What does this mean for NSW public sector workers?

In the 2011/12 Federal budget, the Government announced the scheme of compulsory income management - pioneered through the NT Intervention - will be expanded across Australia. From July 2012 compulsory income management will be piloted in five areas that have been selected because of the high level of disadvantage experienced by people who live there. The pilot locations are Bankstown (NSW); Logan and Rockhampton (Qld); Shepparton (Vic); and Playford (SA). In Bankstown, two streams on income management will be trialled,called child protection and vulnerable to financial crisis. Serious concerns are held over the roll-out of this regime in Bankstown given the lack of transparency, accountability and the almost non-existent consultation with Bankstown community members and organisations. There are also concerns that the policy will increase the workloads of many public sector staff, lead to a deterioration in relationships with clients and disrupt the progress of other successful programs, especially prevention and early intervention programs which involve intensive casework with families to prevent children entering the statutory child protection system. The Stronger Futures legislation currently before parliament, which will extend punitive NT Intervention powers for a further 10 years, also creates a new stream of income management which may also be trialled in Bankstown called external referral. Under new provisions, the Minister will be granted the power to nominate any government agency and/or employees as its agents to place people on compulsory income management through the external referral stream. Child Protection Stream Compulsory income management will be imposed on parents or carers who have been referred to Centrelink by NSW child protection authorities where child safety concerns exist. Once referred, Centrelink will quarantine 70% of their income support and family assistance payments and 100% of any lump sum payments (baby bonus). Vulnerable Stream This measure will be imposed on people who have been referred direct to Centrelink where a Centrelink worker has made an assessment the person is vulnerable to financial crisis. Triggers for referral include evidence of financial hardship (widespread amongst Centrelink receipts!); domestic violence or economic abuse; failing to undertake reasonable self-care; social housing tenants with significant arrears and homelessness which compulsory income management may, in a contrary way, instigate. The implementation of this vulnerable stream in the NT has been highly discriminatory, with 99 per cent of clients placed on this stream being Indigenous and majority being recipients of the Disability Support Pension. External referral stream No specific details have been provided but this measure may prove to be the most invasive and discriminatory of all measures. What is Compulsory Income Management? Compulsory Income Management is a key component of the Intervention imposed on NT Aboriginal communities by the Howard Government in 2007. To roll-out compulsory income management, the Racial Discrimination Act was suspended and amendments were made to the Social Security (Administration) Act and the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Payment Reform) Act 2007. Income Management costs approximately $4,400 per person per year in administration costs alone. Despite Minister Macklin announcing that the roll-out across Australia would be informed by evidence gained through an evaluation process; there is no independent evaluation or evidence that this regime works. Independent research conducted by the Menzies School of Health, Darwin suggests that Income Management has had no beneficial effect on tobacco and cigarette sales, soft drink or fruit and vegetable sales. A recent report by the Equality Rights Alliance surveyed 180 women on income management in the NT. It found that 79% wanted to exit the system, 85% had not changed what they buy and 74% felt discriminated against. A report released by the Australian Indigenous Doctors Association (AIDA) concludes that compulsory income management in the NT has profoundly long-term negative impacts on psychological health, social health and wellbeing and cultural integrity (March 2010). Compulsory income management is punitive and targets the most vulnerable people in our society. The criteria for referral are broad and are open to misinterpretation and misuse, and pave the way for referrals that are not evidence-based and are discriminatory. Funding of $117.5M will be provided to administer the pilot. This works out to approximately $23 million for the Bankstown trial. This funding can and should be put to better use by increasing and expanding services, supports and programs to help people and families out of the cycle of disadvantage. But only $2.5 million has been allocated to local support services in Bankstown through the Better Futures, Local Solutions program. There should be a greater focus on prevention and early intervention programs and services to reduce the number of reports of children at risk and intensive family preservation services to support families whose children are at risk of entering the statutory child protection system and Outof-Home-Care (OOHC). Commonwealth staffing levels will increase while thousands of NSW public sector employees will lose their jobs under the OFarrell government. The NSW context Compulsory income management ignores the fact that the NSW child protection system has undergone signifi-

