Senator Thorpe Additional Comments

Summary of View

1.1First Peoples across this continent have never ceded our Sovereignty, and I pay my honour and respect to those who fight to protect Country and culture in the face of the human rights abuses perpetrated against First Peoples by settler-colonial governments across this continent and around the world.

1.2I welcome the overwhelming evidence presented to the committee confirming, once again as many previous inquiries have,[1] that compulsory income management is ultimately discriminatory and incompatible with human rights, and I reiterate the long standing calls of First Peoples to permanently abolish the apartheid policy of compulsory income management which exacerbates economic dependency and poverty, and has resulted in people losing their lives.

Compulsory income management is a vehicle for disempowerment, and perpetuates stigmatisation of Aboriginal people, ‘rather than building capacity and independence, for many the program has acted to make people more dependent on welfare’[2]

Compulsory income management is not and has never been compatible with human rights, that the government has never been able to show how these measures are helpful to people subjected to them and that First Nations people have been subject to a disproportionate abuse of their human rights through compulsory income management in Australia.[3]

1.3I generally welcome the committee’s recommendations and views, however, I do not consider they adequately reflect the decades of human rights abuses perpetrated by the state, the intergenerational health and mental health impacts, nor do they recognise the need for truth, healing and justice, including remedies for the damages caused. This is supported by the committee's previous work, calling for a National Human Rights Act.

The ability to seek a remedy for a violation is crucial in protecting fundamental rights and ensuring their promotion.[4]

1.4I wish I could welcome the department’s statement to the committee that ‘compulsory income management will be phased out in favour of a voluntary model’ for those who choose this. However, I note multiple previous instances, where governments have misled peak international human rights bodies on this very topic, making this very claim. For example, despite the fact that mandatory income management remains law today, on October 2023, the Albanese Labor government submitted its sixth periodic report to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), stating:

The Australian Government has abolished mandatory income management, scrapping the Cashless Debit Card program and making the income management program voluntary for individuals or communities who wish to keep a form of income management.[5]

1.5It must also be noted the Australian Labor Party went to the 2022 Federal election with a promise to end the Cashless Debit Card. Instead, they just changed the name and brought in enhanced income management, extending the cashless welfare technology, along with expanding who it applies to, in June 2023.

The Labor party understands very clearly that this policy is both ineffective and racist, making that case cogently prior to the election.[6]

1.6In addition, in their submission, Professor Gray and Dr Bray stated that the department had misused their research, and made deliberate attempts to mislead the Parliament, in what was described as ‘a consistent pattern of highly selective use, and misrepresentation of the evaluation findings by the department and successive governments’. The department of course denies this,[7] however, this assertion rings hollow considering the data misused was from research conducted by Professor Gray and Dr Bray themselves.

The Department of Social Services has significantly misrepresented the evidence base on the impact of these programs. This includes in the material it has presented to the Parliament, and as documented by the Auditor General in briefing material.[8]

1.7Successive governments have been well aware of the discriminatory nature of income management; it does not seem necessary to have an extended transitional period to voluntary income management but this could happen with almost immediate effect to move everyone on to entirely voluntary programs, which would make the Committee’s Recommendation 2, which deals with complicated procedures around exemptions, redundant.

Community leaders across the NT, the overwhelming majority of whom were in a state of distress and despair about the destructive impact that racist Intervention policies were having on community life and living conditions.[9]

1.8Moreover, I am deeply concerned that any alternative model pursued will not truly be voluntary, or reflect and facilitate the self-determination andright to free, prior and informed consent of First Peoples, as required under the United Nations Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Australia is bound by. Indeed, this country has a long violent history of directly undermining the rights to self-determination of First Peoples, both here and abroad. Compulsory, conditional, or any form of non-voluntary income management is disempowering by its very nature. It strips First Peoples of their autonomy to make decisions about their own money, echoing the paternalistic attitudes of colonial administrators, of which there is little evidence of change. It must also be noted that models like the Cape York, and Family Responsibilities Commission models, which still ultimately have the capacity to quarantine people’s income without their consent, are not voluntary, not self-determinated, or in line with the UNDRIP.

The fact that you have Indigenous involvement in a program of controlling Indigenous communities doesn't take away from the fact that what is going on, fundamentally, is that there is an idea that Indigenous people can't manage their money, as opposed to the rest of the community, who can. That needs to go.[10]

During one of the first rollouts in the East Kimberley and Ceduna, one of the objectives was community panels. They were an absolute disaster. They were pulled back straight away because they were such a disaster in the discord, the disempowerment and the abuse of peoples' private data. It was a disaster, and the department pulled back.[11]

1.9Benefits of these programs have been cited as granting people access to social services and programs. These are, however, investments which the whole community should be able to have access to, without being linked to punitive or mandatory obligations or participation in a program that quarantines income. A competent and human rights respecting government should be able to come up with ways to provide community services to people without creating yet more administrative burden for people on social security to carry. A focus on improved budgeting is of limited utility when people have barely enough money to survive. Accessing social security payments that are attached to mandatory ‘services’ that are neither sought nor consented to by social security recipients generates distress and hardship.

