More of the poor brought under income management

Vanguard August 2013 p. 8
Nick G.

(Above: May 20, 2013 and anti-CIM protesters target Labor MP Nick Champion in SA)

Following the introduction of  compulsory income management (CIM) to 73 prescribed Aboriginal communities as part of the Howard government’s racist Northern Territory “intervention”, this paper warned that it would not be long before “repression directed at a minority may become generalised across the rest of society” (Vanguard February 2010).

This followed the announcement that any area in Australia could become a “declared income management area” and that three types of welfare recipients would be targeted:

·         “disengaged youth”  between 15 and 25 years old who have been receiving Youth Allowance, Newstart, special benefits and parenting  payments for 13 out of 26 weeks

·         “long-term recipients” for those over 25 but not yet old enough for the pension and who have been receiving the above payments for 52 out of 104 weeks

·         “vulnerable welfare recipients” for anyone who is on a welfare payment who is considered “at risk”.

Beginning July 1 last year, five very low SES communities around Australia were placed under CIM. Since then the APY Lands in SA, the Ngaanyatjara Lands and Laverton Shire in WA, Perth and the Kimberleys have been added.

On the anniversary of that roll-out, a further two categories were identified for automatic inclusion on CIM as “vulnerable welfare recipients”.  They are:

·         people aged under 16 years granted the Special Benefit by a social worker or those aged 16 and over granted the Unreasonable to Live at Home payment by a social worker; and

·         people under the age of 25 who receive crisis payment due to prison release.

This will apply to people living in the NT, in the five declared areas and in the APY Lands.

Those now automatically included will have 50% of their payments quarantined for the first year, in the case of released prisoners, and for at least a year and until a social worker declares them not to “need” CIM in the case of those in the first category.

The extension of CIM to new categories of persons continues the punitive and coercive approach taken by the bourgeoisie to the poor.  It continues to stigmatise, humiliate and demean many people of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent.

It continues the approach to those on welfare that the wealthy know best, that they are socially superior people who are entitled to interfere in the domestic affairs of people who are poor because their poverty results from personal failings rather than the failings of the capitalist social system.

It continues despite the findings of a series of studies into CIM that conclude that it is an effective control mechanism (hence its appeal to the ruling class) but not effective in empowering people to escape from poverty and social marginalisation.

Great campaigns against CIM are occurring in the five declared areas, the NT and the APY Lands.

Abolish CIM!

Only anti-imperialist independence and socialism can alleviate poverty and empower the people!