News Home Just In Australia World Business Sport Entertainment Weather | Opinion Blogs

Opinion Home Essays Emails Speeches Documents Contact

Income management in the NT: Food for taxis

By Claire Smith and Gary Jackson

Posted October 6, 2008 09:56:00
Updated October 6, 2008 09:57:00

The Government says its yardstick for whether an NTER measure is working is: 'Is it good for kids?' (ABC TV)

When the government receives the recommendations of the Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER) Review Board later this month, it is going to have to face the unintended consequences of its actions.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin have stated on a number of occasions that their yardstick for whether an NTER measure is working is: "Is it good for kids?" We have just conducted an in-depth study of the impact of the NTER on 118 people in the Katherine East region. Let us assess one NTER measure against the Prime Minister's yardstick.

The NTER measure of income management has meant that half of people's welfare payments must be spent of food and other essential items, such as clothing. This income support can only be accessed through store cards that are distributed in the major townships, and which can only be spent at major outlets.

Our study found that income management has meant that more money is being spent on children's needs. This is because all members of the family who receive welfare benefits are issued with store cards - so there are more funds in the food pool. In the past, some family members could avoid contributing to household food budgets, and just spend their money on their personal priorities, knowing that they would get a share of the food, anyway.

The introduction of store cards has meant that all adult family members now have to contribute directly to household budgets. Even if you 'sell' your store card to another family member, you won't get the full value, as that person has limited available cash. Irrespective of how it may move within the community, a $50 store card can only be spent on food and other necessities.

More food and clothes has to be good for kids, so on the face of it, income management would seem to fulfill the Prime Minister's yardstick of "Is it good for kids?"

Food for taxis

However, the situation gets murky if you look a little further.

The major problem concerns where you live. The NTER targets Aboriginal communities in remote areas (though it also includes some town camps and communities), but it is administered from town. In order to comply with the various provisions of the NTER, Aboriginal people have to get themselves to town.

The people who are targeted by the NTER are living on welfare, and very few people have a car (perhaps one in 10). There is no regional transport system. So, the only way to get into town is for a few people to band together to pay for a taxi.

In the communities of Barunga, Eva Valley and Wugularr a one-way taxi ride varies from $160 to $220. Luckily, this counts as an essential service, so income management funds can be diverted from food to taxis.

So, people pay $220 to drive past their community store (where they are not allowed to use their income managed funds) so they can collect their store cards and buy their food in town.

The downturn in trade has meant that many community stores have become non-viable, and in this process the quantity and quality of food available to communities decreases dramatically. One outcome for kids has been an increase in anemia in some communities.

Unviable community stores are being taken over by outback stores, who have to provide an agreed range of fresh foods. In this process, however, communities are losing autonomy and, in the initial stages, much needed jobs for Aboriginal people.

Drinking in Katherine

Another unintended consequence of income management is that when the drinkers come to town to collect their store cards, they stay on. Once they are in Katherine, alcohol is readily available, so their alcohol consumption becomes greater than it would have been if they had stayed at their community.

The increased number of drinkers in town has produced higher levels of violence and other criminal behaviours.

The quarterly crime and justice statistics recently released by the NT Government found that 'offences against the person' have increased 9 per cent when compared with the same period last year, and are up 32 per cent compared to five years ago. While the long-term trend is partly due changes in reporting requirements, the North Australian Justice Agency recently found that murder cases involving Aboriginal legal aid have nearly doubled in the last year - from six cases last year to 11 this year.

This is partly due to a breakdown in family cohesion and support. When Aboriginal people move to town, they leave behind their normal family support networks. In these new situations, some people feel isolated and stressed. This makes them more likely to become involved in a violent incident, a situation exacerbated by alcohol.

Increased violence and drinking has caused Anne Shepherd, the Mayor of Katherine, to call for alcohol to be made available in bush communities.

The town is not equipped to cope with the influx of people. Increased infrastructure has been minimal: an additional rehabilitation bed at the local hospital and one new public toilet.

There is no extra accommodation, so community people are living with extended family members in already overcrowded houses (which causes family tension), or are sleeping in the long grass, or along the river. With the wet season coming up, the health implications of this are quite scary.

Racial tension

Increased levels of racial tension between Aboriginal people and the townspeople of Katherine are another unintended consequence of the NTER. From the point of view of the townspeople of Katherine, the outcomes are all negative. This is apparent in the following comments:

It might be working for some Aboriginal communities, but it is certainly not working for the Katherine community.

