The Uni of Adelaide report is the one the govt commissioned and everyone wanted to know what was in it as they were pushing through the bill. It’s just been released. It’s long.

https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/02_2021/fac_evaluation-cdc-ceduna-east-kimberley-and-goldfields-region-consolidated-report_012021.pdf

sarahs mum said:

The Uni of Adelaide report is the one the govt commissioned and everyone wanted to know what was in it as they were pushing through the bill. It’s just been released. It’s long.

https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/02_2021/fac_evaluation-cdc-ceduna-east-kimberley-and-goldfields-region-consolidated-report_012021.pdf

got that up, started, get to it later properly, looks like a bit of a read

From Facebook.

No Cashless Debit Card Australia
📍💜This data is especially vindicating for us today…though the report contains some heartbreaking statistics, especially on stigma and discrimination, it is not nothing that the most expensive review of CDC, commissioned by the LNP itself,has supported OUR data and assertions. Thank you to every group member, fighter, warrior, mod and admin for persisting.

No Cashless Debit Card Australia
📍A reminder this report was due to be released PRIOR to the Dec 10 vote, it was a report that Centre Alliance
promised not to vote without seeing…and with its release, you can see why it was withheld by the LNP. See now, for yourself, the full impact of their betrayal and manipulation of the Senate and of people on cards in its full light.

No Cashless Debit Card Australia
Less than 1/3 of 1/4 of all people on cards reported having any positive result at all. For the remaining 2/3rds of that quarter, life got worse, and for the other 3/4 of people on cards – nothing changed.

No Cashless Debit Card Australia
📍👉PLEASE NOTE: The results of this particular data set above could be the case for a “voluntary measure” push in one nutshell. Voluntary meaning those who like/want to stay on card should have that right and those who do not and for whom the card is making life worse, be taken off immediately. HOWEVER : Despite the percentages indicated above, when it comes to ALL site collective data – item 7.1 – the report shows 74% of ALL respondents overall want OFF the card. So even including those finding any benefit, almost 74% of all respondents over all still want off the card.
- Amanda, doing her best…more detailed post tomorrow ok.

The term stakeholder confuses me.

sarahs mum said:

The term stakeholder confuses me.

It’s the person who holds the betting slips for an SP Bookie.

aka corporate wanker.

sarahs mum said:

The term stakeholder confuses me.

when we talk about ‘stakeholders’ when writing proposals etc it means the people who might benefit from the research (eg Uni) or the people who might be interested due to a financial reason..

Arts said:

sarahs mum said:

The term stakeholder confuses me.

when we talk about ‘stakeholders’ when writing proposals etc it means the people who might benefit from the research (eg Uni) or the people who might be interested due to a financial reason..

So..Indue because they get the financial return and the government because they get the data.

sarahs mum said:

Arts said:

sarahs mum said:

The term stakeholder confuses me.

when we talk about ‘stakeholders’ when writing proposals etc it means the people who might benefit from the research (eg Uni) or the people who might be interested due to a financial reason..

So..Indue because they get the financial return and the government because they get the data.

Well what it is supposed to mean is everybody who is affected by whatever is being discussed, so in this case it would mean Indue, the people who use the card, and I suppose those businesses that accept the card as payment.

In practice Rule’s cynicism may be more accurate.

sarahs mum said:

Arts said:

sarahs mum said:

The term stakeholder confuses me.

when we talk about ‘stakeholders’ when writing proposals etc it means the people who might benefit from the research (eg Uni) or the people who might be interested due to a financial reason..

So..Indue because they get the financial return and the government because they get the data.

they would include the ‘client’ as a stakeholder also… basically anyone who might have a vested interest in the scheme.

Arts said:

sarahs mum said:

Arts said:

when we talk about ‘stakeholders’ when writing proposals etc it means the people who might benefit from the research (eg Uni) or the people who might be interested due to a financial reason..

So..Indue because they get the financial return and the government because they get the data.

they would include the ‘client’ as a stakeholder also… basically anyone who might have a vested interest in the scheme.

I’ve just read some stuff about meeting stakeholders in the field. So I suppose it includes various groups too.

sarahs mum said:

The Uni of Adelaide report is the one the govt commissioned and everyone wanted to know what was in it as they were pushing through the bill. It’s just been released. It’s long.

https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/02_2021/fac_evaluation-cdc-ceduna-east-kimberley-and-goldfields-region-consolidated-report_012021.pdf

It is interesting to note that the people who thought the Indue Card improved their lives were Aborigines. The vast majority of white people especially from Kalgoorlie thought the Card was detrimental to the lives. This is largely what I have been saying that there are large minorities in Aboriginal communities where there are strong benefits, especially for children’s welfare. It is pretty obvious that those Aborigi9nal male and sometimes females with families who get on the grog are going to neglect their families and many children will go hungry or be encouraged into a life of crime.

The whites are a highly vocal group and like the squeaky wheel are getting all the oil therefore dominating the complaints, largely because it is an inconvenience for them. However the good aspects of the Card are drowned out by these people including Aborigines who have had to reduce their drinking and socialising. I wonder how many Aboriginal women volunteered the information that when their drunken husbands return they knock the living daylights out of them and via these sort of actions make their children roam the streets at night, usually with the purpose of criminal intent.

Certainly the disadvantages of the Card are considerable and adversely affect the majority of users and hence considerable modification is required, but that brings other problems like discrimination, racism and many other reactions from people who like the Alcohol Industry and others who wish to kill off the good along with the bad and we are left with an even greater travesty of justice. Nevertheless I do get very tired of the dominant position given those with far minor problems with the Card, other than those whose families are benefited by now being fed and clothed and provided with other necessities. And don’t forget the reduction of physical abuse dished out from drunken partners.

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

The Uni of Adelaide report is the one the govt commissioned and everyone wanted to know what was in it as they were pushing through the bill. It’s just been released. It’s long.

https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/02_2021/fac_evaluation-cdc-ceduna-east-kimberley-and-goldfields-region-consolidated-report_012021.pdf

It is interesting to note that the people who thought the Indue Card improved their lives were Aborigines. The vast majority of white people especially from Kalgoorlie thought the Card was detrimental to the lives. This is largely what I have been saying that there are large minorities in Aboriginal communities where there are strong benefits, especially for children’s welfare. It is pretty obvious that those Aborigi9nal male and sometimes females with families who get on the grog are going to neglect their families and many children will go hungry or be encouraged into a life of crime.

The whites are a highly vocal group and like the squeaky wheel are getting all the oil therefore dominating the complaints, largely because it is an inconvenience for them. However the good aspects of the Card are drowned out by these people including Aborigines who have had to reduce their drinking and socialising. I wonder how many Aboriginal women volunteered the information that when their drunken husbands return they knock the living daylights out of them and via these sort of actions make their children roam the streets at night, usually with the purpose of criminal intent.

Certainly the disadvantages of the Card are considerable and adversely affect the majority of users and hence considerable modification is required, but that brings other problems like discrimination, racism and many other reactions from people who like the Alcohol Industry and others who wish to kill off the good along with the bad and we are left with an even greater travesty of justice. Nevertheless I do get very tired of the dominant position given those with far minor problems with the Card, other than those whose families are benefited by now being fed and clothed and provided with other necessities. And don’t forget the reduction of physical abuse dished out from drunken partners.

