Cashless Welfare Compromises Financial Freedom

Debate around cashless welfare in Australia has resurfaced amid cost-of-living pressures, with former recipients anxious to keep control of their finances and First Nations leaders reiterating the disempowerment of Indigenous people ‘disproportionately impacted’ by the controversial scheme.

The Cashless Debit Card initiative saw up to 80 percent of an individual’s welfare payments loaded onto a card that was not accepted by many businesses and could not be used with eBay or PayPal, or to purchase ‘forbidden’ items such as alcohol or gambling products. Criticisms of the scheme included the stigma and stress caused to people obliged to pay for their shopping with a card that clearly marked them as welfare recipients, limited their spending options and locked them out of the cheaper local cash economy of smaller stores and markets.

The scheme was scrapped after a change in government in 2022, but there are calls for its reintroduction as ‘anonymous stakeholders’ have raised concerns about increases in alcohol abuse and gambling. They cite an academic review by the University of Adelaide that ‘found some evidence of increased hospital admissions in the East Kimberley and Goldfields’, however police data showed no clear trends and the report noted ‘other factors could be fuelling social problems, including housing shortages and cost-of-living pressures.’

ABC spoke to Kerryn Griffis, a former cashless welfare recipient who ‘has been able to study, find a job and a private rental home since being off the Cashless Debit Card scheme.’ She was clear that the scheme was ‘limiting and restrictive’ and is extremely concerned by any discussion around its resurrection, saying she had ‘barely started getting over the effects.’

ABC also reports First Nations people felt a ‘disproportionate impact’ from the scheme, which claimed to be working for their benefit. Kokatha Elder Aunty Sue Haseldine says that while alcohol problems do exist in Ceduna—a town with a high Aboriginal population that was targeted by the cashless welfare scheme—bringing back the cards ‘would only cause more tension.’ She points out the indiscriminate nature of the scheme, which imposes the same limits on everyone’s finances, regardless of personal history, and adds that ‘if the card was to come back in, people would leave’ and head to other areas where the scheme was not in place.

Senior Miriwoong man David Newry said the cards ‘reminded Indigenous people of being disempowered during the “station days”… where people were getting rations… Things were being withheld without their consent.’ He suggests greater education around substance abuse would be a better alternative to reintroducing the scheme.

Miriwoong woman and former cashless welfare recipient Rozanne Bilminga ‘was happy to see [the scheme] go and felt its removal had not made a big difference in her community.’ She added that there had been times when it had left her short of what she really needed: cash.

Shadow Social Services Minister Michael Sukkar believes the University of Adelaide review ‘showed the card should be reinstated immediately.’ Federal Social Services Minister Amanda Rishworth, however, emphasises that the review itself stated ‘no causal statements can be issued from the analyses’ and added that, since scrapping the cashless scheme, the government has instead invested in programs and services ‘that these communities wanted and are making a real difference.’