The purported intent of income management is to help people receiving income support payments budget for the basics. A focus on improved budgeting is of limited utility when people have barely enough money to survive.[12]

1.10This is relevant considering the majority of the concerns raised in the evidence heard by the committee are overwhelmingly considering the issue of poverty, characterised by decades of policies from successive governments across jurisdictions in breach of human rights obligations to provide everyone with an adequate standard of living, including adequate nutrition, clean drinking water, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions.[13] Policies that address the roots of these issues, that invest in building the capacity of communities in healthy, sustainable ways and that are in line with Australia's human rights obligations must be pursued.

1.11For these reasons, I believe it is critical that the committee continue to review the impacts of government legislation in the area of income management, including once it becomes voluntary. This should include seeking continued input from the Minister, around specific time frames, consultation methods, implementation of plans to transition impacted people off compulsory income management, and the details of any proposed voluntary scheme.

The Colonial Roots of Income Management

1.12Managing First Peoples’ income has been a colonial technology of oppression since invasion, impacting more and more First Peoples as illegal colonial settlements expanded across the continent.[14] Our people have been subjected to a long history oflabour exploitation, slavery, oppressive, racist, coercive policies and practices, all justified by the lie of white supremacy.

Regardless of the rhetoric that's been used by both major parties since, the substantive experience of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory has been as a re-imposition of the welfare days, the 'ration days'—that's what people called it when I interviewed them at the time. Elders were saying: ‘We’ve lived with this before. We’re living with it again.’[15]

Compulsory Income Management represents the reimposition of a form of colonial control over Aboriginal lives that characterised the racist ‘protection’ regime that operated for much of the 20th Century.[16]

1.13We can trace the deep roots in the paternalistic, racist systems of control from colonisation through legislation, where First Peoples’ incomes were controlled by Aboriginal Protection Boards for much of the 19th and 20th century. These so-called ‘Protection Acts’ were used to forcefully separate our families, create division, disempower our people, try to destroy our culture, take our land, and assimilate the oldest continuous culture in the world into the settler-colonial society. Our people were subject to near-total control of movement, over who they could marry, or what jobs they could do. Our wages were stolen, our savings were taken and our land and property was seized. The modern iteration of compulsory income management was rolled out by the Howard Government during the 2007 Northern Territory Intervention, which was a deliberate attack on the land rights and self-determination of First Peoples, under the guise of ‘protection’, with little scrutiny from Parliament.

Intervention legislation, introduced in June 2007, suspended the operations of the Racial Discrimination Act (RDA) facilitate measures explicitly designed to restrict the rights of Aboriginal people living on Aboriginal land. Income Management was a flagship Intervention measure and the discriminatory and punitive nature of Income Management was central to this complaint.[17]

Compulsory income management also breaches the right to equality and nondiscrimination… and has been explicitly developed and trialled on First Nations communities and communities with a disproportionately high number of First Nations people. It is also useful to remember that compulsory income management came to this country through the suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act via the Northern Territory's intervention and was continued through the healthy welfare card proposed by Andrew Forrest's Aboriginal employment and training review in 2014.[18]

The sweeping measures, greatly affecting Aboriginal people’s life experiences across land rights, income management, housing, criminal defence processes and more, were then passed through the Federal Parliament in a mere ten days.[19]

The Government has not made a case in linking the removal of land from Aboriginal ownership and getting rid of the permit system with protecting children from those who abuse them. What is becoming increasingly clear is that the Howard Government has used the emotive issue of child abuse to justify this intervention in the only Australian jurisdiction in which it can implement its radical indigenous policy agenda.[20]

The impact of compulsory income management for Aboriginal people in the NT, which has resulted from ongoing processes of colonisation and more recently through the Northern Territory Emergency Response.[21]

Income Management reintroduced a paternalistic form of governance aimed at controlling Aboriginal life that many Elders had lived through when they were young. Until a process of reform that began in the late 1960s, Aboriginal people lived under explicitly racist laws which restricted and controlled their income. Both when employed and when receiving payments from the government, Aboriginal people would often be paid in rations, receive drastically less cash payment than their non-Indigenous counterparts and be forced to negotiate with authorities over what they were allowed to purchase.[22]