I thought it was interesting that it was more postive in the Kimberleys. But they are far from a great selection of choices and imposed limitations.

sarahs mum said:

The Uni of Adelaide report is the one the govt commissioned and everyone wanted to know what was in it as they were pushing through the bill. It’s just been released. It’s long.

https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/02_2021/fac_evaluation-cdc-ceduna-east-kimberley-and-goldfields-region-consolidated-report_012021.pdf

This was just a trial, I’m sure they’d go up in the full rollout due to efficiencies of scale

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

The Uni of Adelaide report is the one the govt commissioned and everyone wanted to know what was in it as they were pushing through the bill. It’s just been released. It’s long.

https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/02_2021/fac_evaluation-cdc-ceduna-east-kimberley-and-goldfields-region-consolidated-report_012021.pdf

It is interesting to note that the people who thought the Indue Card improved their lives were Aborigines. The vast majority of white people especially from Kalgoorlie thought the Card was detrimental to the lives. This is largely what I have been saying that there are large minorities in Aboriginal communities where there are strong benefits, especially for children’s welfare. It is pretty obvious that those Aborigi9nal male and sometimes females with families who get on the grog are going to neglect their families and many children will go hungry or be encouraged into a life of crime.

The whites are a highly vocal group and like the squeaky wheel are getting all the oil therefore dominating the complaints, largely because it is an inconvenience for them. However the good aspects of the Card are drowned out by these people including Aborigines who have had to reduce their drinking and socialising. I wonder how many Aboriginal women volunteered the information that when their drunken husbands return they knock the living daylights out of them and via these sort of actions make their children roam the streets at night, usually with the purpose of criminal intent.

Certainly the disadvantages of the Card are considerable and adversely affect the majority of users and hence considerable modification is required, but that brings other problems like discrimination, racism and many other reactions from people who like the Alcohol Industry and others who wish to kill off the good along with the bad and we are left with an even greater travesty of justice. Nevertheless I do get very tired of the dominant position given those with far minor problems with the Card, other than those whose families are benefited by now being fed and clothed and provided with other necessities. And don’t forget the reduction of physical abuse dished out from drunken partners.

what would be the outcome if social security was abolished, do you think, serious proposition, I ask because of the possibility that whatever it is isn’t enough and some of the problems of it being not enough are the same as if it didn’t exist, so i’m asking you if you believe social security payments are enough, your opinion, are the payments an adequate amount?

say income management works, but would work much better if the amount being paid were increased substantially, would you be inclined to stay with not increasing it, or increase it substantially to get the best result

i’m keeping an open mind on the subject, exploring the possibility our culture licenses kicking poor people, treats them worse than dogs for failing the capitalist way, failing the lessons

Arts said:

sarahs mum said:

The term stakeholder confuses me.

when we talk about ‘stakeholders’ when writing proposals etc it means the people who might benefit from the research (eg Uni) or the people who might be interested due to a financial reason..

Does the Uni really benefit from the research….really?

Someone was telling me about their missus working in a care home looking after an elderly aboriginal lady ending up there after she’s left the bosom of her aboriginal community because she grew tired of being raped. Yeah – stop them buying grog.

sibeen said:

Arts said:

sarahs mum said:

The term stakeholder confuses me.

when we talk about ‘stakeholders’ when writing proposals etc it means the people who might benefit from the research (eg Uni) or the people who might be interested due to a financial reason..

Does the Uni really benefit from the research….really?

they do when it’s their name plastered all over it… and on the other hand they really get shat on if the research is controversial (eg the Zimbardo experiment which is more popularly known as the Stanford prison experiment.. and forever tarnished the name of Stanford). It’s because of this that ethics committees are as anal as they are in proposing research.

I’m just going to leave this here…

Alcohol and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
Statistics show that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are less likely to drink alcohol than other Australians. But those that do drink are more likely to drink at dangerous levels.

https://www.health.gov.au/health-topics/alcohol/alcohol-throughout-life/alcohol-and-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples

Page 15.

‘ These stakeholder organisations included representatives from federal, state and local government organisations (N=21); CDC local partners or shopfronts (N=16); welfare and advocacy organisations (N=31); Indigenous-run organisations (N=19); employment services (N=13), merchants (N=14); police (N=5) and the education, housing and health sectors (N=21).’

sarahs mum said:

Page 15.

‘ These stakeholder organisations included representatives from federal, state and local government organisations (N=21); CDC local partners or shopfronts (N=16); welfare and advocacy organisations (N=31); Indigenous-run organisations (N=19); employment services (N=13), merchants (N=14); police (N=5) and the education, housing and health sectors (N=21).’

I wonder if taxpayers should be included as stakeholders. Seeing as how the Indue card costs an extra ten thousand or so per person.
Is your average taxpayer happy with how that money is being spent on this experiment? Happy with all aspects of how it is run? Happy with the outcomes? Happy with the transparency of it all?

the income management thing makes for a very effective distraction from the payments being inadequate, the latter sort of becomes a subordinate consideration, pushed into the background, I mean how could it be inadequate if you’ve got a policy saving people from wasting the money, misspending it

lends very effectively to keeping downward pressure on social security expenditure, not an entirely honest way of doing so in my opinion, to be inclined to get your perspective on broader normal from that

horrendous really, devious i’d say

Interviews were conducted with 78 CDC participants in both Ceduna and the Goldfields and 75 participants in the East Kimberley.

An overwhelming majority (78 per cent) of CDC participantinterviewees identified as being Indigenous, while around a third of interviewees were male (34 per cent) and two-thirds were female (66 per cent). Over half of respondents reported that they received Newstart Allowance13 (58 per cent), while around 14 per cent received the Disability Support Pension. Approximately 15 per cent of respondents received Parenting Payment (Partnered or Single).In the main, recruitment of CDC participant respondents occurred via stakeholder organisations.

A flyer advertising the opportunity to inform the research was developed and provided to stakeholders to distribute and/or display. People interested in participating in an interview either contacted the research team directly or consented to have their contact information provided to the research team by the stakeholder organisation. The interview sample is therefore somewhat skewed towards those CDC participants who were engaged with services. However, the opportunity to participate in the research was also advertised more broadly via flyers and social media to ensure that people not engaged with services were aware of the research and that they too had the opportunity to inform the research if they wished.

Page 17 of 236 Two groups of CDC participants were specifically targeted for interviews in order to have them proportionately represented in the overall qualitative research. These groups were “older CDC participants” and “family members”. This was done in response to feedback from consultation with stakeholders and also because we know these to be hard to reach groups. It was therefore necessaryto make an explicit effort to engage and recruit them to ensure their representation. Overall, 20 per cent of all CDC participant interviewees were family members of another CDC participant who was interviewed as part of the evaluation. These interviews allowed us to understand how the CDC influenced families, where two or more members were on the CDC. Sixteen per cent of CDC participants interviewed were older being aged over 55 years.

transition said:

the income management thing makes for a very effective distraction from the payments being inadequate, the latter sort of becomes a subordinate consideration, pushed into the background, I mean how could it be inadequate if you’ve got a policy saving people from wasting the money, misspending it

lends very effectively to keeping downward pressure on social security expenditure, not an entirely honest way of doing so in my opinion, to be inclined to get your perspective on broader normal from that

horrendous really, devious i’d say

Where is the amount of payment an issue and being discussed here?

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

the income management thing makes for a very effective distraction from the payments being inadequate, the latter sort of becomes a subordinate consideration, pushed into the background, I mean how could it be inadequate if you’ve got a policy saving people from wasting the money, misspending it

lends very effectively to keeping downward pressure on social security expenditure, not an entirely honest way of doing so in my opinion, to be inclined to get your perspective on broader normal from that

horrendous really, devious i’d say

Where is the amount of payment an issue and being discussed here?

It is part of the contemporary discussion though. Newstart has been frozen for ever so long. If it had kept on increasing to CPI it would be pretty much the pandemic payment level.

I am happy for Transition to muse even though it is sort off subject.

one respondent volunteered for the scheme.

>>All respondents, both stakeholders and CDC participants, were offered a $50 supermarket voucher (which could not be used to purchase alcohol) to compensate for their time

sarahs mum said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

the income management thing makes for a very effective distraction from the payments being inadequate, the latter sort of becomes a subordinate consideration, pushed into the background, I mean how could it be inadequate if you’ve got a policy saving people from wasting the money, misspending it

lends very effectively to keeping downward pressure on social security expenditure, not an entirely honest way of doing so in my opinion, to be inclined to get your perspective on broader normal from that

horrendous really, devious i’d say

Where is the amount of payment an issue and being discussed here?

