Dr Tristan Ewins
It is now approaching a
decade since Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest was approached by then Prime Minister,
Tony Abbott, to advise on the creation of a ‘cashless welfare card’. While Forrest intended for all income to be
‘quarantined’ for use only in approved areas (like groceries), the Indue card
which has emerged in trials set a floor of 80% of income to be with-held, and
available for ‘approved purposes’. Aimed largely at indigenous peoples, and the
welfare-dependent more broadly, the ‘Indue’ card follows after the failed
‘Basics card’ of 2007 - which attempted something similar as part of a
government ‘Intervention’ into indigenous communities in the Northern
Territory. The newer ‘Indue’ cashless
welfare card applies to the welfare-dependent more generally in the communities
in which it is being trialled. All those
affected find themselves in the position of being restricted in what they can
spend their money on, including on food and second hand goods. While a
relatively small proportion are affected by gambling addiction or alcoholism,
the ‘card’ is a source of humiliation and control over the welfare-dependent
more generally. Indue, which includes
Conservative Coalition party luminaries as shareholders, stands to make a
packet from the humiliation and micro-management of the every-day life of
already-disadvantaged Australians.
Instead of humiliating
marginalised Australians government ought instead be seeking to empower them,
perhaps including through the mechanism of a Guaranteed Minimum Income
(GMI). Arguments against a GMI include
the suggestion it may displace some existing pensions. (some of which are less
threadbare than others) But if a ‘no
disadvantage’ test were applied this need not be a problem. ‘Mutual obligation’ provisions have always
been worrisome; as in practice they became a source of effective labour
conscription. This might also increase
competition for jobs at the ‘lower end’ of the labour market ; and in the
process reduce the bargaining power of those workers.
A good alternative could be the establishment of a ‘Social Bill of Rights’ ;
which would include rights to nutrition, adequate and dignified shelter, power,
comprehensive health care, communications-related empowerment (eg: internet
access), transport, education and social inclusion. A ‘Guaranteed Minimum
Income’ could then be deployed alongside pensions and other programs intended
to make this vision reality.
In the 18th and 19th Centuries the unemployed were driven
into ‘Poor Houses’ where they were exploited, humiliated and robbed of their
dignity. There is a long history of
‘blaming the poor’ for their own disadvantage.
Centuries later some of the same assumptions remain in play beneath the
surface. Labor is arguing it will end
the long Conservative experiment with the ‘cashless welfare card’. The Coalition has so far not mustered the
political courage (or political capital) to implement the program more
broadly. But as with ‘WorkChoices’ ; the
old agendas continue to ‘fester’ behind the scenes. The debate needs to be brought into the
glare of public scrutiny and buried decisively.
Labor’s opposition to the Indue card is welcome. But Labor needs a broader, stronger vision,
including reform of welfare, minimum wages and labour market regulation,
industrial rights, and embedded social human rights. Its retreat on the tax debate has regrettably
narrowed its options. But a program for
change could re-emerge through a determined reform of the social wage and
welfare state ; which branched in various directions – including a Universal
Aged Care Insurance Scheme, as well as improvement of pensions, with rescission
of punitive mechanisms. And a bold
commitment to build a million new public housing units – as suggested by the
Greens. Labor really ought to be coming
up with these kind of ideas on its own initiative.
There is a minimum
standard of living which must apply to all citizens. This idea of a ‘floor’ beneath which none are
allowed to fall is reminiscent of the more progressive variations of the ‘Third
Way’ which emerged in the 1990s. But to
mobilise as broad a base as possible, and provide distributive justice for all
a more robust Social Democratic or Democratic Socialist agenda than Blairism is
necessary.
It seems Social Democratic Parties have been on the defensive and on the back
foot for decades. And indeed they have been.
For some the logic of retreat has been internalised. We need to re-establish a notion of what
comprises ‘progress’. That means fairer
distribution, industrial rights, social
rights, and the re-establishment of a robust mixed economy to help make this
vision reality. The Indue ‘cashless
welfare card’ is the current ‘Conservative frontier’ ; where it attempts to
reshape public ‘common sense’ on the further rescission of the welfare state,
and the re-establishment of a ‘Poor House’ mentality ; which ‘gives the whip
hand’ to employers through poverty, compulsion and labour conscription.
Labor needs to go back to
‘first principles’ and work out the consequences of that. Which is that being a ‘broad church’, Labor
needs to be united behind ‘baseline’ social democratic and democratic socialist
values and agendas. Containing
inequality and ending poverty ought be non-negotiable ; as should the proposal that
this must be pursued through industrial rights, labour market regulation, a
mixed economy, progressive taxation system, expanded social wages and welfare
state provisions, and intervention into the capitalist system. (ultimately to
end exploitation ; but also to ameliorate the impact of its crises upon workers
and the vulnerable in the meantime)
The cashless welfare card
needs to be defeated and exposed for the punitive mentality it embodies. But we need a progressive movement which is
willing to ‘go onto the front foot as well’.
A movement which has an idea what ‘progress’ entails, and which rejects
a logic of endless retreat ; ameliorated only by the ascendance of ‘social
liberal’ agendas as applied to gender, sexuality, and so on. And in the context of the marginalisation of
social conservatism, and its replacement by an ideology of neo-liberal
cosmopolitanism.
A ‘change of direction’ involves accepting class struggle as a progressive
phenomenon ; an ‘engine of social progress’.
Only when that logic becomes entrenched does progress become undeniable.
And while Hawke’s vision of “Reconciliation” appealed to many ; bosses soon
became tired of ‘co-determination’ with unions once they had extracted crucial
concessions. And once organised labour
lost its bargaining position.
‘Reformists’ and
Revolutionaries were once agreed on the progressive nature of class
struggle. Within Labor factions and
others need, also, to combine behind such a shared notion. Bringing together
Labor members behind the idea of a progressive class struggle is crucial ; an
idea that we are all broadly in the same fight.
Reinforced by daily experience everywhere from Party branches to unions,
and from student politics to the social movements. There is a fight for the heart and soul of
the ALP, and the heart and soul of Australia. There is no place for a punitive
cashless welfare card in a progressive Australia. May solidarity in the name of renewed class
struggle relegate it to history.