Economic Apartheid: Discrimination, Racism and Paternalism

The Statements of Compatibility for Human Rights governing the current CIM regime, including the cashless debit card schemes, state that this ‘will not impact on or interfere with a person’s right to pursue freely their economic, social, or cultural development’. From our experience, however, this is demonstrably untrue. Rather, it restrains and controls their ability to freely pursue meaningful economic, social and cultural engagement. Furthermore, the stigma of living under CIM regimes coupled with socioeconomic hardship only serves to further undermine the participants’ agency. Ultimately, the current CIM regime is entirely incompatible with the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples – particularly regarding the right to equality and non-discrimination, and self-determination.[23]

1.14To this day, the political narrative frames First Peoples in a deficit discourse, portraying us as people who cannot manage our money, who abuse alcohol or drugs, and who do not wish to work. The evidence heard from the inquiry was that many captured did not even struggle in this realm, as we know people are mostly captured based on location. The continuation of income management in various forms, suggests the continuation of the same fundamentally racist assumptions that justified the original protection regime in the 20th century—that First Peoples are inferior to non-Indigenous peoples and cannot be trusted to enjoy the same rights and privileges as the general community.

It is deeply shameful that in Australia, 2024, there is formal policy on the books premised on the inferiority of Aboriginal people, that seeks to deny fundamental rights enjoyed by the broader community “for their own good”.[24]

One thing that's important to understand in this, the way the system operates now in the Northern Territory, is people are assumed to not have a decision-making capacity and they have to prove otherwise.[25]

In 2012, 91 percent of people on Income Management in the NT were Aboriginal and three quarters of all exemptions had been granted to non-Indigenous people.[26]

Different rules for White people. They think Aboriginal people are the only people who watch porn and drink alcohol. You live in the suburbs, you don’t have a Basics Card, but if you live in a Blackfulla camp, you have a Basics Card, a card where you can’t even draw money out. Is that racist? Discrimination? Impacting on our human rights. Borroloola women.[27]

Rather than fostering independence and capacity-building, income management policies have inadvertently increased dependence on welfare for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.[28]

1.15Although framed as a measure to protect ‘vulnerable communities’, the fact that the Racial Discrimination Act had to be suspended to allow the original policy to proceed, which impacted almost exclusively First Nations communities, should raise significant concerns about the weaponisation of political, social, and economic means towards the very people they purport to protect.[29] While the policy has been expanded to other disadvantaged groups, its origins and most significant impacts remain tied to First Nations communities.

Statistics show that approximately 90% of people on income management in the Northern Territory (NT) are Indigenous and 80% of all people across Australia on income management are Indigenous.[30]

We have to remember that in the Northern Territory one-third of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population aged 15 years and over have been subject to income management.[31]

This was a colonial form of governance, based explicitly on the racist idea that Indigenous people were less capable of managing money than non-Indigenous people. Income Management was seen as a revival of this colonial practice.[32]

1.16Whole generations of people have grown up under this new economic apartheid, starting with Howard’s “Basics Card”, then Rudd’s “Indue card”, and the now relabelled “Smart Card” by the Albanese government - all still owned by the same company, Indue Ltd, who profits enormously from the administration of these cards, and has a long, questionable relationship with Services Australia which goes beyond the scope of this report. As with so many colonial neoliberal mechanisms, it costs far more money sustaining the systems of oppression than it would to dismantle them.

The department advised that the estimate of the total costs to administer the enhanced Income Management program for the period between 4 September 2023 and 3 March 2024 is $30.2 million.[33]

I would like to remind the committee that the cost of managing one income managed account was $19,000 and more in order to quarantine roughly $300 of welfare payments on a fortnightly basis. We approached the Department of Social Services for access to the income management accounts to understand how much money was drawn from the income managed accounts, but we were refused such a request, and, indeed, the Department of Social Services did not respond to our inquiry.[34]

It extends the legacy of colonisation and intergenerational disadvantage.It disproportionately targets Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and often exacerbates poverty.[35]

What people are really objecting to is a power relationship. So what’s going on is people are being controlled and demeaned. You can change the colour of the card, you can change the percentage that's on the card and you can change which accounts you can operate, but the power relationship is one of control and one where people lose control and feel demeaned and humiliated.[36]

Harm Caused

Despite seventeen years of trials, every consultation conducted on income management over the past two decades—including both government evaluations and peer-reviewed independent research—has shown that ‘compulsory income management has been an expensive failure’[37]