It is part of the contemporary discussion though. Newstart has been frozen for ever so long. If it had kept on increasing to CPI it would be pretty much the pandemic payment level.

I am happy for Transition to muse even though it is sort off subject.

Newstart has increased in nominal terms but in real terms is only the same as it were 20 years ago.

The smaller the proportion of CDC participants in the overall community, the more diluted the impact of the CDC will be in any community-level data, making it harder to measure impact.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

the income management thing makes for a very effective distraction from the payments being inadequate, the latter sort of becomes a subordinate consideration, pushed into the background, I mean how could it be inadequate if you’ve got a policy saving people from wasting the money, misspending it

lends very effectively to keeping downward pressure on social security expenditure, not an entirely honest way of doing so in my opinion, to be inclined to get your perspective on broader normal from that

horrendous really, devious i’d say

Where is the amount of payment an issue and being discussed here?

I floated the possibility that income management would or could be much more effective if payments were increased substantially, and further suggested income management is unlikely to be optimized that way because an unspoken dimension of income management assists keeping downward pressure on social security expenditure

it’s as simple as follows…

a policy is implemented to prevent (whoever) recipients from misspending their money, and vaporized from peoples minds with that thought is the possibility the payments are inadequate

Witty Rejoinder said:

sarahs mum said:

PermeateFree said:

Where is the amount of payment an issue and being discussed here?

It is part of the contemporary discussion though. Newstart has been frozen for ever so long. If it had kept on increasing to CPI it would be pretty much the pandemic payment level.

I am happy for Transition to muse even though it is sort off subject.

Newstart has increased in nominal terms but in real terms is only the same as it were 20 years ago.

Much better said than self. thank you..

3.4.2.3The timeframe covered by community-level data and the sequential nature of outcomes matter

The short timeframe covered by currently available community-level data sets, combined with the longer-term nature of many important potential outcomes is a shortcoming for use of this data in the evaluation.

3.4.2.4Changes in definitions of outcomes and concurrent policies hinder impact identification and detection

The advantages that could be gained by community-level data that covers a longer timeframe may be curtailed or even completely lost if there is a lack of continuity of measurement

3.5.2.1Activities subject to strong reporting biases

The social acceptability of some of the behaviours the CDC is attempting to reduce range from being partially socially unacceptable to being clearly illegal. As such, their reporting may suffer from severe biases and is difficult to measure in an accurate way. The generation of the CDC evaluation evidence base had to use information that was known to be imperfect but was also known to be the best that could be achieved within these constraints.

3.5.2.2Lack of experimental design in the trials

The trials were not implemented with an evaluation design built into them. This evaluation was put in place after the CDC trial started and, as such, it could not create methodological tools for measuring impact through a robust experimental framework. T

3.5.2.6Concurrent policies

There are many concurrent policies and initiatives that, like the CDC, aim to reduce harmful behaviours and mitigate the harm that they cause to individuals, their families, their friends, and their broader communities. In such circumstances, while it may be possible to measure and trace relevant outcomes, it may be much harder to identify whether it was the CDC that drove the observed change, or another policy or initiative, or both. In many instances, the evidence base for making such distinctions simply does not exist.

We particularly warn the reader to not interpret the evaluation’s findings as “either”, “or” statements (that is, statements that some aspect of the CDC either “works well” or “does not work at all”) or as “all encompassing” statements (that is, an outcome applies either to all CDC participants, or to none). The findings from this evaluation are mostly nuanced and specific, that is, they are findings that may apply up to a point and for some people, but not for others. We encourage the reader to bear this distinction in mind throughout their use of this report

In the Ceduna region, the key drivers of the CDC being trialled were considered to be the Far West Aboriginal Leaders Group. This group comprised CEOs of the five Aboriginal communities in the Far West region of South Australia as well as representatives from the Ceduna regional council. Respondents reported that these leaders had identified a need to do more than what was currently being undertaken to curb the social harm evident within the region. After the release of Andrew Forrest’s ‘Creating Parity’ report (Forrest 2014), the Australian Government presented the idea of a cashless debit card to the group. Insisting on community ownership and support, the leadership group had input over the design of the trial in the region. The group met fortnightly, and sometimes even weekly, with the Australian Government to discuss and design all aspects of the trial, even down to the appearance of the Card. This process was spoken about positively and was considered a true co-design exercise.

The key drivers of the CDC being trialled in the East Kimberley region were considered to be a select number of Aboriginal Leaders. These leaders had identified a need for an alternative approach to curb the evident social harm. Some of the leaders actively lobbied government to try to stimulate a reform agenda within the region and were presented with the proposition of the CDC trial. Some stakeholders considered that a lengthy period of consultation and negotiation then ensued. The leaders were reported by interview respondents to have requested that certain conditions sit around the CDC if it was to be trialled in the region. The first of these conditions was that the trial be accompanied by wraparound services, as they were all cognisant that, in and of itself, the Card was not enough to reduce the social harm that was being generated by substance misuse. The second of these conditions was that the community would determine which wraparound services needed to be funded. Finally, the leaders were said to have advocated for a community panel, which would allow people to apply to adjust the proportion of their income support payments which were placed onto the Card and, more significantly, apply to be able to exit the Card if they were meeting their responsibilities in regards to the five social norms35.

In the Goldfields region, i t was less clear who the primary driver of the CDC being implemented wasperceived to be. The City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder was reported to be one of the key players, lobbying for the CDC to be implemented in the Goldfields region and, having watched the Ceduna and East Kimberley trial closely, pushed for the Goldfields to join the trial. Regional councils were also central in the decision to implement the CDC. Likewise, it was noted that Rick Wilson, Federal Member for O’Connor, was also instrumental in supporting the Kalgoorlie-Boulder City and regional councils in the drive for the CDC. In some other communities within the Goldfields, it was the local residents group and Indigenous Elders who were the key supporters of the CDC in a hope to drive social change.

tomorrow.

