Indue is undue Coalition social engineering

THE Cashless Welfare Card is a pillar of the Liberal National Party social services policy.

Let us start with the name. It is known as the Indue Card, as the administration of the Card is carried out by a private Brisbane-based company called Indue.

Where did the Indue Card come from and why should everyone be aware of the role of the Indue Card in LNP policy?

In 2013, then new Prime Minister Tony Abbot appointed Australian mining billionaire Andrew Forrest to carry out a review into Indigenous welfare and training programs. Working with Abbott’s parliamentary secretary Alan Tudge (who recently resigned as Minister of Education due to sexual coercion and bullying claims by a former staff member, resulting in a taxpayer funded payout of over $500,000 to the former staffer), Forrest recommended a ‘Healthy Welfare Card’ be mandatory for unemployed people, carers, people with disabilities and single parents.

The government believed a cashless income management program was necessary for control of the federal welfare budget, by controlling the spending habits of people on welfare, specifically preventing welfare recipients spending money on alcohol, drugs and gambling.

The Indue Card quarantines 80 per cent of a person’s income support payment and prevents this 80 per cent being withdrawn as cash from ATMS or EFTPOS terminals, or using the quarantined payment to purchase alcohol, tobacco or gambling products. The 20 per cent balance is paid into the welfare recipient’s bank account.

Use of the card is permitted at Indue-approved retailers who have Visa/mastercard facilities. Use of the card at licenced premises is banned.

Initial trials of the Card began in 2016 and were carried out in Indigenous and rural communities in Western Australia, Northern Territory, South Australia and Queensland.

An independent review of the trial by the Australian National Audit Office found a number of flaws, including no cost-benefit analysis, and limited data sets utilised by the Department of Social Services to measure the progress of the trial.

Whilst the government claimed the trial a success (decreased crime, cheaper welfare costs),

Senate inquiries noted the government’s inattention to the year-onyear rise in crime and increased suicides in the trial areas.

Post the 2019 federal election, the now Morrison government has been keen to expand the Indue card nationally, pivoting from the misuse of welfare angle to the financial benefits.

In early 2020, the Social Services Minister Anne Rushton referred to the Card’s benefits as part of what the government hoped would be a national rollout, saying “this card, because of technology, is now able to provide broad financial and budgeting tool assistance to people”.

This technology is administered by Indue, a financial services company, which promises on its website “to provide superior end-to-end payment solutions to our partners that enables their businesses to thrive”. Wouldn’t their partners be the Government, rather than welfare recipients? The budgeting tool assistance is rendered to the Government rather than ‘people’ (welfare recipients).

Yet the cost of this technology to the taxpayer is hard to nail down, particularly in the absence of a cost-benefit analysis.

The figures for the trial contract range from $50 to $70 million and Senate estimates has been told the cost per person was between $1100 and $4300 depending on how many people are in the trial at any time.

The case for the Indue Card offering value for money to the taxpayer is therefore difficult to make.

There is no difficulty in finding instances of Indue Card holders being disadvantaged by their inability to access the cash economy.

The purchase of second-hand furniture and clothing, using online marketplaces, farmers’ markets, paying rent in shared accommodation, buying a privately sold car and paying school expenses are made impossible or very difficult by being on the Indue Card.

Card holders are forced to contact Indue and plead their case for funds to be released from their ‘account’ to pay for items from a non-approved seller – examples include book shops and clothing shops.

In Indigenous communities, funerals are unable to be paid for and food can only be purchased from the single approved retailer. It’s possible this could be a retailer that can mark prices up to whatever they like, with a captive customer base and no competitive pressures to worry about. This potential flaw in the system needs to be addressed.

With no tangible, measurable and provable societal benefit for the existence of the Indue Card, why does the Indue Card exist?

The underlying Coalition assumption is welfare recipients are drug-addicted, gambling alcoholics who require income management – which the government leverages as being tough on ‘welfare cheats’.

I could go as far to say the Indue Card is class warfare, a tool of neoliberalism designed to punish the most disadvantaged, particularly Indigenous communities, plus the outsourcing of the welfare system to LNP mates in the corporate sector.

The expansion of the Indue Card is part of the Coalition DNA. Putting parenting payments, the age pension, the disability support pension, Newstart, Austudy, youth allowance and carer payments on the Indue Card is the next step in welfare recipients losing their financial autonomy – and is on the Coalition’s wish list.

The cost of this technology to the taxpayer is hard to nail down, particularly in the absence of a costbenefit analysis...