1.17Throughout years of inquiries, including this one, the government has never been able to show that compulsory income management ‘works’, whilst a large body of peer-reviewed research and independent program evaluations have proved significant negative outcomes, and evidence of significant harm. Compulsory income management has literally devastated communities, and ruined the health, happiness, and livelihoods of many First Peoples, the impacts of which span generations.[38] My office has had many people reach out to tell their stories about the ways compulsory income management has wreaked havoc in their lives, trapping people in powerlessness, poverty, stigma, and shame, causing serious harm and even deaths. There is still no monitoring and evaluation around what is happening for the 19,000 people in the Northern Territory who have largely been subjected to Compulsory Income Management since the intervention. This program has been in place with no ‘oversight’ since 2014, when Australian National University released a government-requested evaluation saying Compulsory Income Management in the Northern Territory was causing harm and not meeting its objectives. The committee laid out in their report some of the key areas of harm caused as including detrimental impacts on women and children, including fleeing domestic violence, exacerbating family tensions and meeting children's needs, added pressures to share limited cash funds, increasing the cost of purchasing items by restricting people from the cash economy, adding further complexity to peoples' financial arrangements and budgeting, causing stigma and mental health concerns, privacy breaches, and causing feelings of disempowerment.[39]

We have a situation in the Northern Territory where the same cohort of First Nations people have been subject to this measure in different iterations since the intervention in 2007. This means that some people have lived their whole adult lives having their human rights restricted through compulsory income management. This cannot continue.[40]

The incompatibility of human rights with compulsory income management is far reaching, and considerable peer reviewed research shows the significant harms to people who are being subjected to it.[41]

A lot of people reported adverse mental health outcomes after being stigmatised so heavily and so unjustly by the government.[42]

APO NT cannot stress enough that compulsory income management is a failed regime and should not continue.[43]

One of the most heartbreaking things that I saw in multiple fieldwork sites was people with disabilities not being able to access what they needed with their cashless debit card or their BasicsCard….she experienced health outcomes so adverse that her health was irreparably damaged by the stress because she had trouble paying her rent and all sorts of problems with getting what she needed as a person with disability. The end result for that woman was irreparable damage to her body, where she was literally further disabled as a result of being put on this card.[44]

Since 2017 researchers have shown statistical proof of the negative impacts on children, It has been found to have an adverse impact on birth outcomes,[45] affecting their birth weight and school attendance, caused by compulsory income management in the Northern Territory.[46]

Children who were exposed to the policy in utero, by age 5 they had spent almost five times as many days in hospital as the children who were not exposed to the policy in utero. This adds up to five additional days spent in a hospital by the age of five, mainly due to infections that these children contracted. We also found that when the policy hit each community, community life was interrupted. We had daily school attendance data, so we could observe school attendance in the days after the policy was introduced. In the first five months of the policy introduction, school attendance dropped by five per cent.[47]

Compulsory income management is disempowering, adds to stigmatisation, and fails to address unemployment and the underlining, structural issues that force Aboriginal people into poverty and financial hardship, often experienced intergenerationally. There is no evidence that it changes behaviour (as some supporters claim) nor equips people with much needed financial literacy and economic autonomy, and levers from which to escape cycles of meagre welfare.[48]

1.18The harm extends to First Peoples being restricted in continuing their cultural practices. My office has heard of the case of David[49], a Traditional Owner and cultural leader, who uses his income to support community ceremonies and cultural activities, which are vital to the survival of his peoples’ heritage. When his income was placed under management, he could no longer contribute as freely to these events. The restrictions made it difficult to purchase supplies for ceremonies or to assist others in the community who were in need. This disruption not only affected David’s role within the community but also threatened the continuity of cultural practices that have been passed down through generations. David felt a deep sense of loss, shame and frustration as his ability to uphold his cultural responsibilities was undermined. Considering the depth and breadth of harm caused by these harmful policies, those subject to the harmful policy of compulsory income management must be granted compensation.

Lack of Consultation and No Consent

1.19Compulsory Income Management was imposed on many First Nations communities without their self-determined free, prior, and informed consent, which is protected within international human rights law in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), to which Australia is a signatory. The UNDRIP embodies many human rights principles already protected under international customary and treaty law, and is the most comprehensive international instrument on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, setting the minimum standard of human rights for First Peoples and State Partie’ interactions with First Peoples. Throughout this inquiry, the committee heard from various submitters about the disregard for fundamental human rights by governments and industry, a lack of genuine consultation and a disregard for the need to obtain free, prior and informed consent. This is an all too common theme in the standard operating procedures of successive governments.