No Cashless Debit Card Australia
28 mins ·
🚨ADELAIDE UNIVERSITY EVALUATION REPORT FEEDBACK POST:
Ok, here is a brief run down on the major points contained in the AU evaluation. I am still compiling and cross referencing.
I will leave my opinion to the end, except to say that even as is, this report DOES confirm and validate what we, and a multitude of groups, grassroots, social welfare, aboriginal/non aboriginal orgs, political and community have been saying for years – that the CDC is having little to no positive or constructive impact for the majority and is indeed having seriously deleterious effects ( bad impacts).
This AU report is extremely limited, at times contradictory, and while a clear explanation of methodologies is given, many of the caveats are irrelevant, and those that are critically relevant are not emphasised as being such or are needlessly word salad.
Conceding that AU had to design a evaluation tool as they went, it is ‘sufficient’ yet some major issues have been left unexamined ie: mortality.
Under legislation the key question that Adelaide University was required by law to answer in their conclusion was – “Is the program fit for purpose and expansion? Yet this question is not even answered at all and this is either a MAJOR oversight by this team OR this information and conclusions have been removed by the department in its ‘editing process’.
HINKLER trial site is not included in this evaluation, despite again, their inclusion being part of the legislated requirement for evaluation prior to any expansion.
——
▶️ Total number of forced card holders that were evaluated: 1,963.
At time of evaluation in the three sites there were 5,716 CDC participants, including 1,355 individuals currently recorded as living ‘out of area’. Only the first three sites where evaluated.
—— THE DATA:
▶️ CDC Benefit:
7% – Number of people who expressed a “ positive personal view about the CDC policy
▶️ Alcohol/Drinking:
Overall, the alcohol data is as a clear as mud.
The report states:
● 75% of people had not reduced alcohol drunk at all.
● 8% of people who did drink, drank monthly or less.
● 5% ( max percentage shown) drank more than 4 times a week.
● 46% – Number of people reporting they never consumed alcohol before or during “trials”.
● 11% – Total percentage of people who reported drinking ( not to excess) who reported a change or reduction in drinking habits
● 6 – the total number of people who stopped drinking after being put on the card, with the report stating this result could have been for any one of a dozen reasons or policies in place.
To their credit, evaluators have noted in item 5.1.2.1 that the minor reductions in drinking noted could be from other reasons and policy/ policing impacts than CDC. Even so, they ( or department editors) still try to push government line by stating “ This means that, notwithstanding the important interpretation caveat about the potential impacts of concurrent policies, at the time of the survey between a third and a half of the total CDC participant population surveyed and who consumed alcohol, have changed the way they do this.”
This statement is extremely misleading if not approval seeking, as it fails to take into account non CDC spending and non problem drinkers, and their own quantitative data ( the numbers) clearly show little to no change in drinking behaviors among CDC forced participants overall. Its a word salad, written to appease government in the face of abject policy failure, it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
As there is also no data offered that evaluated those who are just ‘swapping witch for bitch’ meaning what percentage of active problem drinkers that turned to drugs as a replacement for alcohol, what this ‘caveat’ speaks to, is that those 11% of people who did reduce or change drinking behavior were capable of doing so, and chose to do so, and never had a ‘problem’ with alcohol or stopping drinking at all.
This report specifically doesn’t specify how many of these people were “problem” drinkers or entered some form of treatment. There is NO quantitative data from ANY service or rehab center in this report at all. A HUGE absence.
“ There is a large majority of people in this evaluation who report that they do not drink at all, or who drink only moderately. It is important to note that when it comes to the behavioural responses that the CDC aims at regarding alcohol, this large majority of the CDC participants has nothing to do with the behavioural change (of reducing alcohol consumption, especially the misuse of alcohol) the CDC seeks to achieve. The qualitative research highlights the frustration these people feel in being subjected to the same constraints which aim to reduce problematic drinking (see section 5.9 and section 6.3.3). “ – evaluation team
Again:
“ Depending on the definition and the method of risk assessment used, there were between one in 10 and two in 10 CDC participants who reported the problematic drinking behaviours the CDC aims to influence” – evaluation team.
Yet despite this they go on to say:
Evaluators state that “around a fifth of the CDC population in the three trial sites considered by this evaluation have reported high level problem drinking behaviours that the CDC aims to reduce.41”
So, in one page we go from 1/10th, to 1/5th without any clarification.
Yep…clear as mud!
—
▶️ Financial benefit:
● 50% total number of people who used to be able to save, reporting they were unable to save money on the card.
● For every ONE person who stated they experienced an improvement there were TWO who with a worse financial outcome.
“CDC participants’ ability to save money deteriorated with about 50 per cent of those who used to be able to save money, reporting that they could not do so anymore.”
● Table 5-10: three out of four CDC participants reported they are in a similar financial position to the one they were 12 months prior to card roll outs. Of the remaining 1/4, two thirds reported financial situation to be worse, and one third a change for the better.
● Little to no real world financial impact data has been recorded here. By that I mean that there is NO indue data on declines of the card at all, and no data on the impact of IBAN/TT fees and charges, limitations on shopping etc on people on cards.. All the the truly tragic impacts – unable to bury kids, attend funerals or but medical supplies have seemingly been ignored completely or has been removed. There is no data or feed back from Banks or small business either.
▶️ Child welfare:
● +80% – when combined, responses of worse + same, the result is over 80% (See Table 5-17)
Noting the absurd absence of school data, child health data, any clinical data at all in the report.
On child welfare and family well-being – the quantitative ( numbers) data highlights the negative issues while the qualitative data ( opinions) which included stakeholder perceptions was more positive. Talk about shine a turd!
▶️ Gambling:
● 21% of all trial sites reported problems gambling
● 14% – total number of people who gambled before CDC – 80% gambled less than once per month.
● 76% – total reporting “ no change” to Gambling in CDC trial sites.
● AGGRESSIVE POLICING IMPACT: “Furthermore, it was noted by some respondents that the local police had become more active in breaking up card games which were held in parklands and moving these people on. Occurring concurrently with the CDC, this intervention was strongly felt to be impacting upon the occurrence of public gambling. “ – evaluation team
▶️ Safety:
● One notable result: Goldfields: 50% feel less safe at night, while 31-35% feel less safe during the day.
● “173 people experienced a reduced sense of safety in the home during the day since the card was introduced compared to 2092 people who reported no change in their sense of safety. 1387 people reported a reduced sense of safety in their home at night compared to 1968 people who reported their safety was unchanged. polling their sense of safety at the time of interview …” – evaluation team
▶️ Crime:
● Domestic Violence increased in all sites, even after they changed the definition of DV.
● Assault and Robbery increased in all sites
● Fraud and black market increased in all sites
● AGAIN crime data supplied does not state if perpetrators or victims were on the card or a centrelink payment so is again quite meaningless except in general terms of outcomes and increases in crime as shown above.
▶️ Employment:
● 5.10.22: 80% of unemployed people on the CDC cited disability, illness or caring responsibilities for not having a job.
● 8.3.1: A main overall finding of the evaluation on the employment front has been that to date and across the first three trial sites, the CDC has had little impact on employment outcomes.”
▶️ STIGMA:
● 97% – Combined number of people reporting discrimination, embarrassment and unfairness being on the card. ( 4 out of 5 people)
● 5.9.1 Key findings : “Overall, 75, 73 and 75 per cent ( across the 3 sites respectively) of CDC participants reported that they felt discriminated against, embarrassed about being on the Card or that being on the Card was not fair, respectively.
● IMPORTANTLY —— The qualitative evidence corroborated the quantitative findings. They both highlighted the large proportion of CDC participants who felt embarrassed, stigmatised and unfairly targeted by the policy.
“Both methodologies also pointed towards such feelings being widespread among all demographic groups making up the CDC population” – evaluation team
▶️ OTHER KEY POINTS:
● Page 161 covers the examples of stigma and shame being experienced – and how it’s impacting children :- it is heartbreaking.
● 8.3.1: “The evaluation found some evidence that aspects of the CDC a have been improving but found no systemic evidence either that the CDC is improving outcomes as it matures or that the CDC participants are getting more used it to or that they dislike it less after they have been on it for longer”.
● 5.2.3: “Despite the restrictions imposed by the Card, many CDC participants with an addiction were described as still managing to find the funds to support their habit. “
● 8.2.5: Over 50% People on CDC reporting that their control over their lives and autonomy had reduced.
● 5.12: The well known problems with transient populations getting trapped on the card when they visit card zones and return home where there’s no infrastructure or support is noted here. At least they’ve picked that up and highlighted the problem. This shows the cultural rights of Aboriginal people are being impeded due to length of stay in card zones, and confirms our report that centrelink staff have been putting people who DON’T live in card roll out zones on the card illegally/ contrary to legislated rollout locations.
● 5.11.1: are the key stakeholder findings – it shows that CDC increased their funding and therefore enriched them all by way of paid employment, created a captive market of people forced onto the CDC which then justifies the stakeholder’s existence and all that money they received, and as a result of the frustrations experienced by those very CDC captives – the stakeholders felt their staff safety was at risk 🤔 this is like a tik tok moment – it’s quite literally insane.
● Mental health impacts for stakeholders and forced trial participants related to CDC-induced aggression – so basically it’s being acknowledged that the CDC has caused mental health problems leading to aggression – and the stakeholders are whining about the consequences. VERY Little MH data in this report at all which is NOT ok given that MH decline is one of the largest reported impacts.
▶️ Notes:
● The report clearly shows worsening outcomes for non indigenous respondents and a majority of indigenous respondents with a spattering of improvement seen in predominantly people identifying as aboriginal who could have taken up full IM under Basics Cards anyway. No wonder they kept Hinkler out of this evaluation!
Given these findings show that what little improvements that can be found have been reported from aboriginal participants, and decreases in quality of life from non aboriginal populations, these findings are going to have huge implications for the Hinkler trial zone given the different racial makeup of participants there.
These outcomes essentially reflect the racial divide of the card and rather than lift everyone – some Indigenous participants have had minor “improvements” while non-indigenous participants have been dragged down. What did Morrison say – “we don’t believe in lifting some at the expense of others?” – that lie can be put to bed as they most certainly are doing just that.
-
▶️ Oped:
To be honest as a person with 3 degrees a dissertation and 24 years of research behind me, and given the cost ( $2.5 million) and the time given ( 2018-2021) I’m disappointed and not impressed. I feel for the team tasked with this nightmare job, but I can’t allow that emotion to whitewash the evidence and the lack of evidence and the lack of qualified commentary on the efficacy of the policy.
This is another heavily ‘caveated’ ramble of program justifying mostly qualitative data, with some weak quantitative data thrown in, most of which ultimately serves no overall function but to highlight what is already known data.
Every question I wanted answered is not answered here and with data from both government and Indue not even included…well..it is what it is.
I do concede that AU did give primacy of focus to the legislated objectives as written, a good thing, however almost every caveat, if not the premise of the entire report avoided comparison of data to those objectives.
Overall, AU was still relying solely on an unqualified (LNP) ASSUMPTION that people on centrelink are ‘problem’ drinkers and child neglecting payment wasting drug taking individuals.
No challenge is made to that assumption in this report such as political motivations for the card etc, and its conclusions are fretful, fearful and unclear, potentially demonstrating the mindset of the team involved and fear of potential repercussions.
At least this one of few graphs shows a definitive reality that the greater majority of people both Aboriginal and non Aboriginal DO want OFF the CDC in the three sites examined. That slip of a data point matters as it shows that benefiting or not, people want off.
Sadly, irresponsibly, not one set of impacts reported to Senate including death, injury, loss or any other detailed CDC impact statement has been included in this report, not one service group data set appears, not even hospital or clinic data and NO Indue decline data etc..nothing.
A big reminder to all that this report does not include a single mention or statistic from Hinkler trial site – Hinkler zone is the largest group of people on cards now.
In Ceduna, less than 800 people are on cards, East Kim less than 2500, and in Goldfields less than 3000, in Hinkler numbers are well over 6000 people.
- Amanda.
NCDCA policy analyst and research grunt.