People are just camping everywhere around the edges of town. They're everywhere. Everywhere. Everywhere. Everywhere.

They just come into town, and town is not equipped to deal with it.

People are using Katherine as a toilet. Defacating, fornicating and every other 'cating you can think of!

Why spoil our town? ... People are leaving Katherine because of these behaviours. And they don't want to leave. It's a good little town.

Small businesses are being damaged by income management, which only allows Aboriginal people to spend in particular stores. Though some small businesses in Katherine are valiantly working their way through the accreditation system, in practice store cards are spent almost exclusively at Woolworths, Target and Caltex. This is a matter of concern for Katherine townspeople:

The intervention here is very wrong. They can only spend their other 50 per cent at Woolworths. That's really bad for the town. They should be able to spend their money where they like.

How could they devise a system that is so biased? The butchers and the bakers are all missing out because the people don't have any money.

The restrictions on income management mean that Aboriginal people are not able to take manage their money to take advantage of specials. For example, they are not allowed to spend income-managed funds to buy second hand clothes at the Salvation Army's Family Store, or other thrift shops.

However, the most damaging aspect of income management is that it is racially discriminating. Of the people interviewed for our study, 95 per cent expressed concern with discriminatory nature of the NTER. Grounded in discrimination by race rather than behaviour one unintended consequence of income management has been the humiliation of good Aboriginal people:

When I see people lining up with that store card, I feel ashamed. It makes me feel sad. White people think that black people don't work. But we do work. We have a lot of Indigenous people who are well educated. But that store card gives white people a picture of Aboriginal people on welfare all the time. That's not fair. We're all human beings.

Now we are lining up at Centrelink. You never see white people lining up for store card. Only Aboriginal people.

Let us return to our Prime Minister's yardstick for success, is this good for kids? A female youth from Wugularr made the following comment:

I was in Woolies with all the Aboriginal people lined up. "All day shopping with that store card from Centrelink," I heard a tourist say. Like, running people down. I was behind that tourist. I had a store card, too ... It was a bad thing for me to hear what white people say. It made me feel bad, hurt inside. Shame.

While income management has meant more money spent on food for kids, it is also shaming those kids and their families.

Your call, Prime Minister.

Claire Smith and Gary Jackson are based with the Institute of Advanced Study for Humanity at the University of Newcastle. They have conducted research with Aboriginal communities in the Katherine East region for the last 20 years. This opinion piece is based on their report, A Community Based Review of the Northern Territory Emergency Response.

Tags: community-and-society, indigenous, welfare, government-and-politics, federal-government, australia, nt

Search for news

Comments (49)

Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.

Matt:

06 Oct 2008 10:24:30am

Welfare has been one of the major elements of destruction within the indigenous community. Whilst I understand the good-will behind such measures, in the long run, it has proved disasterous and counter productive.

Agree (1) Alert moderator
Wake up Australia:

06 Oct 2008 10:43:55am

'While income management has meant more money spent on food for kids, it is also shaming those kids and their families.'

Hell we don't want them shamed after all the terrible things that whitey has done do we? - sorry, but maybe shame (indicating self respect) is what these people actually need to pull THEMSELVES out of their largely self imposed life style.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
NT boy:

06 Oct 2008 11:08:51am

I have been in a queue behind a few card holders a number of times.. they have to make up the exact amount or close to it or they lose money, What happens is the last $10 of a $50 card or usually $25 of $100 duel card shop is made up of fizzy soft-drink, lollies and chips, and more lollies for the kids. Not the most beneficial food requirements for the kids, but as they are already at the checkout they just grab the closest things to make up the money, invariably it is from the snack shelves.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
quinny:

06 Oct 2008 11:10:08am

Thank you Claire and Gary for this much needed information. I supposed no one should be suprised that this is a result from a clear lack of planning by the Howard govt. Such a rushed, politically expedient response to a complex issue no doubt ran the risk of what you document. I fear the problems arising out of the intervention may outweigh any benefits.

Obviously, the public, generally, agree that something had to be done, but I find it disgusting that Indigenous Australian are at the mercy of corporate giants, while local business goes down the gurgler. How humiliating for all - except these corporations, of course.