Too many government agencies are implementing versions of shared decision-making that involve consulting with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on a predetermined solution, rather than collaborating on the problem and co-designing a solution.[50]

I'm sure the department will talk this afternoon about all the consultations it's doing. I think a question for them is: what else is on the table for communities to choose?[51]

Major reports that examined community consultation processes initiated by the Commonwealth government on NT Intervention legislation, central finding of this research was that compulsory Income Management was a racist imposition on the lives of Aboriginal people, who overwhelmingly resented being targeted and having their rights restricted.[52]

1.20Meaningful consultation requires more than just tokenistic meetings; it involves engaging with communities in a way that respects their knowledge, perspectives, and aspirations. Unfortunately, the process leading up to the introduction of income management was rushed and superficial, with little regard for the views and concerns of First Peoples. This lack of proper consultation has led to the imposition of policies that do not reflect the needs or desires of the communities they are supposed to help. Moreover, it has fuelled resentment and resistance, as many feel their voices have been ignored in decisions that profoundly affect their lives.[53] This paternalistic approach is not only unethical but also counterproductive, as it undermines trust and fails to address the root causes of social and economic issues within our communities.[54] The concerns with consultation were addressed by the committee,[55] including that remote communities were not consulted when the scheme was first introduced,[56]and that the current approach to consultation has been harmful and divisive, and may not even have taken place with those on income management themselves.

By and large community based consultations have not effectively engaged with those for whom the policy has directly impacted and instead has created greater community friction by seeking and obtaining the views of others in the community about those on income support payments.[57]

The consultation processes did nothing to shift this reform trajectory, despite strong protestations from many Aboriginal people about the discriminatory and destructive impact of Income Management. Government commissioned reports on the effectiveness or otherwise of Income Management in this period also failed to demonstrate any evidence the scheme was improving people’s lives and were full of testimony from Aboriginal people who felt humiliated by the scheme.[58]

Consultation is Not Consent

1.21Importantly, despite what governments and industry prefer to think, mere consultation is not consent, and does not fulfil the obligations outlined under the UNDRIP.

I underline that consultation is not free, prior and informed consent.[59]

Nuance must be considered, self-determination be prioritised above all and resistance of any one-size fits all decision making. Compulsory policies do not support this.[60]

1.22Free, prior and informed consent is one of the core principles of the UNDRIP and a key prerequisite for colonial government interactions with First Peoples and ensuring their right to self-determination is upheld. Article 32 of the UNDRIP states:

Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources.

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.

States shall provide effective mechanisms for just and fair redress for any such activities, and appropriate measures shall be taken to mitigate adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural or spiritual impact.

1.23The elements of a common understanding of free, prior and informed consent have been articulated in the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues’ Report of the International Workshop on Methodologies regarding Free, Prior and Informed Consent and Indigenous Peoples:

Free implies that there is no coercion, intimidation or manipulation.

Prior implies that consent is to be sought sufficiently in advance of any authorization or commencement of activities and respect is shown to time requirements of First Nations consultation/consensus processes.

Informed implies that information is provided that covers a range of aspects, including the nature, size, pace, reversibility and scope of any proposed project or activity; the purpose of the project as well as its duration; locality and areas affected; a preliminary assessment of the likely economic, social, cultural and environmental impact, including potential risks; personnel likely to be involved in the execution of the project; and procedures the project may entail. This process may include the option of withholding consent. Consultation and participation are crucial components of a consent process.

1.24The absence of genuine consent in the rollout of income management reflects a continuation of these colonial attitudes, where decisions are made about our lives without our involvement or agreement.

NPYWC’s theory of change and service provision is deeply rooted in strengths based policies and localised processes. In essence – allowing Anangu to determine what is best for Anangu. This is the catalyst for transforming communities with the intention of every person fulfilling their right to full emotional, social, physical and spiritual wellbeing.[61]

Alternative Policy Responses: What else is on the table?

You've got APO NT, the Aboriginal Peak Organisations representatives, calling for the end of compulsory income management. They have an extensive idea around economic development and community development for communities that has been well researched and designed with a deep community engagement, and compulsory income management is not on there. Why is the department spending millions of dollars doing consultation when compulsory income management is the only thing on the table, yet communities have got an expansive array of ideas and alternatives that have been there forever.[62]

1.25The overwhelming evidence heard by the committee shone a light on impacted communities who are struggling with the intersectional impacts ofcolonialism including forced poverty, lack of services and opportunities. This was brought by up many, including Aunty Barbara Shaw, a community leader from the Alice Springs, and the current chair of the NT Aboriginal Investment Corporation:

“The main struggle our people face is the extreme cost of living crisis and the price of food, which is even worse in remote communities, where prices can be triple compared to the big supermarkets in our town centres. There are so many health issues - diabetes, heart problems, kidney failure. People need healthy food, but they complain they are walking out of the shops with just one bag of shopping after spending their whole payment. Income Management does not help our people with this problem at all, we need better incomes and opportunities to access good food to stay healthy.[63]

The purported intent of income management is to help people receiving income support payments budget for the basics. A focus on improved budgeting is of limited utility when people have barely enough money to survive.[64]