sarahs mum said:

No Cashless Debit Card Australia
28 mins ·
🚨ADELAIDE UNIVERSITY EVALUATION REPORT FEEDBACK POST:
Ok, here is a brief run down on the major points contained in the AU evaluation. I am still compiling and cross referencing.
I will leave my opinion to the end, except to say that even as is, this report DOES confirm and validate what we, and a multitude of groups, grassroots, social welfare, aboriginal/non aboriginal orgs, political and community have been saying for years – that the CDC is having little to no positive or constructive impact for the majority and is indeed having seriously deleterious effects ( bad impacts).
This AU report is extremely limited, at times contradictory, and while a clear explanation of methodologies is given, many of the caveats are irrelevant, and those that are critically relevant are not emphasised as being such or are needlessly word salad.
Conceding that AU had to design a evaluation tool as they went, it is ‘sufficient’ yet some major issues have been left unexamined ie: mortality.
Under legislation the key question that Adelaide University was required by law to answer in their conclusion was – “Is the program fit for purpose and expansion? Yet this question is not even answered at all and this is either a MAJOR oversight by this team OR this information and conclusions have been removed by the department in its ‘editing process’.
HINKLER trial site is not included in this evaluation, despite again, their inclusion being part of the legislated requirement for evaluation prior to any expansion.
——
▶️ Total number of forced card holders that were evaluated: 1,963.
At time of evaluation in the three sites there were 5,716 CDC participants, including 1,355 individuals currently recorded as living ‘out of area’. Only the first three sites where evaluated.
—— THE DATA:
▶️ CDC Benefit:
7% – Number of people who expressed a “ positive personal view about the CDC policy
▶️ Alcohol/Drinking:
Overall, the alcohol data is as a clear as mud.
The report states:
● 75% of people had not reduced alcohol drunk at all.
● 8% of people who did drink, drank monthly or less.
● 5% ( max percentage shown) drank more than 4 times a week.
● 46% – Number of people reporting they never consumed alcohol before or during “trials”.
● 11% – Total percentage of people who reported drinking ( not to excess) who reported a change or reduction in drinking habits
● 6 – the total number of people who stopped drinking after being put on the card, with the report stating this result could have been for any one of a dozen reasons or policies in place.
To their credit, evaluators have noted in item 5.1.2.1 that the minor reductions in drinking noted could be from other reasons and policy/ policing impacts than CDC. Even so, they ( or department editors) still try to push government line by stating “ This means that, notwithstanding the important interpretation caveat about the potential impacts of concurrent policies, at the time of the survey between a third and a half of the total CDC participant population surveyed and who consumed alcohol, have changed the way they do this.”
This statement is extremely misleading if not approval seeking, as it fails to take into account non CDC spending and non problem drinkers, and their own quantitative data ( the numbers) clearly show little to no change in drinking behaviors among CDC forced participants overall. Its a word salad, written to appease government in the face of abject policy failure, it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
As there is also no data offered that evaluated those who are just ‘swapping witch for bitch’ meaning what percentage of active problem drinkers that turned to drugs as a replacement for alcohol, what this ‘caveat’ speaks to, is that those 11% of people who did reduce or change drinking behavior were capable of doing so, and chose to do so, and never had a ‘problem’ with alcohol or stopping drinking at all.
This report specifically doesn’t specify how many of these people were “problem” drinkers or entered some form of treatment. There is NO quantitative data from ANY service or rehab center in this report at all. A HUGE absence.
“ There is a large majority of people in this evaluation who report that they do not drink at all, or who drink only moderately. It is important to note that when it comes to the behavioural responses that the CDC aims at regarding alcohol, this large majority of the CDC participants has nothing to do with the behavioural change (of reducing alcohol consumption, especially the misuse of alcohol) the CDC seeks to achieve. The qualitative research highlights the frustration these people feel in being subjected to the same constraints which aim to reduce problematic drinking (see section 5.9 and section 6.3.3). “ – evaluation team
Again:
“ Depending on the definition and the method of risk assessment used, there were between one in 10 and two in 10 CDC participants who reported the problematic drinking behaviours the CDC aims to influence” – evaluation team.
Yet despite this they go on to say:
Evaluators state that “around a fifth of the CDC population in the three trial sites considered by this evaluation have reported high level problem drinking behaviours that the CDC aims to reduce.41”
So, in one page we go from 1/10th, to 1/5th without any clarification.
Yep…clear as mud!
—
▶️ Financial benefit:
● 50% total number of people who used to be able to save, reporting they were unable to save money on the card.
● For every ONE person who stated they experienced an improvement there were TWO who with a worse financial outcome.
“CDC participants’ ability to save money deteriorated with about 50 per cent of those who used to be able to save money, reporting that they could not do so anymore.”
● Table 5-10: three out of four CDC participants reported they are in a similar financial position to the one they were 12 months prior to card roll outs. Of the remaining 1/4, two thirds reported financial situation to be worse, and one third a change for the better.
● Little to no real world financial impact data has been recorded here. By that I mean that there is NO indue data on declines of the card at all, and no data on the impact of IBAN/TT fees and charges, limitations on shopping etc on people on cards.. All the the truly tragic impacts – unable to bury kids, attend funerals or but medical supplies have seemingly been ignored completely or has been removed. There is no data or feed back from Banks or small business either.
▶️ Child welfare:
● +80% – when combined, responses of worse + same, the result is over 80% (See Table 5-17)
Noting the absurd absence of school data, child health data, any clinical data at all in the report.
On child welfare and family well-being – the quantitative ( numbers) data highlights the negative issues while the qualitative data ( opinions) which included stakeholder perceptions was more positive. Talk about shine a turd!
▶️ Gambling:
● 21% of all trial sites reported problems gambling
● 14% – total number of people who gambled before CDC – 80% gambled less than once per month.
● 76% – total reporting “ no change” to Gambling in CDC trial sites.
● AGGRESSIVE POLICING IMPACT: “Furthermore, it was noted by some respondents that the local police had become more active in breaking up card games which were held in parklands and moving these people on. Occurring concurrently with the CDC, this intervention was strongly felt to be impacting upon the occurrence of public gambling. “ – evaluation team
▶️ Safety:
● One notable result: Goldfields: 50% feel less safe at night, while 31-35% feel less safe during the day.
● “173 people experienced a reduced sense of safety in the home during the day since the card was introduced compared to 2092 people who reported no change in their sense of safety. 1387 people reported a reduced sense of safety in their home at night compared to 1968 people who reported their safety was unchanged. polling their sense of safety at the time of interview …” – evaluation team
