Administrative burden and the Cashless Debit Card: Stripping time, autonomy, and dignity from social security recipients

Abstract

Although Western nations have long placed conditions on access to social security payments, many of the more recent conditions utilising technological tools have intensified surveillance and control of the poor and imposed weighty administrative burdens on social security recipients as they attempt to navigate these systems. The Cashless Debit Card (CDC) imposes additional administrative burdens – learning costs, compliance costs, and psychological costs – on people in receipt of social security as part of an overall welfare conditionality project that structures in disincentives to claim government income support. Cardholders experience heavy administrative burdens in securing essentials and managing their social security income via the CDC, seeking a reduction of their restricted payment portion, and seeking a well‐being exemption or a financial responsibility exit to regain their budgetary autonomy. Evidence suggests that numerous people in need of social security who have been forced on to the CDC could do with a reduction in burdensome processes – which would be facilitated by designing systems that are autonomy enhancing, respectful of the human dignity of claimants, and fairly easy to navigate.

Co‐design or top‐down welfare conditionality? An analysis of the impact of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander submissions to six parliamentary inquiries into the Cashless Debit Card

“…Our findings indicate that the former Coalition government's insistence that the CDC is applied via a co‐designed policy model based on partnership with Indigenous community groups cannot be sustained. To the contrary, the alternate view voiced by the Greens and (in recent years) the Labor Party, and from researchers such as Bielefeld (2021) and Klein (2020), that the CDC policy process involves top‐down and paternalistic measures imposed without adequate consultation or shared decision‐making with Indigenous communities appears closer to the reality. Notably, the new Labor Party government elected in May 2022 has stated an intention to abolish the CDC pending consultations with local communities in the six CDC sites (Rishworth, 2022).…”

“…The CDC has been subject to ongoing political and ideological contention. There are varied competing views pertaining to whether the core aims of the CDC have been met; whether in fact the official evaluations have even‐handedly and competently measured outcomes (Altman & Russell, 2012; Cox, 2020; Hunt, 2020); whether hidden costs around social stigma and shame outweigh identified benefits (Marston et al, 2020; Roche et al., 2022); whether the high administrative costs are justified; whether the disproportionate representation of Indigenous Australians is a form of racial discrimination that embodies continuing colonialist approaches intended to control and disempower communities (AHRC, 2020; Bielefeld, 2021; Klein, 2020; Klein & Razi, 2017; Maher et al., 2021; PJCHR, 2015; Vincent, 2019); and particularly, whether the measures have been introduced via a bottom‐up partnership with local communities and leaders (including Indigenous community organisations) or alternatively involve a top‐down paternalistic process imposed on communities including CDC participants (AHRC, 2020; Mendes, 2018; 2019).…”

“…But researchers contest this assertion. For example, Klein (2020) argues that where Indigenous leaders have endorsed the CDC, they have done so only as a result of extreme political and financial pressure, and in order to secure badly needed funds for community support programs, whilst Bielefeld (2021) advises that a number of Indigenous leaders have revised their earlier support for the CDC on the basis that the CDC model promised is not what the government delivered.…”

A Fast Track to Social Rights? Passported Benefits and Administrative Burden

“…Clearly, the type of service delivery affects the administrative burden experienced throughout the process. Provision of passported benefits as services in-kind leaves less autonomy to claimants and can be considered more stigmatictwo crucial components of administrative psychological costs (Bielefeld, 2021;Moynihan et al, 2015). In the case of voucher-based services, they may sometimes be also subjected to "redemption costs", emphasizing the limited portability of services and the reliance on third-party agents as burden-inducing (Barnes, 2021).…”

Paternalistic Welfare or Co-designed Partnerships with Local Communities? Analysis of Community Group Submissions to Six Australian Parliamentary Inquiries into the Cashless Debit Card from 2015–2020

“…Continuing political and ideological contention has surrounded the CDC since its introduction, broadly reflecting individual versus structural interpretations of disadvantage (O'Keeffe & Papadopoulos, 2022) within and beyond the programme locations. There are widely varied views on the extent to which the CDC has achieved its core objectives and whether the official government evaluations have been effective in measuring outcomes (Hunt, 2020); the degree to which the social costs pertaining to shame and stigma outweigh stated benefits such as reduced substance abuse (Roche et al, 2021); if the major funding commitments of the CDC are justified or if money would be better spent on more holistic and less punitive social service programmes; whether the disproportionate impact on Indigenous Australians and their communities constitutes racial discrimination (Bielefeld, 2021;Klein, 2020); and finally if the measures have been introduced via a genuine partnership with local community leaders and organisations or alternatively involve a centralised paternalistic process imposed on communities, including particularly CDC participants (Mendes, 2018(Mendes, , 2019.…”