While Indigenous poverty rates are decreasing (albeit to a small degree) across most parts of the country, in remote NT and West Kimberly, they are escalating – significantly. This level of poverty is unparalleled elsewhere in Australia and evidence of serious policy failure – and income management is a wholly inadequate policy to address it.[65]

Public authorities are responsible for ensuring the effective administration or supervision of a social security system.[66]

1.26This situation highlights decades of policies from successive governments across jurisdictions who have breached their human rights obligations under the UNDRIP as well as other key human rights instruments which require them to provide an adequate standard of living, including adequate food, nutrition, clean drinking water, clothing and housing, and the continuous improvement of living conditions.[67] The evidence from the inquiry made it clear that communities impacted by CIM are living in poverty and have limited access to permanent employment, and that income management would not change this reality. Many submitters agreed, while addressing poverty and food security were positive goals that should be prioritised by governments, compulsory income management was not an appropriate mechanism, and that there were other more effective mechanisms to address this.

In this regard, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has identified a 'minimum core' to the right to social security, requiring that States Parties ensure access to a social security scheme that provides a minimum essential level of benefits to all individuals and families that will enable them to acquire at least essential health care, basic shelter and housing, water and sanitation, foodstuffs, and the most basic forms of education, and ensure the right of access to social security systems or schemes on a non-discriminatory basis, especially for disadvantaged or marginalised individuals or groups.[68]

Income Management had made things harder for people who were already living in dire poverty, struggling to get by on meagre Centrelink payments.[69]

Why aren't we talking about locally based community organisations having funding to employ people in community development programs?[70]

International human rights law requires that social security benefits must be adequate in amount and duration.[71]

APO NT recommends that the Australian Government to increase social welfare payments to alleviate deepening poverty in remote communities including welfare payments to be permanently and adequately increased to keep people out of poverty.[72]

1.27Harsh punitive measures are pushing not only First Peoples but also other community members further into marginalisation. In addition, access to life-saving services, programs, and opportunities must not be linked with, or be dependent upon participation in punitive programs. If the goal is to create safer and healthier communities, the significant funds currently allocated to Income Management could be better spent on adequately funding social services, improving access to education and training, and ensuring sufficient payment rates for those who depend on income support.

1.28A comprehensive approach to supporting First Nations communities involves grounding development programs in self-determination and cultural respect, with a focus on building local capacity and leadership for sustainable, long-term growth. Investing in education and vocational training that incorporates First Peoples’ knowledge and languages, such as Indigenous Ranger Programs, is essential to creating opportunities that reinforce cultural connections. Economic development should be supported through funding, mentorship, and resources for First Nations-owned businesses, aligning with cultural values to promote self-sufficiency. Health and well-being initiatives must address the holistic needs of First Peoples, while increased investment in culturally appropriate housing and infrastructure is critical to improving living conditions and preserving cultural practices. Additionally, revitalising and preserving First Peoples’ languages and heritage is vital for fostering cultural pride, particularly among young people. Finally, providing resources for First Peoples-led advocacy organisations and legal services is crucial to protecting the rights of our people and addressing systemic discrimination and inequality.

1.29While reforming is challenging, especially when populist rhetoric and political agendas overshadow a fair evaluation of a program’s costs and benefits, all that is required is the political will.

Faced by social or economic problems there can be pressure on governments and departments to be seen as doing something. In such circumstances even ineffectual programs, or programs which have some adverse impacts, are seen as preferable to doing nothing, or admitting that the problem is much more fundamental than just its surface manifestation. This again can be exacerbated where such programs also serve as ‘dog whistles’ to certain elements of the electorate, for example, that punitive action is being taken, and where the population which is subject to the program is relatively powerless. All of these factors appear to be in place with respect to income management.[73]

1.30The complete abolition of all forms of compulsory income management, including:

The abolition of all forms of compulsory quarantining of welfare payments and the repeal of Part 3B of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) this includes amending the Act to revoke the Ministerial discretionary power to extend the Enhanced Income Management regime to new regions or jurisdictions via instrument.

Working with states and territories to amend any relevant legislation in other jurisdictions to abolish all legislation, programs and policies that use non-voluntary income management practices.

The Social Security Act be amended, so as to insert ‘objects’. The ‘objects’ should make direct reference to Australia’s international human rights obligations - including ESCR, ICCPR, UNDRIP and under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

1.31The complete removal of all punitive, mandatory mutual obligations requirements for access to social services more broadly, and to discontinue the practice of embedding compulsory income management, or other mandatory obligations, as a feature of the social security framework or access to services and opportunities.