▶️ Crime:
● Domestic Violence increased in all sites, even after they changed the definition of DV.
● Assault and Robbery increased in all sites
● Fraud and black market increased in all sites
● AGAIN crime data supplied does not state if perpetrators or victims were on the card or a centrelink payment so is again quite meaningless except in general terms of outcomes and increases in crime as shown above.
▶️ Employment:
● 5.10.22: 80% of unemployed people on the CDC cited disability, illness or caring responsibilities for not having a job.
● 8.3.1: A main overall finding of the evaluation on the employment front has been that to date and across the first three trial sites, the CDC has had little impact on employment outcomes.”
▶️ STIGMA:
● 97% – Combined number of people reporting discrimination, embarrassment and unfairness being on the card. ( 4 out of 5 people)
● 5.9.1 Key findings : “Overall, 75, 73 and 75 per cent ( across the 3 sites respectively) of CDC participants reported that they felt discriminated against, embarrassed about being on the Card or that being on the Card was not fair, respectively.
● IMPORTANTLY —— The qualitative evidence corroborated the quantitative findings. They both highlighted the large proportion of CDC participants who felt embarrassed, stigmatised and unfairly targeted by the policy.
“Both methodologies also pointed towards such feelings being widespread among all demographic groups making up the CDC population” – evaluation team
▶️ OTHER KEY POINTS:
● Page 161 covers the examples of stigma and shame being experienced – and how it’s impacting children :- it is heartbreaking.
● 8.3.1: “The evaluation found some evidence that aspects of the CDC a have been improving but found no systemic evidence either that the CDC is improving outcomes as it matures or that the CDC participants are getting more used it to or that they dislike it less after they have been on it for longer”.
● 5.2.3: “Despite the restrictions imposed by the Card, many CDC participants with an addiction were described as still managing to find the funds to support their habit. “
● 8.2.5: Over 50% People on CDC reporting that their control over their lives and autonomy had reduced.
● 5.12: The well known problems with transient populations getting trapped on the card when they visit card zones and return home where there’s no infrastructure or support is noted here. At least they’ve picked that up and highlighted the problem. This shows the cultural rights of Aboriginal people are being impeded due to length of stay in card zones, and confirms our report that centrelink staff have been putting people who DON’T live in card roll out zones on the card illegally/ contrary to legislated rollout locations.
● 5.11.1: are the key stakeholder findings – it shows that CDC increased their funding and therefore enriched them all by way of paid employment, created a captive market of people forced onto the CDC which then justifies the stakeholder’s existence and all that money they received, and as a result of the frustrations experienced by those very CDC captives – the stakeholders felt their staff safety was at risk 🤔 this is like a tik tok moment – it’s quite literally insane.
● Mental health impacts for stakeholders and forced trial participants related to CDC-induced aggression – so basically it’s being acknowledged that the CDC has caused mental health problems leading to aggression – and the stakeholders are whining about the consequences. VERY Little MH data in this report at all which is NOT ok given that MH decline is one of the largest reported impacts.
▶️ Notes:
● The report clearly shows worsening outcomes for non indigenous respondents and a majority of indigenous respondents with a spattering of improvement seen in predominantly people identifying as aboriginal who could have taken up full IM under Basics Cards anyway. No wonder they kept Hinkler out of this evaluation!
Given these findings show that what little improvements that can be found have been reported from aboriginal participants, and decreases in quality of life from non aboriginal populations, these findings are going to have huge implications for the Hinkler trial zone given the different racial makeup of participants there.
These outcomes essentially reflect the racial divide of the card and rather than lift everyone – some Indigenous participants have had minor “improvements” while non-indigenous participants have been dragged down. What did Morrison say – “we don’t believe in lifting some at the expense of others?” – that lie can be put to bed as they most certainly are doing just that.
-
▶️ Oped:
To be honest as a person with 3 degrees a dissertation and 24 years of research behind me, and given the cost ( $2.5 million) and the time given ( 2018-2021) I’m disappointed and not impressed. I feel for the team tasked with this nightmare job, but I can’t allow that emotion to whitewash the evidence and the lack of evidence and the lack of qualified commentary on the efficacy of the policy.
This is another heavily ‘caveated’ ramble of program justifying mostly qualitative data, with some weak quantitative data thrown in, most of which ultimately serves no overall function but to highlight what is already known data.
Every question I wanted answered is not answered here and with data from both government and Indue not even included…well..it is what it is.
I do concede that AU did give primacy of focus to the legislated objectives as written, a good thing, however almost every caveat, if not the premise of the entire report avoided comparison of data to those objectives.
Overall, AU was still relying solely on an unqualified (LNP) ASSUMPTION that people on centrelink are ‘problem’ drinkers and child neglecting payment wasting drug taking individuals.
No challenge is made to that assumption in this report such as political motivations for the card etc, and its conclusions are fretful, fearful and unclear, potentially demonstrating the mindset of the team involved and fear of potential repercussions.
At least this one of few graphs shows a definitive reality that the greater majority of people both Aboriginal and non Aboriginal DO want OFF the CDC in the three sites examined. That slip of a data point matters as it shows that benefiting or not, people want off.
Sadly, irresponsibly, not one set of impacts reported to Senate including death, injury, loss or any other detailed CDC impact statement has been included in this report, not one service group data set appears, not even hospital or clinic data and NO Indue decline data etc..nothing.
A big reminder to all that this report does not include a single mention or statistic from Hinkler trial site – Hinkler zone is the largest group of people on cards now.
In Ceduna, less than 800 people are on cards, East Kim less than 2500, and in Goldfields less than 3000, in Hinkler numbers are well over 6000 people.
- Amanda.
NCDCA policy analyst and research grunt.

I think the thing is that most Australians think it can’t happen to them, but it will. The Indue Card makes a lot of money.

It is predicated on Australia’s enduring racist beliefs about Indigenous Australians. It also plays on Non-Indigenous Australians cultural identity predicated on the denial of the longest continuous civilisations. When I was at University doing some studies at the beginning, one woman dropped out because she couldn’t get the things she needed for her studies. So it blocks access to buying a whole range of things that folks wouldn’t believe.

And it has increased violence against Indigenous women as well. Aboriginal women are 34 times more likely to be victims of domestic violence and now they have this as well. It beggars belief.

In the communities where the drinking is a problem they can give the money to the Aunties and collectively pool it, that has worked in several communities. When local mobs make decisions things do change. It is interesting where this turned up and the companies that wanted access to those lands as well.

