Claims that increased school attendance in two Indigenous communities is a result of the punitive aspects of the Cape York Welfare Reform Project warrant careful scrutiny, according to a UQ law academic.
TC Beirne School of Law senior lecturer Dr Peter Billings said that simply to link the threat, or imposition, of income management to increased school attendance was an oversimplification of the facts.
“The Family Responsibilities Commission Quarterly Report No 4 published this week clearly states that Conditional Income Management (CIM) Orders accounted for only 16.21 percent of total orders made,” he said.
“It is important to note that a CIM Order may be imposed for matters unrelated to school attendance, such as housing tenancy issues and alcohol or driving related offences that have been brought before the Magistrates Courts.”
Dr Billings said that CIM Orders were also only used as a last resort, after referrals to support services had been tried and deemed unsuccessful.
“Support services may entail a referral to a parenting program, well-being centre or, in the case of schooling, after an attendance case manager has tried to work with caregivers or parents to ensure children attend school," he said.
"It may well be that these supportive interventions have yielded increased schooling attendance rather than the threat, or actual imposition, of income management.
“And improvements in school attendance in Aurukun may also be attributable to investment in academic leadership and quality teaching rather than welfare quarantining, as recently pointed out by leading Indigenous academic Dr Chris Sarra.”
Dr Billings said the different modalities of welfare payment reforms employed in the Northern Territory and Cape York were united by the contentious idea that conditioning social welfare payments can lead to behavioural modifications.
“The Commonwealth has openly exploited people’s poverty and dependence on the state as additional leverage to encourage behavioural change," he said.
"The NT trial of income management (rolled out as part of the Federal Government’s 2007 intervention) clearly breaches several international human rights laws prohibiting discrimination in the enjoyment of social security rights and is to be amended by the Commonwealth very shortly.”
Commenting on the recently announced trialling of welfare reforms in Brisbane’s southern suburbs following the ALP’s Schooling Requirements Act 2008, Dr Billings said the Queensland measure was potentially the most draconian of the different welfare reform schemes currently being trialled in Australia.
“The measure proposed for south-east Queensland suburbs, such as Logan, contemplates the suspension and removal of social welfare entitlements in the absence of responsible parenting. This is in conflict with the strong presumption that retrogressive measures taken in relation to the right to social security are prohibited under international law.”
Media
Dr Peter Billings, (07) 3365 7176, p.billings@law.uq.edu.au
Lynda Flower, School of Law Marketing, (07) 3365 2523, l.flower@law.uq.edu.au