1.32Ongoing, sustained investment in a comprehensive range of local support programs, opportunities, and life-saving services accessible to all. This should include community-driven alternatives to income support, the creation of genuine, self-determined, culturally appropriate, community-controlled jobs with fair wages and conditions, adequate training and skill development, and the revitalization of local community decision-making.

1.33Permanently and adequately increase the rate of all social security income support payments to a safe, healthy and sustainable level, including increasing the remote Area Allowance (RAA) and the maximum threshold for Commonwealth Rent Assistance, and increasing all payments in line with wage movements, including indexation.

1.34Targeted efforts by the Department of Social Services to ensure that First Peoples in remote communities are receiving the payments for which they are eligible.

1.35Consistent with this committee's inquiry into the Human Rights Framework in Australia, that the Australian Parliament should enact a federal Human Rights Act.

1.36Compensation should be provided to those impacted by compulsory income management, ensuring that those who were subject to these measures receive appropriate reparations.

1.37If a voluntary model of income management is to be pursued, which is fraught, and unnecessary, then it must be entirely based on the principles of full, free, prior and informed consent through an opt-in system, whereby those who choose not to participate even on a voluntary basis, are not denied access to any services or opportunities available, or otherwise disadvantaged.

1.38That while compulsory income management remains in place, any future proposed amendments to compulsory income management legislation, and any future Ministerial determinations affecting compulsory income management, need to be transitional only, pending the phasing out of compulsory income management, including a sunset clause.

1.39All approaches with respect to policy in this area must be in line with the principle of free, prior, and informed consent contained in Article 19 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Senator Lidia Thorpe

Senator for Victoria

Independent

Footnotes

[1]Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Social Security (Administration) Amendment ; (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022, Report 3 of 2022 (7 September 2022);Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022, Report 5 of 2022 (20 October 2022);UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations on the eighteenth to twentieth periodic reports of Australia (26 December 2017) CERD/C/AUS/CO/18-20, [23].

[2]Aboriginal Peak Organisations NT, Submission 18, p. 2.

[3]Associate Professor Elise Klein, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 5 July 2024, p.37.

[4]Ciara Murphy, ‘Damages in the Australian human rights context’ (2022) 27(2) Australian Journal of Human Rights, 311, 312

[5]Australia, Sixth periodic report submitted by Australia under articles 16 and 17 of the Covenant, due in 2022 (received October 2023) E/C.12/AUS/6, [235]–[237].

[6]Jumbunna Institute of Indigenous Education and Research, Submission 26, p.1.

[7]Mr Patrick Boneham, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 5 July 2024, p. 53.

[8]United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 16: Article 17 (1988) [4].

[9]Jumbunna Institute of Indigenous Education and Research, Submission 26, p. 2.

[10]Dr Padraic John Gibson, Senior Researcher, Jumbunna Institute for Education and Research, University of Technology Sydney, Committee Hansard, 5 July 2024, p. 35.

[11]Associate Professor Elise Klein, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 5 July 2024, p. 41.

[12]North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, Submission 19, p. 3.

[13]Article 11(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); See also articles 5(e)(iii) and 7 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) , article 14(2)(h) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) , articles 24(2)(c) and 27 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and Article 28 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

[14]Yoorok for Justice Reportinto Victoria’s Child Protection and Criminal Justice Systems for Justice Acknowledgement of country. Available at https://yoorrookforjustice.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Yoorrook-for-justice-report.pdf.

[15]Dr Padraic Gibson, Senior Researcher, Jumbunna Institute for Education and Research, University of Technology Sydney, Committee Hansard, 5 July 2024, p.29.

[16]Jumbunna Institute of Indigenous Education and Research, Submission 26, p.1.

[17]Jumbunna Institute of Indigenous Education and Research, Submission 26, p.2.

[18]Associate Professor Elise Klein, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 5 July 2024, p.37.

[19]Eddie Cubillo Director, Indigenous Law and Justice Hub, Submission to Inquiry into Australia’s Human Rights Framework.

[20]Dodson, P. 14 July 2007, ‘An entire culture is at stake’, The Age. Available at http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/an-entire-culture-is-at-stake/2007/07/13/1183833765256.html.

[21]North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, Submission 19, p.5.

[22]Jumbunna Institute of Indigenous Education and Research, Submission 26, p.4.

[23]North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, Submission 19, p.3.

[24]Elder Barbara Shaw, Jumbunna Institute of Indigenous Education and Research, Submission 26, p.7.

[25]Shane Foyster, North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency Ltd, Committee Hansard, 5 July 2024, p. 17.

[26]Jumbunna Institute of Indigenous Education and Research, Submission 26, p.4.

[27]AHRC, Wiyi Yani U Thangani (Women’s Voices) (2020) p. 545.