Submission to UN regarding Cashless Welfare 16/5/19 By Nijole Naujokas

The introduction of “Income Management” in the Northern Territory in 2007 was introduced by the LNP Howard government under the guise of the Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER). Using the justification from the “Little Children Are Sacred” report in April 2007, the government used the issues raised of child protection and substance abuse to introduce a form of social security payment that was restricted to 50% cash. This restriction of 50% of income meant that half a person’s money was put into a Basics Card account which restricted the purchase of alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, pornographic material, home brew concentrates and home brew kits, gift cards and gambling services. It was also supposed to stop the process of ‘humbugging’ where family members might pressure social security recipients to give money.

To introduce this measure the Howard government had to suspend part of the Racial Discrimination Act. It was accepted that the vast majority of people who would be affected by the Basics Card would be Indigenous. The roll out of the Basics Card was incredibly quick for government standards. Little consultation was had with the Indigenous communities affected and as it was a blanket measure many people were put onto Income Management who had no trouble with their finances or managing their money.

In 2010 under the Rudd Labor government, the program was expanded to include the rest of the Northern Territory and Social Security recipients who were deemed “at risk.” The terminology of this was open to interpretation. When you judge a person’s ability to manage money on a very low payment below the poverty line, is this a reason to restrict their money further? The Basics Card was then further expanded in 2012 under the Gillard Labor government to other areas of Australia: Bankstown, NSW, Logan, Qld, Rockhampton, Qld, Playford, SA and Greater Shepparton, Vic.
As one of the activists who was incredibly concerned about the introduction of the Basics Card in Playford, South Australia, I was witness to the many arguments put forth by bureaucrats in government who claimed it would only affect those who “couldn’t manage their money” and those who were put on for Child Protection reasons. Activists from Socialist Alliance and other organisations held information nights in the local areas of Elizabeth and raised concerns about the expansion of the Basics Card, and further rolling out of the program to all welfare recipients, severely reducing the autonomy of clients. Concerns about access to cash for large purchases like washing machines or car repairs, the ability to buy second hand goods and clothing, and the ability to save money by buying market produce were all raised concerns. This was met with outright derision and hostility from government bureaucrats and certain Non- Government organisations, who accused activists of “spreading fear in the community over nothing”. In one particular meeting there was a member of the audience who stood up and said that we were “causing fear for no reason, spreading misinformation, and this will only affect those who cannot manage their money.” We found out later that particular audience member was from Anglicare, (who had not introduced themselves) and that they had won a financial counselling contract from the government to provide financial counselling services to those on the Basics Card. At the very least this was a conflict of interest.

I was heavily involved in numerous community meetings and demonstrations against the Basics Card, and unfortunately us activists saw every single one of our “unfounded fears and misinformation” become true. A group of activists and community members including myself founded the group “Stop Income Management in Playford” (SIMPLA) and held weekly meetings to discuss the emerging issues. The Basics Card was expanded further in 2013 to the categories of “Unreasonable to Live at Home Allowance” for young people and for people who had recently come out of jail and under 25. This massively expanded the pool of welfare recipients on the card, and caused multiple issues for young people especially. The “Unreasonable To Live At Home” allowance is for young people who cannot live with their parents due to relationship breakdown, family violence, or being classed independent as wards of the state. Some of these young people had been managing their own money for years with great success. To then be told “you are not capable” was incredibly distressing and demoralising for them. One young person on the card told us “My family thought the Basics card was only for people who gamble or drink. I did neither. They didn’t understand why I was on it.” This same participant was forced to use the Basics Card for her rent, but an administration error with her Basics Card payments put her in arrears in her rent for the first time in her life. The added stress of card malfunctions was another key experience of people put on the card. The machine in the Munno Parra Shopping centre to check the Basics Card balance was frequently broken, making it very difficult to check remaining funds. Other people felt shame and stigma using the card at shops, with one ignorant shop clerk refusing to let a young man buy a chocolate box for his mother as she wrongly thought “he wasn’t allowed to” on the card.

This is one of the key problems with the Basics Card and Income Management in general, including the more recent incarnation the “Cashless Welfare Card” introduced in 2016. It is bizarre that a businessman billionaire, Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest, recommended the Cashless Welfare Card with NO social work experience and was commissioned by the Abbott LNP government to make a report on equality and poverty issues. The stigma and visibility of the cards seems to embolden others in the community to discriminate and insult welfare recipients. The immediate assumption is that a person on these types of payment cannot manage money. In reality this is a pure ideological myth: a way to demonise those who are unemployed or single parents. As an activist who has been involved in actions against Income Management, I have not heard one case of where someone on the card then magically “found a job” or had their lives improve in any way. It does not address deep seated community issues of substance abuse, violence, school attendance or well-being for those on it. Monash University’s report “The Place-based Income Management Trial in Shepparton: A best practice model for evaluation” notes the negative effects of the Basics Card during this period:

“Main Negative Outcome Findings

A major negative impact is that many people have felt disempowered, embarrassed and ashamed at being subject to income management, especially when shopping. Some people have experienced practical problems in using the Basics Card such as it not being accepted at a wide range of outlets and not being able to easily check the card’s balance. Other limitations of income management are that it has not necessarily helped with keeping children engaged with school and some people are not necessarily managing their finances any better (FaHCSIA 2008; AIHW 2010; ORIMA Research 2010; KPMG 2010; National Partnership Agreement for Closing the Gap in the Northern Territory2011; Bray et al 2012).There are concerns that people may become reliant on income management as a tool for managing their finances rather than being able to rely on their own skills (ORIMA Research 2010: 14 & 15;Bray et al2012: 261). There has not been a large uptake in using financial management support services to learn financial management skills (ORIMA Research 2010: 13;Bray et al2012:105 & 106). The ORIMA research said that 15 per cent of those on child protection income management who did not attend financial counselling cited, ‘not needing money management skills when having their money income managed’ as a reason for not using financial management services (ORIMA Research 2011: 13 & 14). The KPMG and SPRC evaluations note that there is no clear pathway between managing money responsibly and exiting from income management (KPMG 2010: 85; Bray et al 2012: 257). (Page 23).

Putting aside the horrible social and mental effects of Income Management, another worrying aspect is the disturbing lack of privacy for individuals forced onto the scheme. The private right to bank with whoever one chooses is removed for welfare recipients. Their information and also their funds do not have banking protection as Indue, the company who administers the Cashless Welfare Card, is not a bank. The transferral of valid cash amounts from Indue to a cash account (which the Department allows) can attract “transfer fees” of $10 and can take up to 28 days. There has been constant reports from those on the “Indue” Cashless Welfare Card which is the latest incarnation of Income Management, that their card will not work regularly in shops and sporting venues for their children, severely affecting their quality of life as they must go without groceries and essentials. To be refused at the counter of a shop where you are trying to buy life essentials is a humiliating, dehumanising process. The recent Indue blackout in Bundaberg caused massive problems for Centrelink recipients, with people unable to buy food, nappies and formula for their children.

The collation of welfare recipient data through the Income Management policy amounts to a mass social experiment that does not have consent from participants. This is a violation of human rights, to have the right to determine one’s own purchases and keep one’s own money in whatever bank they choose, to spend on purchases without the scrutiny of massive private corporations, to be able to choose how to manage one’s own funds as an adult. This kind of toxic, discriminatory, venomous policy must be stopped. Welfare recipients are not lab rats and they did not consent to these stripping of human rights. Witnessing the distress of people who have been forced onto the card is a kind of helpless despair activists witness. We see the mental health toll and feel the rage of people who just don’t understand why they are being treated like irresponsible toddlers.
We urge the United Nations to recognise Income Management and the blanket application of it onto welfare recipients as a violation of human rights, and ask the United Nations to condemn the policy.

This is worth a read.

https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/2212791/Welfare-quarantining-report-June.pdf

ah. so that is why they released the report.

