Execution the issue for cashless card

THE problem with the rollout of the cashless welfare card was never the idea of income management.

It was that the policy was seen as racially targeted and sent a message to everyone on welfare that the government did not trust them.

When you look at the places it was rolled out, mostly in areas with high Indigenous populations, it is easy to see why the racism claims came to the fore: East Kimberley, Ceduna, Goldfields.

It wasn’t until Bundaberg and Hervey Bay were added in 2019 that a region with a more representative national demographic (lower Indigenous population) was placed on the card.

The cashless welfare card was championed by Andrew Forrest and adopted by the government of Tony Abbott in early 2016 to quarantine 80 per cent of a welfare recipient’s income for use on essentials such as food, fuel, medicine and shelter.

It was a classic example of a great idea poorly executed.

Instead of being rolled out nationwide as it should have been, it now appears likely to live on only as a political football.

The trust issue ultimately played a large hand in the card’s politicisation and eventual demise when federal Labor was swept into power last year and axed it.

One of the great things about living in Australia is that we have a strong safety net to ensure those in need can rely on taxpayer money to get through the hard times.

Most people who require this service spend that money appropriately and should be trusted to do so without restriction.

The blanket order to place every welfare recipient in trial regions on the card, and then have them plead their case to be taken off it, was cumbersome and unfair to the majority who do the right thing.

The taxpayers who fund this safety net rightly expect that some controls will be placed on those who have proved themselves unable to do what is best for them and their families.

Those who spend their money on booze, cigarettes, and online gambling while their kids go hungry have lost the right to be trusted by taxpayers.

The card should have worked in a similar way to the state government’s banned drinkers register, which also needs to be rolled out statewide.

A better option would be a two-pronged system where people can voluntarily register or are placed on it by authorities for doing the wrong thing.

Governments can and should fork out for local services to help these people turn their lives around, but at the end of the day the onus is on the individual to regain that trust.

Social Services Minister Amanda Rishworth argues the Liberals have an ideological obsession with the card.

I would argue federal Labor had an ideological obsession with scrapping it.

Each side has a mountain of data to support their position, which makes choosing a side difficult.

But that’s because the card never had a chance to work as intended.

The Coalition government failed to build local wraparound support services for the card, which critically wounded the program’s ability to improve the lives of those in the system.

They also failed to ensure the card was usable in the remote places where it was implemented.

It is also true the current Labor government failed to consider what would happen by scrapping it.

That decision has put money back into the bank accounts of some people who can’t be trusted to do the right thing.

The fallout from the failure of both governments, coupled with myriad other failures in remote social services policy, has for years been playing out right across outback Western Australia.

And there appears to be little capacity for short-staffed and overworked agencies to get on top of the issue.