[28]National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations, Submission 12, p. 4.

[29]Tabitha Lean, National Network of Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls, and Anti-Poverty Network.

[30]Dr Padraic John Gibson, 2017, 10 impacts of the NT Intervention. Retrieved from https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/10-impacts-of-the-ntintervention/vzia753tx.

[31]Dr Jonathan Rob Bray, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 5 July 2024, p.32.

[32]Jumbunna Institute of Indigenous Education and Research, Submission 26, p.4.

[33]Department of Social Services, Income Management and enhanced Income Management Participant Data. See, Department of Social Services, answer to question on notice IQ24-000146, 29 July 2024 (received 22 August 2024).

[34]Professor Stephanie Schurer, Submission 4, p. 29.

[35]National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations, Submission 12, p. 4.

[36]Dr Padraic John Gibson, Senior Researcher, Jumbunna Institute for Education and Research, University of Technology Sydney, Committee Hansard, 5 July 2024, p. 35.

[37]Anglicare, Submission 3, p. 6.

[38]National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations, Submission 12, p. 4.

[39]Committee Report, paragraph 3.52.

[40]Associate Professor Elise Klein, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 5 July 2024, p.37.

[41]Associate Professor Elise Klein, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 5 July 2024, p.37.

[42]Dr Shelley Bielefeld, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 5 July 2024, p. 38.

[43]Aboriginal Peak Organisations NT, Submission 18, p. 4.

[44]Dr Shelley Bielefeld, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 5 July 2024, p. 38.

[45]Australian Human Rights Commission (2017), Submission 30.

[46]Associate Professor Elise Klein, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 5 July 2024, p.37.

[47]Professor Stephanie Schurer, Submission 4, p. 28.

[48]North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, Submission 19, p.4.

[49]Name changed for anonymity.

[50]Productivity Commission 2023, Review of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, Draft Report, Canberra, July.

[51]Associate Professor Elise Klein, Private Capacity, Committee Hansard, 5 July 2024, p. 46.

[52]Craig Longman, Nicole Watson, Alastair Nicholson, Alison Vivian, Terry Priest, Jason De Santolo, Padraic Gibson, Larissa Behrendt & Eva Cox, Listening But Not Hearing: A Response to the NTER Stronger Futures Consultations June to August 2011, Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning, University of Technology Sydney, March 2012; Alastair Nicholson, Larissa Behrendt, Alison Vivian, Nicole Watson and Michelle Harris, Will They Be Heard? A response to the NTER Consultations June to August 2009, Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning Research Unit, University of Technology Sydney, November 2009.

[53]Tabitha Lean, National Network of Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls, and Anti-Poverty Network.

[54]Tabitha Lean, National Network of Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls, and Anti-Poverty Network.

[55]See, for example: Mrs Jessica Stevens, Accountable Income Management Network, Committee Hansard, 5 July 2024, p. 23; and Jumbunna Institute of Indigenous Education and Research, Submission 26, p. 3.

[56]Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Women’s Council, Submission 2, p. 3.

[57]Accountable Income Management Network, Submission 6, p. 4.

[58]Jumbunna Institute of Indigenous Education and Research, Submission 26, p. 3–4.

[59]Associate Professor Elise Klein, Private Capacity, Committee Hansard, 5 July 2024, p. 37.

[60]Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Women’s Council, Submission 2, p.2.

[61]Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Women’s Council, Submission 2, p.1.

[62]Associate Professor Elise Klein, Private Capacity, Committee Hansard, 5 July 2024, p. 46.

[63]Jumbunna Institute of Indigenous Education and Research, Submission 26, p.6.

[64]North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, Submission 19, p.3.

[65]North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, Submission 19, p.4; Dr Francis Markham, submission to the Inquiry into the extent and nature of poverty in Australia (October 2023), Submission no. 251, p.6–7, (https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=9cff3504-f70f-42a7-b379- a5fda9f7b2dc&subId=750035).

[66]UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 19: The Right to Social Security (2008) [11].

[67]Article 11(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); See also articles 5(e)(iii) and 7 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) , article 14(2)(h) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) , articles 24(2)(c) and 27 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and Article 28 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

[68]UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 19: The Right to Social Security (2008) [59].

[69]Jumbunna Institute of Indigenous Education and Research, Submission 26, p.3.

[70]Dr Padraic John Gibson, Senior Researcher, Jumbunna Institute for Education and Research, University of Technology Sydney, Committee Hansard, 5 July 2024, p.35.

[71]UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 19: The Right to Social Security (2008) [2].

[72]North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, Submission 19, p.3.

[73]Response to Questions on Notice from Senator Thorpe: Professor Matthew Gray & Dr J. Rob Bray 17 July 2024.