Income Management is coming to Bankstown

For more information, contact the Stop the Intervention Collective

www.stoptheintervention.org call Sue 0400 395 546

cant reforms, driven by the Wood Inquiry into Child Protection in NSW and the subsequent recommendations that resulted in the Keep Them Safe legislation. KTS endorses an evidence based approach to child protection and recognises the need to address the underlying factors that lead to abuse and neglect such as poverty, isolation, domestic violence, mental illness and drug and alcohol abuse. Compulsory income management is a short cut that will undermine this approach. Indeed, in the 2010 report Keep Them Safe the NSW Government said, There is little compelling evidence at this time to suggest that income management improves the safety and wellbeing of children and young people. However, the Government will monitor and review the feedback and evidence from existing trials. This evaluation is not due until 2014 and concerns are held about the independence and due diligence of any evaluation commissioned by the federal government. Important information and questions about compulsory income management and impacts on NSW workers: Do child protection referrals constitute a notification requiring a full investigation and assessment? Will the referral process be transparent and will people being referred for compulsory income management be informed, who referred them and why? Will Department of Community services caseworkers be required to assess all child protection referrals made to Centrelink by external agencies to determine if there is a Risk of Significant Harm and a statutory response is required? Will a referral to Centrelink for compulsory income management become the default notification for newly designated external referees and the substandard substitute for good and responsive casework? The processes associated with compulsory income management will increase the caseload of Community Services caseworkers who will be required to deal with the consequence of referrals made through, inexperience, ill-informed and poor decision-making which have led to increased child removals and out-of-home-care placements. A lack of understanding by novices or laypersons of the child protection system and the stages and processes to be followed may result in errors of judgment, poor assessment and a backlog of cases which could have devastating outcomes for children at risk. The impact of compulsory income management on caseworkers and other mandatory reporters: Compulsory income management will have a major impact on the role and function of all frontline workers and counter staff. Additional duties and responsibilities relative to compulsory income management will be added to workers Statement of Duties with no increase in remuneration and no negotiation. The workload and level of responsibility for child protection caseworkers will increase, including additional administrative work such as reviewing and revoking the income management measures. There may also be significant OH&S issues. Frontline workers in child protection and Housing NSW will have the added responsibility of making assessments or judgement calls which can force people on the system against their will. The clients could blame the frontline worker

...Continued from previous page

and become hostile or aggressive. Beating Income Management A strong new coalition Say No to Governments Income Management Not in Bankstown Not Anywhere has called for moratorium on Income Management demanding immediate amnesty for those already on the system and a halt to plans for expansion. Its founding statement has been endorsed by more than 50 organisations including unions, church and community groups. One prominent supporter of the campaign has been the Public Service Association (PSA), who represent child protection and housing workers who will be directly affected by income management. We only have 2 months until income management is rolled out in the trial sites, and in Bankstown momentum is gathering to find ways to beat the implementation. Child protection, housing and others workers in the community sector are in a vital strategic position to challenge this policy and fight for more just and effective solutions for families in crisis. Many of these workers recently demonstrated their passionate commitment to just solutions at a PSA rally and candle lit vigil on March 14 against the outsourcing of out-of-home-care to the nongovernment sector and cuts to staffing planned by NSW Premier Barry OFarrell. The Bankstown Coalition and anti-Intervention campaigners are working with trade unions to organise a seminar and strategy session on May 26 for concerned workers and community members to discuss how we can stop income management in its tracks and fight for resources to be put into our vital support services. What you can do: Get in touch with the campaign to discuss your experiences of any income management briefings or training by Centrelink or DOCS, or any further concerns you have with how the system is being rolled out. Get in touch with your union to discuss how the implementation of income management may fit into current enterprise agreements and what rights you have through the implementation phase. Ask your union how compulsory income management will affect them. Get informed and organised Join other workers and community members at the seminar and strategy session being held on May 26, 1pm at the Arab Council Australia to hear about the effects of income management and what we can do to stop it. For more information see: http://stoptheintervention.org/facts/income-management http://www.jumbunna.uts.edu.au/researchareas/newmedia/abolishincomemanagement.html

Seminary and strategy session: How can we stop government income management?
With Patricia Thomas-Morton, NT Aboriginal spokesperson living on the BasicsCard

Saturday May 26 1pm @ Arab Council Australia 194 Stacey st Bankstown