>>Morrison Government releases embarrassing cashless debit card report after Labor issues FOI
February 18, 2021

The Morrison Government has finally released an embarrassing report which has failed to demonstrate that its cashless debit card works, but only after Labor issued a freedom of information request as well as an order for its production in the Senate.

The Morrison Government spent $2.5 million on a report that only confirms what the Government has known all along, that its cashless debit card does not work.

It is no wonder the Government kept this report a secret during the debate in the parliament last year.

This is $2.5 million that could have been better spent to address the issues that the Government says this card is supposed to.

Even the report’s authors admit it is not worth the paper it is written on:

“The presence of concurrent influences that cannot be distinguished from one another, suggests that given the evidence at hand such comparisons would be unsafe to make and that the impact of the CDC could not be isolated from the other influences that we have mentioned. In such circumstances it is advisable that we note the problematic empirical surrounds and we do not attempt to make any causal statements about the impact of the CDC.”

Evaluation of the Cashless Debit Card in Ceduna, East Kimberley and the Goldfields Region, p14

Labor issued a freedom of information request with the Department of Social Services on 10 February. Labor’s Senator Anthony Chisholm tabled an order for the production of documents in the Senate on Wednesday.

Last October, it was revealed the Minister for Families and Social Services made the decision to make the trial sites permanent without considering the report.

After more than five years and millions of dollars spent by the Morrison Government trying to find the evidence to back its ideologically driven card, it is clear this card simply doesn’t work.

LINDA BURNEY

MEDIA RELEASE – THURSDAY, 18 FEBRUARY 2021

https://www.lindaburney.com.au/media-releases/2021/2/18/morrison-government-releases-embarrassing-cashless-debit-card-report-after-labor-issues-foi

I wonder how many millions they’re willing to spend on some new way to punish the poor if they’re pressured into abandoning the Indue card?

And what those punishments will be.

I suppose it is obvious but you can’t buy a deck of playing cards on indue.

I learned to play snap. And then concentration. Then I learned to play 500 before I got to primary school. And then I learned cribbage. And then canasta. Cards was a family thing. I think it only helped my young brain.

sarahs mum said:

ah. so that is why they released the report.

>>Morrison Government releases embarrassing cashless debit card report after Labor issues FOI
February 18, 2021

The Morrison Government has finally released an embarrassing report which has failed to demonstrate that its cashless debit card works, but only after Labor issued a freedom of information request as well as an order for its production in the Senate.

The Morrison Government spent $2.5 million on a report that only confirms what the Government has known all along, that its cashless debit card does not work.

It is no wonder the Government kept this report a secret during the debate in the parliament last year.

This is $2.5 million that could have been better spent to address the issues that the Government says this card is supposed to.

Even the report’s authors admit it is not worth the paper it is written on:

“The presence of concurrent influences that cannot be distinguished from one another, suggests that given the evidence at hand such comparisons would be unsafe to make and that the impact of the CDC could not be isolated from the other influences that we have mentioned. In such circumstances it is advisable that we note the problematic empirical surrounds and we do not attempt to make any causal statements about the impact of the CDC.”

Evaluation of the Cashless Debit Card in Ceduna, East Kimberley and the Goldfields Region, p14

Labor issued a freedom of information request with the Department of Social Services on 10 February. Labor’s Senator Anthony Chisholm tabled an order for the production of documents in the Senate on Wednesday.

Last October, it was revealed the Minister for Families and Social Services made the decision to make the trial sites permanent without considering the report.

After more than five years and millions of dollars spent by the Morrison Government trying to find the evidence to back its ideologically driven card, it is clear this card simply doesn’t work.

LINDA BURNEY

MEDIA RELEASE – THURSDAY, 18 FEBRUARY 2021

https://www.lindaburney.com.au/media-releases/2021/2/18/morrison-government-releases-embarrassing-cashless-debit-card-report-after-labor-issues-foi

Doesn’t appear that she bothered reading the report, not even an abbreviation.

No Cashless Debit Card Australia
4 hrs · #Alert Andrew Laming is putting up a motion for Youth Allowance to be put on the card outside the original card regions

First story.

Over $5k spent spent at various medical experts gaining reports to prove that a disabled son could not physically use an Indue card. That’s over $5k to get off the card when it should not have been issued in the first place.

Second story.

Woman given a bunch of paperwork to sign as she is being taken to emergency via the flying doc service. She thought she was signing stuff in relation to what would happen to the kids if she was kept in hospital for an extended period of time.

In December she applied for a cash advance. She was knocked back because there was a nominee on her account. She spent some hours at Centrelink and left with her advance and the belief she no longer had a nominee in control of her payment.

Today she found out that last month the nominee had been issued with a card for her payment. From now on only the 20% cash will arrive in her account. Centrecare, Centrelink and Indue will not tell her who the nominee is. All she knows is that on Friday she will not be able to pay bills.

(There was a time when Brett was my nominee. There was an end date on that agreement.)
(Cash advances were brought in to better people’s lives. So they could access funds for deposits or larger unexpected bills. They are now seen as proof you can not manage your money.)

sarahs mum said:

First story.

Over $5k spent spent at various medical experts gaining reports to prove that a disabled son could not physically use an Indue card. That’s over $5k to get off the card when it should not have been issued in the first place.

Second story.

Woman given a bunch of paperwork to sign as she is being taken to emergency via the flying doc service. She thought she was signing stuff in relation to what would happen to the kids if she was kept in hospital for an extended period of time.

In December she applied for a cash advance. She was knocked back because there was a nominee on her account. She spent some hours at Centrelink and left with her advance and the belief she no longer had a nominee in control of her payment.

Today she found out that last month the nominee had been issued with a card for her payment. From now on only the 20% cash will arrive in her account. Centrecare, Centrelink and Indue will not tell her who the nominee is. All she knows is that on Friday she will not be able to pay bills.

(There was a time when Brett was my nominee. There was an end date on that agreement.)
(Cash advances were brought in to better people’s lives. So they could access funds for deposits or larger unexpected bills. They are now seen as proof you can not manage your money.)

A bit like not having a credit rating?

How does one become a nominee for someone else?

Divine Angel said:

How does one become a nominee for someone else?

Presumably by being nominated?

roughbarked said:

sarahs mum said:

First story.

Over $5k spent spent at various medical experts gaining reports to prove that a disabled son could not physically use an Indue card. That’s over $5k to get off the card when it should not have been issued in the first place.

Second story.

Woman given a bunch of paperwork to sign as she is being taken to emergency via the flying doc service. She thought she was signing stuff in relation to what would happen to the kids if she was kept in hospital for an extended period of time.

In December she applied for a cash advance. She was knocked back because there was a nominee on her account. She spent some hours at Centrelink and left with her advance and the belief she no longer had a nominee in control of her payment.

Today she found out that last month the nominee had been issued with a card for her payment. From now on only the 20% cash will arrive in her account. Centrecare, Centrelink and Indue will not tell her who the nominee is. All she knows is that on Friday she will not be able to pay bills.

(There was a time when Brett was my nominee. There was an end date on that agreement.)
(Cash advances were brought in to better people’s lives. So they could access funds for deposits or larger unexpected bills. They are now seen as proof you can not manage your money.)

A bit like not having a credit rating?

So many people not getting their rent paid on time. So many people having their car repossessed for late payments. Indue does damage to people’s credit ratings time and time again.

Also I read Indue got the Jobkeeper payments. There has been a massive roll out in the last 12 months of people on the card. I find it impossible to believe that their business has been impacted negatively by Covid. But it is all off shore and all in confidence so…that’s the way the cookie crumbles. Suck that up.

Divine Angel said:

How does one become a nominee for someone else?

I signed the papers when I was in a miserable way. Brett looked after that stuff at that time. But he never had control of my money. He could just submit forms and such for me.

The woman who received this is in SA.