Nonetheless, I am waiting to see how the Rudd government will differentiate itself from its predecessors on the Indigenous issue.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Leanne:

06 Oct 2008 11:11:44am

I live in Alice Springs and I was recently standing in a queue in the supermarket behind a middle-aged Aboriginal lady and her husband. They had a couple of kids with them and seemed no different to any other middle aged couple except for their skin colour. When the lady reached the checkout, the teenager serving her took her card, looked at it and yelled at the top of his lungs "Gavin! I've got income management!!". 'Gavin' eventually ambled over and used his key to open the cash register and do what seemed like an inordinate amount of fiddling and paper producing while the queue grew and grew and the lady stood there patiently. I wondered what this particular lady had done to deserve this humiliation and whether her kids were really better off for it. Surely there has to be some way to determine who should be 'income managed', instead of basing it simply on where the person happens to live.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
renn:

06 Oct 2008 11:21:40am

Aboriginal people of Australia, What is the answer?
How do you want to live?

Why doesnt the local community store take the cards?
Why does alcohol have to be such a BIG problem?
Why do people have to get drunk? Grog is not only an aboriginal problem. It is in all communities.

It seems that no matter what is done for the aboriginals, there are some that are not happy. There also a lot that probally are happy enough and get on with their lives, but we dont hear about them.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
angela:

06 Oct 2008 11:59:27am

Big stick paternalistic approaches always fail for the reasons shown in this article. There have been eleven major reports on how to deal with Indigenous disadvantage in the last decade. Not one of those recommendations has been funded. Why don't we start with providing the infrastructure that we all need for viable communities and families- health, education, welfare ,transport and jobs.

Go and look at your own suburb and imagine how functional you would be without the services local, state and federal government provides for you and your family. Two examples - garbage collection - someone is paid to do that for you, and they earn money to feed back into the local economy- in Aboriginal communites it is work for the dole- why? Truancy is a problem in Aboriginal communites -but if every kid rocked up to school, in many communities there would be insufficient class rooms- can you imagine the outcry in your suburb? Can we please drop the cheap populism of blame the victim and look at the real issues.

Agree (1) Alert moderator
muzz:

06 Oct 2008 12:05:29pm

The intervention was a poor idea, poorly executed with the poorest of motives. The motive was not to improve peoples lives it was to to get re-elected for the Howard mob. Too bad for the people involved.

This evidence of unintended consequence was predicted from the beginning. Of course community stores will be forced to close, people will drink harder when they go to town and the homicide rate will increase. Bleeding obvious consequence.

Where are the local police forces, the local teachers and community workers and the local decision makers? The fly in fly our crowd has never worked. Child abuse and neglect goes deeper than Howard and his minions ever supposed...well outside their expertise.

Community needs are not being met by this high handed strategy. What scares me is that Rudd and Company will now fund the various church groups and other "military" style people to re establish more mission type support that will further damage real community development.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
NT boy:

06 Oct 2008 2:17:33pm

I suggest if they wish to keep this kind of operation long term then a photo id credit card be issued with the money only available at places not selling booze.
That way they dont have to spend their $100 in one go in one shop and other stores like 2nd hand shops and community shops can be included.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Felix:

06 Oct 2008 2:28:33pm

The other unintended outcome is that people who come into town to drink/escape/shop/socialise etc may at some point, realise they WANT TO ACCESS HELP for their drinking. They will have more chance of doing this in a small regional town than on their remote community. The Mayor of Katherine is being deliberately untruthful (or she's out of her depth) with the type and level of resources going into 'her town' and surrounding communites. A bit of research would demonstrate this. Another small town mayor trying to make a big profile.......

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Frank Baarda:

06 Oct 2008 4:25:19pm

Not mentioned in the numerous comments is the incredible inefficiency of this micro-economic management. It wouldn't surprise me if every $100 of Income Management (what's happened to the word 'Quarantined'?) costs the Australian taxpayer several hundred dollars.
At Yuendumu we have a number of Centrelink personnel driving brand new 4-wheel drive vehicles (three of them) and staying at the Government Business Manager's compound and driving to Alice Springs every week-end. I haven't met them, they are most certainly not members of our community. For all I know they come from Tasmania (no disrespect to Tasmanians intended, Tasmania happens to be the furthest away from the Centre)'
A third store was set up (must have cost a few $100,000s to do it) when the two existing locally owned stores refused to co-operate on Income Management. Many young people that are income managed have chosen to live in Alice Springs (Income Management has given them an excuse to do so) so the amount of cash being spent locally has been reduced significantly.
Just when many local people were well and truly learning how to manage their money (such as buying second hand furniture in Alice Springs and arranging transport to Yuendumu), and when for years one of our local stores has been carrying out de-facto voluntary income management (by for example holding pensioner's money that they would draw on) we get a new wave of paternalism and we are back at square one.
Externally imposed solutions rarely work. The only thing that the Interventionists have succeeded in, is in conning a large section of the public (and apparently many of our leaders) into believing that they are doing a great job and that the Little Sacred Children are safer now. In Yuendumu I don't see much for the rumoured $1,000,000,000 they have spent so far.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
aletea:

