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.

Read the report here and the  submissions here.