Menzies School of Health Research were not taken as seriously as opinions for shops without documentation. A report, about to be released by the Indigenous Doctors Association says: ‘The association recommends compulsory income management be stopped immediately because of its ‘profound long-term negative impacts”. It says welfare payments should be quarantined only in cases of proven abuse or neglect, or if people volunteered for it. They claim the psychological harm outweighs some possible physical benefits.
The complexities, particularly for those seeking to justify their removal from the card, are many. It involves dealing with Centrelink staff and that is often problematic and proving by letters from others e.g. schools and medicos, that you are a responsible parent. Seeking this evidence is also going to be embarrassing and often difficult for those not used to dealing with authorities.
The senators ignored international evidence that unfairness and infantilising people does not increase responsibility but the reverse. They presumably responded to tight control from above and supported virtually unconditionally the passage of a very problematic set of Bills.
Utter idiocy. Do our senators believe in a caste society?
It is hard to support any bill or any law proposal based on hatred and prejudice. ( ‘We thought it was a good idea at the time’ principle)
Australian senators would do better supporting equal access to high standard education for the remote communities as well as for the community at large. We need better educated senators.
Compulsory income control should equally apply to other ‘troubled groups’.
If we go by the ‘equal rights’ principle – all Australian soldiers and army/navy officers should be getting vouchers instead of money. Their ‘financial misconduct’ has been widely reported by the media.
EVA and RENA – Indeed! it’s gross isn’t it? You’d think in 2010 we’d have a better way of helping people who perhaps have problems managing money – but it’s easier to inflict these policies on people(mainly women) because it’s easier to operate, and after all we have to be ‘protected from ourselves’ etc. I recall listening to a segment on the ABC World Today several yrs ago now, where a pilot study helping people on Centrelink payments with finances was very successful, for the following basic reasons;
it was voluntary
it involved a change to weekly payments instead of fortnightly
the groups were small and friendly
the policy was flexible, depending on dependants etc
individual counselling was an essential part, respecting privacy
nobody was made to feel a failure
no judgemental attitudes
every person felt important and included in decision making
The then Howard govt didn’t renew it after the trial period! Typical!
I agree that income management should be voluntary.
Dr Harvey M Tarvydas
What can one say?
You have presented the case of cases.
Articulately and intelligently.
The unknowns you postulate lead straight back to the mystery of how can so many ‘smart’ people be so ignorant of (the science of) psychology.
Famously, new adventurer’s on to the ‘intellects’ stage these days apply a validity test ‘have to be able to do two different things at the same time, J Hockey most recently “… come on, can’t you walk and chew gum at the same time….”
But will or has mankind evolved (or will more than just a few of us) to doing two ideologies at the same time (where they’re not mutually exclusive).
Understanding man’s mind / performance is a frightening thing unless you don’t understand it.
You’re a policeman (god bless you) trying to direct chaotic traffic.
We all need you.
Psychology has more power in nature’s application to human behaviour than in man’s understanding of it (human behaviour).
Ref: reason, ideology, bureaucrat, feminist, social fairness, dignity, kindness, yield – outcomes or performance, human psychology, honesty, obedience, self-service.
We should make less educated people feel good about themselves, and try to turn their frustration in to happiness, so they can cultivate their gifts and build up their esteem, so when trouble comes in a family, they may have a mothers love, we must try not allow any one to spoil a child and mother relationship, education, and love for others, and acceptance can help, and do not allow people to hurt with their comments , especially if that particular person is hurting.