06 Oct 2008 4:30:52pm

I would love to see any of the commentators here who seem to support this humiliating intervention have to live with the consequences themselves. The reason the intervention is racist is absolutely demonstrated in the comments of the people who most support it. The intervention was predicated on a lie to begin with, you will not stop ONE aboriginal child from being sexually abused by humiliating their elders with welfare quarantining. And for those who argue to extend the whole principle across Australia to all welfare recipients, I ask, will you be applying the same standards to those who receive family tax benefits, baby bonuses, first home owners grants and investment incentives (ie. rudd housing policy) at the behest of the taxpayer? No, they wouldn't wear it would they. It is so easy to bash the marginalised, the sick and the poor.
Well done to the writers of the article for bringing the truth out into the open. Restore the racial discrimination act. End the intervention and give proper support and resources to aboriginal people, including the opportunities for real work and wages.

Agree (1) Alert moderator
Dibirdi:

06 Oct 2008 6:00:50pm

Before everyone on here starts esposing their intricate knowledge of Aboriginal affairs and society, then maybe you better ask yourself one question, how many on here are actually affected by these laws, how many actually have their incomes quarantined or their family members who might qualify?

This is one of the first criticisms I have, is that this country is treating one particular group in the community different to everyone else, make excuses all you want but a drastic response doesn't automatically make it effective or appropriate...

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Tess:

07 Oct 2008 4:06:44am

Living in a small town of 100 I know what it means to local business when people take their money elsewhere to larger cities.

In one year we have lost;

Our Milkbar/ supermarket
Our petrol station (not good considering we live 50km from the nearest outlet)

Without these basic shopping needs our community has dropped from 150 to 100 and sure to drop further.

As a direct result of this I now have to rely on my mother (being a single parent) to move from her home into mine to look after my children while I work 5 hours away for 450 gross a week. I am an educated women who earns pittance in a low income job as to get a higher paying job would mean I would have to commit to being away even longer.....See the catch?

My children 14,13,11,10,4 now have now have no mother living with them in order to pay the mortgage on a home that is now only worth halve of what it was.

This will happen up there too if local business aren't included in this. Then lets see what horrors will evolve.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Eugene:

07 Oct 2008 9:50:22am

The best way not to have your welfare quarantined is to get a job. Then you can spend your money how you like.

Agree (0) Alert moderator

Watch

'Freaking out'

Frayed Aussies recount their ordeal after finally making it home from Bangkok.

Watch

Woody Allen

Filmmaker Woody Allen spoke with the 7.30 Report's Kerry O'Brien

Feature

New home

The National Portrait Gallery finally has its own, permanent home in Canberra.

Just In

Site Map

Sections

Media

Contribute

Feedback

This service may include material from Agence France-Presse (AFP), APTN, Reuters, AAP, CNN and the BBC World Service which is copyright and cannot be reproduced.

AEDT = Australian Eastern Daylight Time which is 11 hours ahead of UTC (Greenwich Mean Time)

Opinion

Income management in the NT: Food for taxis

Food for taxis

Drinking in Katherine

Racial tension

Search for news

Comments (49)

Matt:

PaulB:

Pen Pal:

Matt:

Aka:

Matt:

Mick:

Wake up Australia:

quinny:

NT boy:

Gurini:

NT boy:

Felix:

Sean:

quinny:

rfnk:

Leanne:

dragon:

renn:

NT boy:

Mick:

Felix:

angela:

laurence:

Felix:

declan:

muzz:

NT boy:

Felix:

quinny:

Felix:

NT boy:

Felix:

NT boy:

LOZZA:

Felix:

Frank Baarda:

aletea:

LOZZA:

quinny:

lukemac:

rfnk:

Felix:

Aka:

Dibirdi:

Felix:

Tess:

Eugene:

Dibirdi:

Watch

'Freaking out'

Watch

Woody Allen

Feature

New home

Top Stories

Just In

Most Popular

Site Map

Sections

Media

Subscribe

Contribute

Feedback